User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 1:37:45 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer I just learned over the weekend neither Mil pilots, or Mil air maintainers are the end all of aviation knowledge! So I wouldn't put too much trust in 1 & 2!! And 3 & 4 are really knowledgable in their prospective fields, but don't fair very well outside that envelope!! Is it better to know a little about a lot? Or A lot about a little? I've been vexed by that problem for years! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 2:16:54 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just learned over the weekend neither Mil pilots, or Mil air maintainers are the end all of aviation knowledge! So I wouldn't put too much trust in 1 & 2!! And 3 & 4 are really knowledgable in their prospective fields, but don't fair very well outside that envelope!! Is it better to know a little about a lot? Or A lot about a little? I've been vexed by that problem for years!
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer I just learned over the weekend neither Mil pilots, or Mil air maintainers are the end all of aviation knowledge! So I wouldn't put too much trust in 1 & 2!! And 3 & 4 are really knowledgable in their prospective fields, but don't fair very well outside that envelope!! Is it better to know a little about a lot? Or A lot about a little? I've been vexed by that problem for years!
Wait wut?  the pilots and maintainers know more as the day to day end user. What are you talking about? Is my sarcasm meter broken?
For example, in the 60's the engineers that designed the 727 said it couldn't sustain inverted flight. My dad was a 727 captain for national then pan am. Anyway, a senior captain with national, WWII pilot, flew one if their 727-100's from Miami to Jacksonville, inverted. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 6:51:17 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Precision weapons are cool - but with our current adversaries, we need bomb trucks.
Large payloads. And loiter time. no on the former, yes on the latter. you are working against an inherently decentralized enemy. masses of ordanance are a very small % of the requirement. where is the video of like a dozen MK 84s being dropped on one mud hut when you need it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 7:38:01 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no on the former, yes on the latter. you are working against an inherently decentralized enemy. masses of ordanance are a very small % of the requirement. where is the video of like a dozen MK 84s being dropped on one mud hut when you need it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:Precision weapons are cool - but with our current adversaries, we need bomb trucks.
Large payloads. And loiter time. no on the former, yes on the latter. you are working against an inherently decentralized enemy. masses of ordanance are a very small % of the requirement. where is the video of like a dozen MK 84s being dropped on one mud hut when you need it? I support the morale boosting properties of that gratuitous display of firepower if it did in fact happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 7:50:55 AM EDT
[#6]
The A-7 was an excellent bomb dropper and could also give some fighters a problem in the low speed spectrum. You would be surprised how maneuverable the A-6 Intruder was. They did not have supersonic speed, but they could reach out farther than the Hornet series.
There was an idea back in the early 80's to refurbish the Oriskany and Hornet to add more carriers to the fleet. A-7's and A-4's were to be a part of that plan. I can imagine that they would have been modified to handle F/A-18's at some point had they stayed in service. Loved Reagan's idea. My nephew was with VFA-102 when they transitioned to Foxtrots. He went to Japan and did 3 cruises on the Kitty Hawk. We talked aircraft and he said the Aviators would brag about their "kills" against Okinawa based f-15s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 7:59:45 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait wut? the pilots and maintainers know more as the day to day end user. What are you talking about? Is my sarcasm meter broken?
For example, in the 60's the engineers that designed the 727 said it couldn't sustain inverted flight. My dad was a 727 captain for national then pan am. Anyway, a senior captain with national, WWII pilot, flew one if their 727-100's from Miami to Jacksonville, inverted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer I just learned over the weekend neither Mil pilots, or Mil air maintainers are the end all of aviation knowledge! So I wouldn't put too much trust in 1 & 2!! And 3 & 4 are really knowledgable in their prospective fields, but don't fair very well outside that envelope!! Is it better to know a little about a lot? Or A lot about a little? I've been vexed by that problem for years!
Wait wut? the pilots and maintainers know more as the day to day end user. What are you talking about? Is my sarcasm meter broken?
