In the F-16 the FLCS not only imposes maximum alpha and maximum G limits, but a simultaneous combo so at 25.2 degrees AOA you are limited to 1G and cannot get 9G above 15 degrees AOA. This lowers the instantaneous turn rates but helps with maximum pull energy loss, having a max deceleration of approx 0.5G.

I was wondering if the Hornet had a similar feature to help it retain energy or if it really did bleed off speed at a peak rate of 2G.

If anyone knows about this for the F/A-18(C or E) or any other high performance fighter with FBW please let me know.

The Scotsman was Here!

quote:

Originally posted by SprStdlySocttsmn:
If anyone knows about this for the F/A-18(C or E) or any other high performance fighter with FBW please let me know.

High performance! It's just too funny.
Yes, high performance compared to a Cessna 152.

Well...the F-18 is fairly well-known for its ability to outturn the uber 1337 Mig-29.

Scottsman...there's a documentary on right now about the F-18 on the History channel.

So then it is safe to say that it is allowed its maximum alpha from 1G to 7.5G. I guess it is perfectly suited to fighting at speeds that Eagles and Falcons dare not tread. It's ability to roll at 120 kts while puling full aft on the stick is impressive. Would allow it to win ANY low speed scissors contest. Well designed plane, but I'm still a Falcon guy for life. Thanx for the input Iguana.

The Scotsman was Here!

I have watched HUD tapes from an F-16 where the speed gets down to 120-130kts while dogfighting MiG-29s, the Falcons seem to have no problem with getting the MiGs in their sights in slow fights, But Falcon drivers prefare the higher speed fights. The G force never got above 4G in the dogfights. Although in one high speed turn of 500kts the G force hit 7.2, I was suprise the MiG tried it on at that speed.

I have these videos as well, but I lost the one done to "welcome to the jungle". As for the flacon getting that slow, well its always about the abilty of the pilot to effectively trade energy for angles. In the case of the Falcon they can get their energy back very quickly, while the hornet cannot build it up as quickly as many other fighters. But the hornet can achieve higher turn rates than a falcon at 120 knts, can fly down to 100 kts, and still maintain roll performance using both aileron and rudder. When ever I try to use an F/A-18 in a dogfight in a sim my speed always bleeds down to 120 or lower, sometimes 65kts, and I always have some roll controll(not much at all at 65 kts) which i use to stay inside my opponents turn, or if I am defensive, to initiate scissors and my low speed forces an overshoot. Whenever I use in F-16 I have to turn off the AB or go vertical from a low speed in order to get below 200kts. Oh well, all I have are my simulators.

The Scotsman was Here!

The G-Command (FLCS) in the F/A-18A-G limits load to 7.5G. However, there is an 'G_limit override' switch making the plane go up to 10G.

Several F/A-18 variants for countries like Sweden have their G-limits set at 9.

As one of my Lockmart/USAF TP friends say, "G's are overrated. I did all my kill at 4-5Gs."

quote:

Originally posted by Jewels_201:
The G-Command (FLCS) in the F/A-18A-G limits load to 7.5G. However, there is an 'G_limit override' switch making the plane go up to 10G.

Several F/A-18 variants for countries like Sweden have their G-limits set at 9.

As one of my Lockmart/USAF TP friends say, "G's are overrated. I did all my kill at 4-5Gs."

No one couldn't have left it out cleaner and better. Keep it up, Jewels, keep it up.

The G override button only gives 33% extra G at any given limit. So if the Hornet is light and can do 7.5G the override will enable it to go to 10.4G at the 7.5G limit and so on. If a Hornet is heavy and say only has a 4G limit at that time, the override will give it around 7.6G. So a heavy Hornet is not going anywhere near 10G when the button is pressed.

IIRC only the Swiss Hornets are cleared for 9G as standard as they are used for air to air only and have specially designed low drag pylons for air to air missiles only.

Sweden don't have Hornets, they build all their own fighters.

intresting, how does this G overide work? and why do so many people dislike the f-18?

Cheers

The G override works by increasing the amount of deflection that is allowed to be applied to control surfaces for a given flight condition. The pilot can yank the stick as hard as he wishes, but the actual control surfaces will only move so far, due to the limits imposed by the FLCS.

Many people dislike the F-18 mainly because it has short legs, and it doesn't accelerate as quickly as some of the other fighters.

Then there are others who simply don't like it because its an American aircraft. I'm a little surprised that same person didn't go off on some tangent about unfair business practices from Boeing...even though their aircraft cost any end user several times more than those built in Russia. Heh...its funny logic...I've never understood it.

I'd take a Hornet over the Viper any day. Just the navy brat in me! Then again, I'll pick a big fighter over a small one. I need the leg room and the gas!

hmm, you take Navy over Air Force and Big over Small. I guess it's the "Kitty 4 Life" for you isnt it then? Oh, on that topic, do the gas tanks on the Cat's nacelles produce noticeable drag or is it fairly negligable? Did Cats ever fly without them? Sorry but I am always trying to increase my knowlege base.

