Nied

emm... not really, no unfortunately. I've had to put pretty much all my hobbies on hold while I finish up my last two weeks of classes. But things should lighten up over the summer, and I'll be able to finish the cockpit, and release the final version of this thing.

I may have already said this but I'd be happy to help you in any way that I can (textures, or compatability testing etc.). Otherwise I gotta say that I can't wait to see the finished product.

Here are some facts I can remember from tonight.

legacy C can supercruise.

Super cannot.

top speed for legacy is mach 1.8.

top speed for super bug is mach 1.6.

the whole basis for drag is because of david's comments on the airframe. I have faith in what he says he is an aerospace engineer but I have read elsewhere about it on othersites like fas.org, globalsecurity, and some of the rhino fansites.

and no most of this did not come from MATS.

Legacy can't supercruise, neither can the Rhino. The official top speed for the legacy is Mach 1.8, same for the Rhino (or any other aircraft that can go faster than Mach 1.8, the military won't admit to having a fighter capable of going faster than that). And David can comment on his aerospace credentials better than I can.

Actually on the subject of drag, with the exception of the offset pylons, the Super Hornet is signifigantly cleaner than the legacy Hornet. Far fewer protrusions from the hull compared to the legacy model, and much better fit on most panels (though I imagine that's for RCS reasons).

Just for clarifaction, is the legacy Hornet the A and C models?

A, B, C, and D yes.

the aiframe has a lo of drag...theres numerous accounts in flightjhournal and others where legacy chase plane pilots pity the superbug mpilot since they outsped the superbug when the superbug was in reheat and the legacies were inn dry thrust.  I understand its got better weapons capacities bu mopst of what i said is true.  It is in general slower in acceleration compared to legacy and in top speed.On paper it would seem the superhornetn would leave the legacy in the dust but its the exact opposite.

Well you see the exact same quote over and over again. But one quote from one pilot taken out of context isn't exactly the best of evidence.

ITs more than just one pilot. Even higherups admit the plane is a compromise plane, nothin evo or revolutionary. It is a good plane and it will do well at what it does, just not as well as the planes it is replacing.

The problem is I've seen the two same quotes replicated over and over again (I think they're all cribbing from MATS) but not much else to back them up. I haven't seen anyone produce the actual figures on acceleration, I haven't seen them produce sustained turn rates, all I've seen is people say, "The Super Hornet is slow and can't keep up with the legacy Hornet." I'd like to see some real numbers rather than out of context quotes.

How is it Russia keeps producing some outstanding planes without much of an economy and without globalist conglomerations?

Because they don't ever actually build them! That and most of thier latest planes are leftovers from the Cold War that the Russians fly for marketing purposes (Mig 1.44, Su-47, and the vast majority of the Super Flanker series).

the aiframe has a lo of drag...theres numerous accounts in flightjhournal and others where legacy chase plane pilots pity the superbug mpilot since they outsped the superbug when the superbug was in reheat and the legacies were inn dry thrust. I understand its got better weapons capacities bu mopst of what i said is true. It is in general slower in acceleration compared to legacy and in top speed.On paper it would seem the superhornetn would leave the legacy in the dust but its the exact opposite.

Well you see the exact same quote over and over again. But one quote from one pilot taken out of context isn't exactly the best of evidence.

BTW there's an excelent article out on the Super Hornet in the latest issue of Internatinal Air Power Review this month, I definetly recomend everyone pick it up (even though it does cost about $20).

OH its not that,. The only thing I really dont like...well a couple, are the fact that

1-legacy hornet can outspeed the thing in dry thrust-sad sad sad sad to hear

2-replacing the tomcat

3-chosen in favor of ST21

4-too much drag

5-...avionics mainly in engines and avionics as well as weapons payload, does not match performance of legacy in each class,,...as a new plane i would think it should outdo the legacy but it just doesnt in many respects.

Where did you get those last ones? Each F414 engine generates about 4,000 lbs more thrust in re-heat than the Legacy Hornet's F404s. When you consider that the Rhino only weighs 1,000 Lbs more than the legacy Hornet you've got a hell of an improvement (though IMHO not a big enough one).