For example, in the 60's the engineers that designed the 727 said it couldn't sustain inverted flight. My dad was a 727 captain for national then pan am. Anyway, a senior captain with national, WWII pilot, flew one if their 727-100's from Miami to Jacksonville, inverted. There's an old, but sadly dieing, tradition in the Ozarks called gulling. Some people will believe about anything if it is presented with authority. But anyone that believes that story has never flow sustained inverted flight, let alone in an airplane without a good harness for acro. But it makes a good story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 8:00:39 AM EDT
[#8]
Whatever is ultimately derived from the X-47B will end up being your A-6E replacement. It will carry a couple of 2,000 pounders internally, be very stealthy and likely have a range of 1500 miles or greater. That will take the US Navy into a whole new realm of capability.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 8:00:46 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low Eta: When I said, "...break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight" I meant, given a normal combat armament and fuel. Choke yourself 14er |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 8:34:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you are working against an inherently decentralized enemy. masses of ordanance are a very small % of the requirement. Nice to have lots or relatively small, precise weapons in case someone needs them. Also, see my comments earlier in the thread re: importance of bringback capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:53:33 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's an old, but sadly dieing, tradition in the Ozarks called gulling. Some people will believe about anything if it is presented with authority. But anyone that believes that story has never flow sustained inverted flight, let alone in an airplane without a good harness for acro. But it makes a good story. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer I just learned over the weekend neither Mil pilots, or Mil air maintainers are the end all of aviation knowledge! So I wouldn't put too much trust in 1 & 2!! And 3 & 4 are really knowledgable in their prospective fields, but don't fair very well outside that envelope!! Is it better to know a little about a lot? Or A lot about a little? I've been vexed by that problem for years!
Wait wut? the pilots and maintainers know more as the day to day end user. What are you talking about? Is my sarcasm meter broken?
For example, in the 60's the engineers that designed the 727 said it couldn't sustain inverted flight. My dad was a 727 captain for national then pan am. Anyway, a senior captain with national, WWII pilot, flew one if their 727-100's from Miami to Jacksonville, inverted. There's an old, but sadly dieing, tradition in the Ozarks called gulling. Some people will believe about anything if it is presented with authority. But anyone that believes that story has never flow sustained inverted flight, let alone in an airplane without a good harness for acro. But it makes a good story. Yup. I'm 99.9% sure it didn't happen. You shouldn't repeat the story in the presence of other aviation professionals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:59:41 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no on the former, yes on the latter. you are working against an inherently decentralized enemy. masses of ordanance are a very small % of the requirement. where is the video of like a dozen MK 84s being dropped on one mud hut when you need it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:Precision weapons are cool - but with our current adversaries, we need bomb trucks.
Large payloads. And loiter time. no on the former, yes on the latter. you are working against an inherently decentralized enemy. masses of ordanance are a very small % of the requirement. where is the video of like a dozen MK 84s being dropped on one mud hut when you need it? You don't have to drop the entire load at once. Drop, move to next target, drop, move to next target, lather, rinse, repeat. If you come upon a large concentration drop more. Large payloads give you options and scalability plus they reduce the transit delay proceeding to and from the area. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 11:01:33 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't have to drop the entire load at once. Drop, move to next target, drop, move to next target, lather, rinse, repeat. If you come upon a large concentration drop more. Large payloads give you options and scalability plus they reduce the transit delay proceeding to and from the area. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Precision weapons are cool - but with our current adversaries, we need bomb trucks.
Large payloads. And loiter time. no on the former, yes on the latter. you are working against an inherently decentralized enemy. masses of ordanance are a very small % of the requirement. where is the video of like a dozen MK 84s being dropped on one mud hut when you need it? You don't have to drop the entire load at once. Drop, move to next target, drop, move to next target, lather, rinse, repeat. If you come upon a large concentration drop more. Large payloads give you options and scalability plus they reduce the transit delay proceeding to and from the area. There just aren't going to be that many targets for very long. You are developing a very expensive capability for 1% of your missions. But you will pay the bill for 100% of the missions. Independent strike against pre-determined targets? Drones and cruise missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 11:17:17 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait wut? the pilots and maintainers know more as the day to day end user. What are you talking about? Is my sarcasm meter broken?