The Scotsman was Here!

Do the Swiss Hornets have their wings fixed or folding? Naval a/c often have lower g limits as compared to their land based counterparts due to structural limitations. The Swiss a/c don't have to undergo the stress of carrier landings and catapult launches, so they can be subjected to 9g regularly without having too adverse an effect on airframe life(?)

Last Summer I saw the Swiss F-18 (noisy bugger btw) both fold its wing as put down its tailhook. It has the same capabilities as the carrier version.
I must admit, the F-18 is one hell of an airshow plane, it's agile and noisy, noisier and definately more agile than the F-16 brick. Still, I just hate the F-18 because of how it's been marketed by Boeing, especially the oh-so great E and F versions.
So I hate the thing, and I love it at the same time, but my hate towards it is slightly greater than my love

For me I will always prefare the C/D versions of the Hornet. When the new FLCS was developed for the E/F Hornets the new software allows for up to 60 degrees AoA, the Legacy Hornets are limited to 45 degrees AoA by the old FLCS software. But the Legacy Hornets are now getting a new update to their FLCS software to also allow them to fly up to 60 degrees AoA from lessons learned flight testing the SuperHornet.

And keep in mind the F-22A FLCS software (currently) limits it to 60 degrees AoA, the Hornet can also do the same.

Now if someone can just stuff a pair of EJ-200s into a Legacy Hornet...

BTW: the Russian AF is loooking into putting the AL-31F into the MiG-27, increased performance and lower fuel burn.

quote:

Originally posted by Force_Feedback:
I must admit, the F-18 is one hell of an airshow plane, it's agile and noisy, noisier and definately more agile than the F-16 brick.

A brick?
Let me tell you a litle story. For my countries AF 50th aniversay F-16's publicitized the event (an airshow 100km south of here) by flying circles around a 100m (300 feet) tall tower/restaurant at max angle of attack just 1 click away from the window behind me.

quote:

Originally posted by Alfa_Kilo:
Do the Swiss Hornets have their wings fixed or folding? Naval a/c often have lower g limits as compared to their land based counterparts due to structural limitations. The Swiss a/c don't have to undergo the stress of carrier landings and catapult launches, so they can be subjected to 9g regularly without having too adverse an effect on airframe life(?)

IIRC, they still fold. They still have the same gear as the USN, RAAF, RCAF which is thick, heavy gear and as well as the same structure. The difference?

Avionics and the primary roles/loadouts. The Swiss are not going to be fully laden with weapons and have different objectives than their Western counterparts.

gfitzpatrick:

IMHO, the difference at those high AOA is that I suspect that the Raptor is far more maneuverable than the Hornet and the Super Hornet. Plus it has all the Psub in the world.

Force_Feedback:

I hardly think the -16 is a brick. It is a brutal acceleration machine. If you were to read an article that was done several years ago, an -18 USTP flew both and noted that on the same runway, the -16 reached a faster speed by 100 IAS over the Hornet. That just gives you an idea on the acceleration in that arena.

SprStdlySocttsmn:

I'd take a big fighter over the small one that's just my preference although I prefer blue water ops. You need gas to go somewhere, don't you?

quote:

Originally posted by Force_Feedback:

I must admit, the F-18 is one hell of an airshow plane, it's agile and noisy, noisier and definately more agile than the F-16 brick.

Nope...as far as noise goes, the F-16 comes out WAY ahead of the F-18. It is often said that it makes twice the noise, with half the engines. We have both types come through where I work quite often (at least once a day), and the F-16s definitely do a better job of announcing their arrival. I'll be the next to say, the F-16 is NOT a brick...it just prefers the low fight.

quote:

Still, I just hate the F-18 because of how it's been marketed by Boeing, especially the oh-so great E and F versions.

LOL! There it is, ladies and gentlemen, the "evil Boeing" thing I referred to earlier.

You can't really say the raptor has all the Psub in the world, it has all the thrust in the world. Low AR gives higher induced drag, 25,000 lbs of fuel adds a lot of weight wich REALLY lowers Psub, and high angles of attack add loads of separation drag. now, take out excess fuel for a dogfight, say to about 12,000 lbs, and then the Raptor will be able to Psub the crud out of anything. There is a certain G/speed range where the Raptor is no better than an F-16(which has outstanding Psub by 4th gen standards), but above/below this range it can really donimate.

The Hornet has great low speed pointability and roll control. The Falcon was built to exceed in a faster speed range, which it does, so they both do what they were supposed to. The Hornet shouldnt use EJ-200s, they should use the E/Fs -414s They are the same size (from my data source) but have 22K thrust (instead of 18K). At that point it would out-do the Blk 30-50 Vipers.

The Scotsman was Here!