Avionics wise, the Rhino currently uses the same or improved versions of the Legacy Hornet's Avionics, but slaved to a much more advanced computer. However new avionics are in a pipeline that are a quantum leap over most current aircraft (including an AESA radar based on the F-22's).

Hell it even carries a 20% heavier load than the legacy Hornet, and can carry far more varied loadouts. The extra two stations allow you to carry alot more variaties of weapons, not necesarily more, I can't tell you how many pictures I've seen of the Rhino carrying wierd asymetrical loads (say six 500 lb bombs on the two inner stations on one side, and one 500 lb LGB and a HARM on the two outermost stations on the other side).

The Raptor is not in service right now, so I didn't count it. Trust me the Hornet is by far superior to even the F-16, and until the F/A-22 enters service, it is by far the most maneuverable aircraft in the US inventory. It was able to perform a minimum radius turn in about three quarters the radius the F-16 did. Not only that but it had enough power to accelerate out of the really impressive slow speed maneuvers very quickly. DOn't let all of the anti-Rhino propaganda fool you the Super Bug may have it's disadvantages, but maneuverability (both low and high speed) is not one of them.

I gotta disagre with you on that; the super bug may have good high alpha characteristics but I still think the falcon and lavi would be able to outturn it.  Superbug suffers from lots of drag and at low speed that isn't good, so while it is able to perform the go in a str8 line real slow while the nose is still puitched up manuever, I think it can be outturned by the falcon and lavi.  Perhaps even the legacy hornet.  Maybe its instantaneous turn is real good due to high alpha but i imagine its sustained is not as good as the falcon.  Lavi looks like a little feisty bugger with speed and manueverability to match. Its got delta wings and bigger canards than the typhoon so I imagine its roll rate must be higher and its pitch rate must be good as well since it needs those huge canards to counteract its inherent instability.

Nope I watched a Super Hornet perform the same high speed maneuvers as an F-16, then pitch up to slow down and pull maneuvers that absolutely blow just about every other aircraft in service today out of the water. It may not have the high speed chops but in a turning fight the Rhino wins period.

With that in mind the Lavi kicks ass. I liked using it in IAF sim and to me I think the manuverability exceeded the F-16. Not only that but it looked pretty nice. Being that the lavi was developed in the 80s and the gripen and rafale were developed in the 90s i would think the later planes have more advanceed avionics and manuverability. Also I tend to think the superbug wont outmatch its manuverability.

Both the Gripen and Rafale were developed at the same time as the Lavi, and had the Lavi gone into service it would have started operating sometime in the mid '90s. Even with the Lavi's canards I would still give the advantage to the Rhino. At the moment I would say that it is without equal among US fighters in terms of maneuverability. I watched one at an air show and matched the much smaller F-16 in high speed maneuverability and at low speeds it reaches Flanker levels of maneuverability (it was able to pull a maneuver pretty close to a cobra just seconds after taking off).

That's really good. A few things though: I'm pretty sure the F/B-22 is suposed to be a two seater. You might also want to work on the intake bulges, they're supposed to be based on the F-35's so you might want to look at some pictures of that to get the look right. Otherwise that looks just about right on.

I cannnot seem to remember but id the osprey an armed aircraft? If so it would make a great gunbird!

A few years after it enters service (though with all the delays it may have it when it enters service) it is slated to get a chin gun based on the double barrelled gatling on the Comanche. Beyond that it would be dificult to mount missiles on the thing since there aren't many places to mount them that wouldn't interfere with the tiltrotor (I suppose you could put stub pylons on either side of the cockpit though). The unarmed nature of the Osprey might actually be a problem. Marine corps doctrine for the the aircraft the Osprey is replacing is to have several Cobra gunships escorting them in, but the Osprey would quickly outrun any helicopter escort it might have.

Since the Osprey was brought up in a previous post, I have a question. Did they ever get the damn thing to fly without crashing? Just wondering where they are on that project.

As far as I can tell they're pretty far along. The V-22 has an undeserved reputation as a deathtrap but if you actually look at the evidence it's not that bad.