For example, in the 60's the engineers that designed the 727 said it couldn't sustain inverted flight. My dad was a 727 captain for national then pan am. Anyway, a senior captain with national, WWII pilot, flew one if their 727-100's from Miami to Jacksonville, inverted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer I just learned over the weekend neither Mil pilots, or Mil air maintainers are the end all of aviation knowledge! So I wouldn't put too much trust in 1 & 2!! And 3 & 4 are really knowledgable in their prospective fields, but don't fair very well outside that envelope!! Is it better to know a little about a lot? Or A lot about a little? I've been vexed by that problem for years!
Wait wut? the pilots and maintainers know more as the day to day end user. What are you talking about? Is my sarcasm meter broken?
For example, in the 60's the engineers that designed the 727 said it couldn't sustain inverted flight. My dad was a 727 captain for national then pan am. Anyway, a senior captain with national, WWII pilot, flew one if their 727-100's from Miami to Jacksonville, inverted. Now you broke my sarcasm meter. I doubt many fighter aircraft could do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 2:52:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Currently in production in the form of the EA-18G Growler, the FA-18 Hornet represents a stable design but handicapped by inherent restrictions associated with its original function as a replacement for the short-range, light-attack A-7 Crusader II and A-4 Skyhawk that retired from carrier decks early in the 1990s. From an article on F/A-XX |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 4:00:15 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There just aren't going to be that many targets for very long. You are developing a very expensive capability for 1% of your missions. But you will pay the bill for 100% of the missions. Independent strike against pre-determined targets? Drones and cruise missiles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Precision weapons are cool - but with our current adversaries, we need bomb trucks.
Large payloads. And loiter time. no on the former, yes on the latter. you are working against an inherently decentralized enemy. masses of ordanance are a very small % of the requirement. where is the video of like a dozen MK 84s being dropped on one mud hut when you need it? You don't have to drop the entire load at once. Drop, move to next target, drop, move to next target, lather, rinse, repeat. If you come upon a large concentration drop more. Large payloads give you options and scalability plus they reduce the transit delay proceeding to and from the area. There just aren't going to be that many targets for very long. You are developing a very expensive capability for 1% of your missions. But you will pay the bill for 100% of the missions. Independent strike against pre-determined targets? Drones and cruise missiles. I'm developing the capability for my primary mission area, to look cool at air shows. My Staff time has me always thinking of Doomsday planning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 4:05:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Currently in production in the form of the EA-18G Growler, the FA-18 Hornet represents a stable design but handicapped by inherent restrictions associated with its original function as a replacement for the short-range, light-attack A-7 Crusader II and A-4 Skyhawk that retired from carrier decks early in the 1990s. From an article on F/A-XX Won't matter: Boeing Faces a Future Without Fighter Jets Read the comments from Chadwick. I'll be nice and characterize that as an inartful shot across the bow of the Pentagon and Congress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 4:16:57 PM EDT
[#18]
DID ANY ONE TELL SPECIAL ED OP THAT THE STRIKES INTO SYRIA WERE DONE BY WHAT PLANE FROM A CARRIER OH THATS RIGHT THE F-18.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 4:53:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DID ANY ONE TELL SPECIAL ED OP THAT THE STRIKES INTO SYRIA WERE DONE BY WHAT PLANE FROM A CARRIER OH THATS RIGHT THE F-18. to be fair that wasn't his point.... they are a great airframe |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 5:03:18 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DID ANY ONE TELL SPECIAL ED OP THAT THE STRIKES INTO SYRIA WERE DONE BY WHAT PLANE FROM A CARRIER OH THATS RIGHT THE F-18. How does that contradict the OP's first post, that the Hornet is a glorified bomb truck? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 5:17:36 PM EDT
[#21]
Sigh. This thread is still here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 5:22:38 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There just aren't going to be that many targets for very long. You are developing a very expensive capability for 1% of your missions. But you will pay the bill for 100% of the missions. Independent strike against pre-determined targets? Drones and cruise missiles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Precision weapons are cool - but with our current adversaries, we need bomb trucks.
