30th anniversary of the first McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 flight

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 30th anniversary of the first McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 flight

Posted: 11/20/2008 5:13:08 PM EDT

081118-N-0000X-001 SAN DIEGO, (Nov. 18, 2008) An F/A-18C Hornet assigned to Fleet Readiness Center Southwest flies over Naval Air Station North Island and the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the first McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F/A-18 flight. The Hornet making the commemorative flight was painted in the original manufacturer’s paint scheme and piloted by Fleet Readiness Center Southwest chief test pilot Cmdr. Craig Reiner. Official U.S. Navy Photograph by Lt. Alex Allwein (Released)

HUGE IMAGE - [url]http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/081118-N-0000X-001.jpg[/img]

First McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F/A-18 Flight Commemorated
San Diego Public Affairs Office

SAN DIEGO –– An F/A-18C Hornet assigned to Fleet Readiness Center Southwest (FRCSW) flew over Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) and the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) on Tuesday, Nov. 18, to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the first McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F/A-18 flight.

The Hornet making the commemorative flight was painted in the original manufacturer’s paint scheme. The commemorative aircraft was piloted by Cmdr. Craig Reiner, Chief Test Pilot from FRCSW. The aircraft recently completed a scheduled maintenance interval at FRCSW and will be delivered to Fighter-Attack Squadron 106 at Oceana, VA, later this week.

FRCSW produces airframes, engines, components, and services to meet the Naval Aviation Enterprise’s aircraft ready for tasking entitlements.

Posted: 11/20/2008 5:16:37 PM EDT

[#1]

Posted: 11/20/2008 5:17:39 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
http://www.pbase.com/gwetzel/image/106105982.jpg

That's a pretty sweet picture.

Posted: 11/20/2008 5:17:56 PM EDT

[#3]

Posted: 11/20/2008 5:19:59 PM EDT

[#4]

What a great airplane.

Posted: 11/20/2008 5:23:59 PM EDT

[#5]

I posted these a couple of days ago in another thread. Wish the AF had went with it instead of the lawn dart.

Posted: 11/20/2008 5:25:49 PM EDT

[#6]

Posted: 11/20/2008 5:29:39 PM EDT

[#7]

Posted: 11/20/2008 5:32:23 PM EDT

[#8]

Posted: 11/20/2008 6:35:57 PM EDT

[#9]

]Quoted:
I posted these a couple of days ago in another thread. Wish the AF had went with it instead of the lawn dart.

You know, I think it's funny that you say that, when you stop for a moment to
consider...which you already know very well, I'm sure...that both the F-15 and the F-16
have two of the best combat records in the world. In fact, they're both undefeated in
air-to-air combat, with the only exception being an F-16 that was shot down...by another
F-16...in a little hot-tempered event between Greek and Turkish aviators a few years back.

As near as I've been able to tell, from a LOT of reading about the subject, it would be
very difficult to put together a compelling case that says that the USAF would be better
served, or even served as well, by the Hornet instead of the F-16.

Remember, the initial goals of the Lightweight Fighter Program that put the F-16 into
service were a LOW COST, highly maneuverable pure VFR day fighter, that had a single
purpose originally: to outfly and knock down enemy MiGs like nothing else anyone had
ever seen. And the predecessor design to the Hornet WAS put into the competition
and it lost. Even a production F/A-18A Hornet would have lost that competition due to
size, complexity, and cost.

The USAF got the plane it asked for and wanted with the F-16. At any time in the past
thirty years, it could have started purchasing Hornets if there was any compelling reason
to do so. They did not see any such need.

Meanwhile, when the Navy wanted to train their pilots dogfighting against the toughest
possible opponents, what did they do? They equipped their Aggressor squadrons with
F-16s. They wanted the baddest possible fighters for their baddest pilots to fly in the
aggressor role, and they chose the F-16. You could argue that even the Navy knows
what's REALLY the better fighter...and it's got just one GOOD engine.

The Navy eventually wore out their custom-built F-16Ns that were used by the Aggressors,
but liked them so much that they acquired additional F-16s for use in that role to this very day.

CJ

Posted: 11/20/2008 6:47:36 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

]Quoted:
I posted these a couple of days ago in another thread. Wish the AF had went with it instead of the lawn dart.

You know, I think it's funny that you say that, when you stop for a moment to
consider...which you already know very well, I'm sure...that both the F-15 and the F-16
have two of the best combat records in the world. In fact, they're both undefeated in
air-to-air combat, with the only exception being an F-16 that was shot down...by another
F-16...in a little hot-tempered event between Greek and Turkish aviators a few years back.

As near as I've been able to tell, from a LOT of reading about the subject, it would be
very difficult to put together a compelling case that says that the USAF would be better
served, or even served as well, by the Hornet instead of the F-16.

Remember, the initial goals of the Lightweight Fighter Program that put the F-16 into
service were a LOW COST, highly maneuverable pure VFR day fighter, that had a single
purpose originally: to outfly and knock down enemy MiGs like nothing else anyone had
ever seen. And the predecessor design to the Hornet WAS put into the competition
and it lost. Even a production F/A-18A Hornet would have lost that competition due to
size, complexity, and cost.

The USAF got the plane it asked for and wanted with the F-16. At any time in the past
thirty years, it could have started purchasing Hornets if there was any compelling reason
to do so. They did not see any such need.