THe reason the V-22 crashed a couple of years ago was because it enterd what is known as Vortex Ring state, it's something that can happen to all helicopters. Essentially if you descend to fast without any forward motion you end up in your own rotor wash, and very rapidly lose the ability to generate lift. This is bad enough in a normal helicopter, but in the V-22 (or any other dual rotor helicopter for that matter), it's very likely to have one rotor caught in it's downwash while the other stays fine, which causes the whole plane to roll over uncontrolably. Now there are two things to remember about this: 1) The pilot of the V-22 that had the accident was shown to have been descending at more than twice the safe limit and 2) The US military has been operating dual rotor helicopters for almost as long as it has been using helicopters at all, yet the only time anyone makes a stink about a "design flaw" in the tandem rotor configuration is when they're talking about the V-22.

I think I just googled "F119 dimensions".

BTW, the "real" thrust for the F119 is believed to be ~39,000lbs. "35,000lb thrust CLASS" is just their nice way of saying the real number is classified.

So we'll assume the F120 would be 40,000+

The official specs for both the F135 and F136 say 40,000 lb class. WHich I've always assumed to be something below 45,000 lbs (quite nice if you jam two in Rhino).

David where did you get the specs for the F119? I'm trying to find info on wither the F136 or F136 to see how they comapre to the F414. I really think that putting some good 30,000 to 40,000 lb thrust class engines would improve matters for the Super Bug quite a bit.

On the Pylon issue:

It strikes me that the current pylon configuration is more of a quick-fix so that the Rhino could get into service while Boeing tries to come up with a more elegant solution, that they can retrofit in. I wouldn't be surprised if we see better pylons on the super bug in the next few years.

I only HOPE history does not repeat itself and we see a inevitable screw up where we realize we use the wrong plane and we underestimate threats. Remember in the 60s ACM was thought to be a threat of yesteryear. Bombers can always be a threat. Sure a 3rd world country wont go bankrupt buying bears and blackjacks but wqhos ton say they need to buy a lot, it only takes one bomber to take a fleet down.

Yes but it only takes one AMRAAM to take that bomber down.

I duno. I havea lot of faith in lockheed and to be a aior superiority fighter you gotta get down and dirty....the tomcat had automated flight sweep so I am sure NATF would have had that for its wings as well. I tend to think lockheed would have figured something out in terms of making the NATF stealthy with no sacrifice while still enabling wing sweep anytime. The rumored switchblade craft also has swingwings./

Automated wing sweep has nothing to do with it, and as talented as Lockheed's engineers are they can't break the laws of physics. The simple matter is that to be stealthy you need to line up as many edges as you can, otherwise you'd scatter radar energy off in all directions, and you'd be detected.

You're right to say that the old casing cannot be refitted with the new technologies efficiently. It's better in this case to toss or recycle the old casing and buy a new one.

But in our case here, as far as I know for the Super Tomcat, it's supposed to be a re-designed and built-from-scratch airframe, so your concern here is misplaced.

If they intend to upgrade from say, D to E, and is claiming all these things.. I would say the same things you did. But if indeed the ST-14 is a total redesign (based F-14's proven design, but totally reworked), then your concerns would be addressed.

That's just it the ST-21 was to be a re-manufactured Tomcat, not a new build one. Only the most extreme concepts called for new build aircraft (and then you open up the very likely risk of cost over-runs like the Super Hornet).

I can draw an analogy for you here.

In the early days of PC computing, components are standardized (PCI, etc. etc.) and it's often fashionable to scratchbuild your own system. This was before the era of Dell and other big computer manufacturers stepping in, okay?

The casing for PCs then were horrible. They are often a single metal frame with attachment points for hardware, but designed with little thought of maintenance or accessibility. Customizers often end up with nicks and scratches due to the (sharp) frame designed to secure components.. but not for users to reach them.

Nowadys, PC casing are much more user friendly. My current system casing can strip out entire cages for easy installation of harddrives and other peripherials, the entire PC power supply can be detached and replaced (previously power supply are as good as welded to the frame...). This makes maintenance MUCH easier, and replacement of parts much easier too.