Large payloads. And loiter time. no on the former, yes on the latter. you are working against an inherently decentralized enemy. masses of ordanance are a very small % of the requirement. where is the video of like a dozen MK 84s being dropped on one mud hut when you need it? You don't have to drop the entire load at once. Drop, move to next target, drop, move to next target, lather, rinse, repeat. If you come upon a large concentration drop more. Large payloads give you options and scalability plus they reduce the transit delay proceeding to and from the area. There just aren't going to be that many targets for very long. You are developing a very expensive capability for 1% of your missions. But you will pay the bill for 100% of the missions. Independent strike against pre-determined targets? Drones and cruise missiles. Drones, sure. Cruise missiles bring their own set of issues. Nice to have, but using them can be tricky. Not that fixed wing support is everything it's cracked up to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 5:23:40 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The A-7 was an excellent bomb dropper and could also give some fighters a problem in the low speed spectrum. You would be surprised how maneuverable the A-6 Intruder was. They did not have supersonic speed, but they could reach out farther than the Hornet series. There was an idea back in the early 80's to refurbish the Oriskany and Hornet to add more carriers to the fleet. A-7's and A-4's were to be a part of that plan. I can imagine that they would have been modified to handle F/A-18's at some point had they stayed in service. Loved Reagan's idea. My nephew was with VFA-102 when they transitioned to Foxtrots. He went to Japan and did 3 cruises on the Kitty Hawk. We talked aircraft and he said the Aviators would brag about their "kills" against Okinawa based f-15s. Both the A-6 and the A-7 were piles of shit. Squadrons needed 12 of those piles of shit in order to keep 6 of them in an FMC or PMC status. They needed twice as many maintainers to keep the piles of shit in the air. At the end of their life (not the design life) they both had wing issues that kept them from carrying full bomb loads and kept them from operating as an effective bomber. Ever change the engine on an A-6 of en F-18? Two guys could have an engine out and in an F-18 in a couple of hours. In a couple of hours two guys on an A-6 might have the engine bay doors removed and the maybe the generators. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 5:29:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We've got a member who is a former SLUF driver and he'd disagree with that......... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The A-7F would have kicked ass. Sadly, Vought is located in the wrong congressional district. The A-7 was a pile of shit. The A-7F would have been a supersonic pile of shit. 
We've got a member who is a former SLUF driver and he'd disagree with that......... I am a former A-7 maintainer and I can tell you that it was a large steaming pile of shit. Wings cracking, UHT's cracking, fucking goofy mainmounts, never stop leaking extention units, hydraulic lines burried behind sealed bulkheads, craptastic wheel bearing design, I can go on and on. Speed limited, G limited, ordnance limited, it was junk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 5:30:43 PM EDT
[#25]
I still think the F-14 was the sexiest off the teen series fighters..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 5:33:42 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I still think the F-14 was the sexiest off the teen series fighters.. Gotta disagree. F-14 got all the Hollywood press, but the F-15 is just a freaking sexy airplane. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 5:43:51 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Won't matter: Boeing Faces a Future Without Fighter Jets Read the comments from Chadwick. I'll be nice and characterize that as an inartful shot across the bow of the Pentagon and Congress. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Currently in production in the form of the EA-18G Growler, the FA-18 Hornet represents a stable design but handicapped by inherent restrictions associated with its original function as a replacement for the short-range, light-attack A-7 Crusader II and A-4 Skyhawk that retired from carrier decks early in the 1990s. From an article on F/A-XX Won't matter: Boeing Faces a Future Without Fighter Jets Read the comments from Chadwick. I'll be nice and characterize that as an inartful shot across the bow of the Pentagon and Congress. That's screwed up. Boeing actually delivers a fighter on time and under budget. Lockheed is perpetual vaporware. I could sort of understand some countries electing to purchase the Euro planes over the F-18, but going with the F-35? Maybe they'll be in service by 2050. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 6:23:17 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Currently in production in the form of the EA-18G Growler, the FA-18 Hornet represents a stable design but handicapped by inherent restrictions associated with its original function as a replacement for the short-range, light-attack A-7 Crusader II and A-4 Skyhawk that retired from carrier decks early in the 1990s. From an article on F/A-XX I think I know what the author is trying to say, but that's just a very poor way of wording it. There was a spec. The F-18 and F-18E/F meet the specs. Perhaps it's arguable that the spec wasn't challenging enough - fair enough. But, a more challenging specification for range, airspeed, etc, just means more engineering, development, testing, higher costs, delays, and so forth. F-18s work. Sure, F-18s to refuel F-18s is cringe-worthy. But, you know what? It works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 6:42:47 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am a former A-7 maintainer and I can tell you that it was a large steaming pile of shit. Wings cracking, UHT's cracking, fucking goofy mainmounts, never stop leaking extention units, hydraulic lines burried behind sealed bulkheads, craptastic wheel bearing design, I can go on and on. Speed limited, G limited, ordnance limited, it was junk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The A-7F would have kicked ass. Sadly, Vought is located in the wrong congressional district. The A-7 was a pile of shit. The A-7F would have been a supersonic pile of shit.