Meanwhile, when the Navy wanted to train their pilots dogfighting against the toughest
possible opponents, what did they do? They equipped their Aggressor squadrons with
F-16s. They wanted the baddest possible fighters for their baddest pilots to fly in the
aggressor role, and they chose the F-16. You could argue that even the Navy knows
what's REALLY the better fighter...and it's got just one GOOD engine.

The Navy eventually wore out their custom-built F-16Ns that were used by the Aggressors,
but liked them so much that they acquired additional F-16s for use in that role to this very day.

CJ

{slap} feel my pimp hand yacht club

Posted: 11/20/2008 6:49:46 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
{slap} feel my pimp hand yacht club

Explain to me where you land a single engine fighter jet that just shit it's engine when your carrier is 120 miles away and land is 230 miles away.

Posted: 11/20/2008 6:55:08 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

{slap} feel my pimp hand yacht club

What, can't formulate an intelligent response?

Every word I wrote is the truth.

Oh..regarding single engine jet fighters...was the Navy unhappy with its Corsairs and Crusaders?

CJ

Posted: 11/20/2008 7:05:36 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:

{slap} feel my pimp hand yacht club

What, can't formulate an intelligent response?

Every word I wrote is the truth.

Oh..regarding single engine jet fighters...was the Navy unhappy with its Corsairs and Crusaders?

CJ

Yes, that's why the F-8 was replaced by the less capable two engined F-4 and why the A-7 was replaced by the F-18.

The A-7 was a fucking pile of shit.

Posted: 11/20/2008 7:11:25 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

The A-7 was a fucking pile of shit.

I always thought the Bucanneer would have been a better fit for the USN than the A7 at that time.

A mix of A6s and Bucanneers would have been potent.

Posted: 11/20/2008 7:12:51 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
I posted these a couple of days ago in another thread. Wish the AF had went with it instead of the lawn dart.

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/1286/1423685rn3.jpg
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5263/0729056vo4.jpg
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6001/0811777jo4.jpg
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/1108/1258845mz9.jpg

yf-17....pffffft

Posted: 11/20/2008 7:13:32 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

{slap} feel my pimp hand yacht club

What, can't formulate an intelligent response?

Every word I wrote is the truth.

Oh..regarding single engine jet fighters...was the Navy unhappy with its Corsairs and Crusaders?

CJ

Yes, that's why the F-8 was replaced by the less capable two engined F-4 and why the A-7 was replaced by the F-18.

The A-7 was a fucking pile of shit.

im guessing by this statement you think a f16 just hovers around an airstrip just in case something goes wrong with its engine

oh yeah i guess the joint strike fighter is is going to be a big flop in your eyes huh
only having one engine and all

Posted: 11/20/2008 7:25:11 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Meanwhile, when the Navy wanted to train their pilots dogfighting against the toughest

possible opponents, what did they do? They equipped their Aggressor squadrons with

F-16s. They wanted the baddest possible fighters for their baddest pilots to fly in the

aggressor role, and they chose the F-16. You could argue that even the Navy knows

what's REALLY the better fighter...and it's got just one GOOD engine.

The Navy eventually wore out their custom-built F-16Ns that were used by the Aggressors,

but liked them so much that they acquired additional F-16s for use in that role to this very day.

The F-16 is a great plane no doubt, but...

The Navy didn't pick the F-16 because it was the baddest possible fighter. They picked the F-16 because it fit a certain flight profile that mimicked foreign aircraft. The Navy uses(used) a myriad of different aircraft for the aggressor role and put them in composite squadrons. F-14s, F-18s, F-16s, A-4s, F-5s, and for a brief time F-21s.

They fit a profile... that's why they were used.

And there was quite the gap in time between the retirement of the N's and the aquiring of ex-Pakistani A and B models.

Posted: 11/20/2008 7:32:26 PM EDT

[#18]

Ok...I get it now. I had a 24 hour layover in San Diego on the 18th and was sitting on the patio at the Brigantine on Coronado, eating their fantastic fish tacos...when I saw this guy and another F-18 fly over. Hadn't seen a white paint job on an 18 before and was curious.

Posted: 11/20/2008 7:34:25 PM EDT

[#19]

actualy they are petty much equal to each other performance wise
the real difference is the f16 fighting falcon is a mighty and powerfull bird of prey
and the f18 hornett is.....well its a bug

i kid i kidd
go lick an anchor and relax

Posted: 11/21/2008 6:15:07 AM EDT

[#20]

I was a Mechanic, Aircraft Production doing final assembly on the F/A-18 for McDonnell Douglas in the late 80's.

We were extremely proud of our work and the product.

BTW: Just a little aside on the F-16.
Of course, there was a rivalry between the major aircraft production firms. . . .

The production force called the rival F-16 the G-d Damned fence-post hole digger - and we happy to point out that if you needed a hole in Montana there were always a number of F-16s landing pointy end down!

Posted: 11/21/2008 7:19:13 AM EDT

[#21]

But it's entirely fair to point out that the reason for the F-16's ground penetration record is the very fact that it is a 9-G capable aircraft. You can hardly fault the plane for the pilot's
inability to remain conscious through the 9 G maneuver he just commanded.

This doesn't happen with Bugs because they're normally limited to 7.5 Gs, and most
pilots can handle that. 9 Gs is enough to GLOC almost every pilot after several seconds,
particularly if they're not fully prepared for the maneuver.

By definition, all GLOC related crashes are pilot error.

CJ