But structurally-wise, externally my PC is still a darn box.

In a similar fashion, in theory, ergonomic design of the interior of the airframe, with special emphasis on accessibility, replacability and maintenance, can easily cut maintenance cost down significantly on the ST-14.

That's a good analogy but i think you draw the wrong conclusions from it.

Let's take your anology a little further (as someone who still build his own computers I know what you're talking about). Yes externally one of those old enclosures and a new one are nearly identical. But internally they're completely different. And while the new case has all sorts of easy to maintain features like removable motherboard trays, drive rails, and detachable hard drive bays, how easy do you think it would be to add those features to your old case? Sure you might be able to put some thumbscrews on it, mabye even cut a new access panel into it, but to put all of the really easy to use stuff you'd have to completely re-design the internals of the case.

A swing wing NATF would probably be just as stealthy as the F-22 it is based on is. The wings wouldnt really be curved and such, and plus this is lockheed we are talking about here, if the rockwell B1B lancer can have some stealth characterestics having those exponentially biger arse wings compared to the tomcat , then I am sure the NATF would be a piece of cake to make stealthy. Plus most weapons could be carried internally like the F-22, so no weapons needed on wing to sacrifice stealth.

It's not about how curvy the wings are, the biggest factor influencing stealth is aligning all of the leading and trailing edges. That would be absolutely impossible with a swing wing since the angle of the wing is different depending on what flight regeime the aircraft is in. It apears that Lockheed's NATF and A/F-X designs were optimised for their wings fully swept, which makes sense for an aircraft that would be spending alot of time cruising at supersonic speeds. The only problem is that if it slows down for an attack run or dogfight it would suddenly become quite visible on radar (still smaller than most modern aircraft, but quite a bit larger than a F-22).

It apears as though any RCS reductions made for the ST-21 were merely perfunctory aplication of RAM. It still has the same hugely returning intakes with the variable inlets leading right to the exposed fan blades (though it may use radar blockers similar to the Super Hornets, though that would cut down on any speed advantage). Now I haven't ever found pictures of the AST- or ASF-21 but I don't see how they could have signifigantly reduced the RCS of those intakes while still maintaining any of the original Tomcat's high speed performance.

That and I don't see how adding a few extra access panels are going to make up for design defiencies in the airframe. There's not a whole lot you can do to improve maintainability without re-designing the airframe.

man, both versions of the JSF are ugly as hell (except from above, that's kind of cool).

2 things:

(1) where are the thrust-vectoring ports on the STOVL version?

(2) the STVOL version doesn't just have sucky rear visability... has ZERO rear visability... always a "good" thing on a dedicated fighter... oh well, they could hire ex-Crusader and Corsair II pilots who would feel right at home in those things.

The F-35B (the STOVL variant) doesn't have thrust vecorting ports like on the Harrier. It has dedicated a dedicated lift fan behind the canopy (which is why it has such poor aft visibility) and it's engine nozzel rotates downward. As for point 2, well considering that the primary role for the F-35B will be ground attack (to replace USMC AV-8Bs, USAF A-10s, and RAF GR.9s) with a secondary role as a fleet defence interceptor (to repalce RN Sea Harriers) it doesn't really need much in the way of aft visibilty does it?

PS--while the VT ANG F-16's were first CAP after 9/11, the first planes launched and in NY that morning were MA ANG F-15A's. Only planes that day to go supersonic. Loadout was I think 1 tank, 2 Sidewinders, and 2 Sparrows---light-weight max-speed intercept loadout, as light and fast as an F-15 can be. (F-15's will rarely drop their center tank, it's rated to sustain 9G's, and induces no yaw or roll effects since it's on the centerline)

I was (and still am) living in Boston on that day, and we too got a CAP flight from an F-15 out of Hanscom, if it's loadout was anything like the planes that went to NY it would have been 1 drop tank, 4 AMRAAMs on the fuselage, and possibly two more on the inboard launch rails (I couldn't quite make it out from the angle I saw it) and two sidewinders on the outboard rails. Now the boston CAP didn't start until around noon, so they may have beefed up the load a little.