We've got a member who is a former SLUF driver and he'd disagree with that......... I am a former A-7 maintainer and I can tell you that it was a large steaming pile of shit. Wings cracking, UHT's cracking, fucking goofy mainmounts, never stop leaking extention units, hydraulic lines burried behind sealed bulkheads, craptastic wheel bearing design, I can go on and on. Speed limited, G limited, ordnance limited, it was junk. Now just because you Navy boys had a hard time maintaining the A-7, does not mean it was a bad aircraft. Our unit maintained an average 90% FMC rate on our A-7D's. And they were a good fighter in a pinch. At the summer 1982 Red Flag, our A-7D's shot down 6 aggressors without loss. It torqued off the aggressor pilots so bad, that they changed the rules of engagement so the A-7D units had to basically just fly in a straight line at a set course/speed, so as not to hurt their feelings so much. There were no speed/G/or load limits under what was spelled out in the flight manual. 
Now maybe salt water and carrier landings caused problems to accumulate on the A-7E, but the A-7D was a good performer. It was retired prematurely by the USAF/ANG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 7:38:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sigh. This thread is still here. For the record, I tried to generate some fresh banter with a seemingly bold statement about inverted flight, or the impossibility of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 8:09:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
] Drones, sure. Cruise missiles bring their own set of issues. Nice to have, but using them can be tricky. Not that fixed wing support is everything it's cracked up to be. This is nothing to do with "air support" this is monkey stomping fixed targets in an impotent display of conventional airpower. aka what we are doing now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 8:29:09 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gotta disagree. F-14 got all the Hollywood press, but the F-15 is just a freaking sexy airplane. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/F-15,_71st_Fighter_Squadron,_in_flight.JPG Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I still think the F-14 was the sexiest off the teen series fighters.. Gotta disagree. F-14 got all the Hollywood press, but the F-15 is just a freaking sexy airplane. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/F-15,_71st_Fighter_Squadron,_in_flight.JPG Air Force One and Harrison Ford disagree that the F-14 got all the Hollywood action 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 8:34:24 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's an old, but sadly dieing, tradition in the Ozarks called gulling. Some people will believe about anything if it is presented with authority. But anyone that believes that story has never flow sustained inverted flight, let alone in an airplane without a good harness for acro. But it makes a good story. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer I just learned over the weekend neither Mil pilots, or Mil air maintainers are the end all of aviation knowledge! So I wouldn't put too much trust in 1 & 2!! And 3 & 4 are really knowledgable in their prospective fields, but don't fair very well outside that envelope!! Is it better to know a little about a lot? Or A lot about a little? I've been vexed by that problem for years!
Wait wut? the pilots and maintainers know more as the day to day end user. What are you talking about? Is my sarcasm meter broken?
For example, in the 60's the engineers that designed the 727 said it couldn't sustain inverted flight. My dad was a 727 captain for national then pan am. Anyway, a senior captain with national, WWII pilot, flew one if their 727-100's from Miami to Jacksonville, inverted. There's an old, but sadly dieing, tradition in the Ozarks called gulling. Some people will believe about anything if it is presented with authority. But anyone that believes that story has never flow sustained inverted flight, let alone in an airplane without a good harness for acro. But it makes a good story. pretty sure the fuel pumps would cavitate, resulting in flameout |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 8:35:03 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Air Force One and Harrison Ford disagree that the F-14 got all the Hollywood action Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I still think the F-14 was the sexiest off the teen series fighters.. Gotta disagree. F-14 got all the Hollywood press, but the F-15 is just a freaking sexy airplane. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/F-15,_71st_Fighter_Squadron,_in_flight.JPG Air Force One and Harrison Ford disagree that the F-14 got all the Hollywood action  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 8:49:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gotta disagree. F-14 got all the Hollywood press, but the F-15 is just a freaking sexy airplane. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/F-15,_71st_Fighter_Squadron,_in_flight.JPG Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I still think the F-14 was the sexiest off the teen series fighters.. Gotta disagree. F-14 got all the Hollywood press, but the F-15 is just a freaking sexy airplane. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/F-15,_71st_Fighter_Squadron,_in_flight.JPG I do so love that airframe. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:02:22 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They came by the ramp here at Nellis while my squadron was here TDY from Spangdahlem AB, and recorded jet noise for the audio track. That's the sound of our birds in the movie.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I still think the F-14 was the sexiest off the teen series fighters.. Gotta disagree. F-14 got all the Hollywood press, but the F-15 is just a freaking sexy airplane. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/F-15,_71st_Fighter_Squadron,_in_flight.JPG Air Force One and Harrison Ford disagree that the F-14 got all the Hollywood action
I loved the 15s in full AB flying in formation with AF1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:38:12 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I loved the 15s in full AB flying in formation with AF1.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I still think the F-14 was the sexiest off the teen series fighters.. Gotta disagree. F-14 got all the Hollywood press, but the F-15 is just a freaking sexy airplane. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/F-15,_71st_Fighter_Squadron,_in_flight.JPG Air Force One and Harrison Ford disagree that the F-14 got all the Hollywood action
I loved the 15s in full AB flying in formation with AF1.
I miss the "build up" of sound as they came from the distance on full mil power and then buzzing right over our place in FL. Also, watching them RTB in 2 ship formations and the subsequent approach was great too. 15 is a legend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:39:43 PM EDT
[#38]
Never mind
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:40:06 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F/A-18's redeeming attribute is being able to fly twice a day, 7 days a week for weeks on end. F-14 was never that reliable and was lucky to fly 3-4 times a week. "Ability" has everything to do with the people maintaining the aircraft. Actually doing that would mean you have shitty flying practices. ETA: I'm late to the party, it would seem... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:40:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the return of cmjohnson? Did he go to the great PC flight simulator in the sky? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:49:18 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never mind To be fair, it was a Marine Hornet that downed an alien fighter in the mid-90s Will Smith documentary, Independence Day... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:52:43 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did he go to the great PC flight simulator in the sky? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
the return of cmjohnson? Did he go to the great PC flight simulator in the sky? No, just banned camp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:53:42 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To be fair, it was a Marine Hornet that downed an alien fighter in the mid-90s Will Smith documentary, Independence Day... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Never mind To be fair, it was a Marine Hornet that downed an alien fighter in the mid-90s Will Smith documentary, Independence Day... Actually, the initial kill would be classified as a Maneuvering Kill, or at worst a CFIT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:05:24 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I miss the "build up" of sound as they came from the distance on full mil power and then buzzing right over our place in FL. Also, watching them RTB in 2 ship formations and the subsequent approach was great too. 15 is a legend. I miss watching them from here. 
That is a pic that I took of the last operational F-15 leaving Tyndall AFB on 21 Sep 2010. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:43:18 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now just because you Navy boys had a hard time maintaining the A-7, does not mean it was a bad aircraft. Our unit maintained an average 90% FMC rate on our A-7D's. And they were a good fighter in a pinch. At the summer 1982 Red Flag, our A-7D's shot down 6 aggressors without loss. It torqued off the aggressor pilots so bad, that they changed the rules of engagement so the A-7D units had to basically just fly in a straight line at a set course/speed, so as not to hurt their feelings so much. There were no speed/G/or load limits under what was spelled out in the flight manual.
Now maybe salt water and carrier landings caused problems to accumulate on the A-7E, but the A-7D was a good performer. It was retired prematurely by the USAF/ANG. Your A-7's suffered the same fate as did the Navy A-7E's. I know your high time A-7D's were just as prone to wing cracking and G limitations when they reached the same flight hours as the Navy A-7E's. I saw the message traffic that came from the USAF on issues that concerned both aircraft. Most of your A-7's never reached the same flight hours and they were NEVER operated like a Navy A-7 was (carrier based operations). I'll give the active duty and reserve / guard maintainers all the credit in the world with the upkeep on your aircraft across the board. The Navy and Marines will never be able to reach that type of maintenance due to our maintenance structure and deployment schedule. The only aircraft in the Navy inventory that's maintained in any fashion like a USAF aircraft is the Navy's E-6B and it shows. I can tell you that to a man every Navy A-7 pilot I knew jumped from the A-7 platform at their first chance to get into the cockpit of an F-18. 
Only the guys with a dead end career or who were forced to stay stayed with the A-7 to the end. I am pretty sure USAF pilots jumped at the chance to get into the cockpit of the F-16 when they had the opportunity (unless they were a guard bum who didn't want to leave a specific geographic area).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 11:11:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I miss watching them from here. http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8094/img0263v.jpg That is a pic that I took of the last operational F-15 leaving Tyndall AFB on 21 Sep 2010. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I miss the "build up" of sound as they came from the distance on full mil power and then buzzing right over our place in FL. Also, watching them RTB in 2 ship formations and the subsequent approach was great too. 15 is a legend. I miss watching them from here. http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8094/img0263v.jpg That is a pic that I took of the last operational F-15 leaving Tyndall AFB on 21 Sep 2010.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 4:39:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's an old, but sadly dieing, tradition in the Ozarks called gulling. Some people will believe about anything if it is presented with authority. But anyone that believes that story has never flow sustained inverted flight, let alone in an airplane without a good harness for acro. But it makes a good story. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer I just learned over the weekend neither Mil pilots, or Mil air maintainers are the end all of aviation knowledge! So I wouldn't put too much trust in 1 & 2!! And 3 & 4 are really knowledgable in their prospective fields, but don't fair very well outside that envelope!! Is it better to know a little about a lot? Or A lot about a little? I've been vexed by that problem for years!
Wait wut? the pilots and maintainers know more as the day to day end user. What are you talking about? Is my sarcasm meter broken?
For example, in the 60's the engineers that designed the 727 said it couldn't sustain inverted flight. My dad was a 727 captain for national then pan am. Anyway, a senior captain with national, WWII pilot, flew one if their 727-100's from Miami to Jacksonville, inverted. There's an old, but sadly dieing, tradition in the Ozarks called gulling. Some people will believe about anything if it is presented with authority. But anyone that believes that story has never flow sustained inverted flight, let alone in an airplane without a good harness for acro. But it makes a good story. You guys are kind of acting like the OP. My dad has over 30,000 hours and doesn't go along with BS stories and will tell it like it is, no matter who's feelings get hurt. I just called to confirm the story. The chief pilot at the time, also his best friend flew it and a chief check engineer. He said any of you are welcome to call him if you'd like and he'll tell you everything you'd like to know about that flight and how it is possible with the 727. PM me and you're welcome to have his cell number. Also, the flight was between Miami and Ft Myers. The inverted part was 15-20 min long. That part, I had wrong. Believe what you want though, but you are sounding a lot like someone we know in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 4:55:13 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did he go to the great PC flight simulator in the sky? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
the return of cmjohnson? Did he go to the great PC flight simulator in the sky? Yes. It was another one of his "Kill all the muslims." comments that did it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 4:59:19 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JBski  ():
It was another one of his "Kill all the muslims." comments that did it. Whoa. Guess I missed that fiasco - this is the first I've heard of it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 4:59:58 PM EDT
[#50]
So, since OP is hiding from this as well as the Pit thread, but poasting in some other random thread, let's take the oportunity to take a dump on everything OP loves and holds dear, like his degree in Aeronautical Engineering.
OH WAIT, HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
