Anatomy of an F/A 18 Part 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 окт 2024
- Documentary Comment rules under description. Violators= blocked PERMANENTLY
=======================
(Wikipedia)
The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F/A-18 Hornet is an all-weather carrier-capable multirole fighter jet, designed to attack both ground and aerial targets. The F/A-18 was derived from the YF-17 in the 1970s for use by the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The Hornet is also used by the air forces of several other nations. It has been the aerial demonstration aircraft for the U.S. Navy's Flight Demonstration Squadron, the Blue Angels, since 1986.
The fighter's primary missions are fighter escort, fleet air defense, suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD), interdiction, close air support and reconnaissance. Its versatility and reliability have proven it to be a valuable carrier asset, though it has been criticized for its lack of range and payload compared to its earlier contemporaries, such as the F-14 Tomcat in the fighter and strike fighter role, and the A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II in the attack role.[3]
F/A-18 Hornet provided the baseline design for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, a larger, evolutionary redesign of the F/A-18. Compared to the Hornet, the Super Hornet is larger, and heavier and has improved range and payload capability. The F/A-18E/F was originally proposed as an alternative to a completely new aircraft to replace existing dedicated attack aircraft such as the A-6. The larger variant was also directed to replace the aging F-14 Tomcat, thus serving a complementary role with Hornets in the U.S. Navy, and serving a wider range of roles including refueling tanker, and electronic jamming platform.
Copyright Military Channel 2005
=======================
Refrain from
Inane comments that do not pertain to the video subject matter
Racial slurs/remarks
Habitual trolling directed at another user.
Excessive bashing of a group, entity, person or peoples in any armed forces.
Spam/Chain messages.
I can assure you if you decide to ignore these basic commenting rules you will be banned from future commenting. No exceptions or reversals will be given.
Keep it clean.
You're 100 % right slickstrings. 7.5 g is a lot. However i think that engineers should have made a 9 g capable structure for the aircraft and limit the load to 6 or 7 g when its carrying external tanks and bombs using digital fly-by-wire programming. Concerning the pilots, I thought navy pilots where trained to endure the same kind of load factor than other military pilots, but i still think they're making a really good job [I wouldn't even be able to endure 5 sustained g's ]
Great video!
There is no need to be rude! What i meant is that I am very disapointed by the Hornet since its maximum load factor is only 7.5 G. Actually physics show that aircraft performance in a dogfight increase when the maximum load factor increase [ Turn radius decreases and turn rate increases]. So i really think Hornets pilots should get the same kind of training other pilots have in order to withstand 10 gs [pilots of F-22, Rafale, Eurofighter and Mirage 2000]....
i think what your trying to say is that now technology is so advanced it is allowing the planes to take more force than the pilots themselves so that the pilots will black or red out quicker than the planes will become unstable.
The Hornet is the doing its best of its capability Kirk, it's both an Attacker and Fighter. The ones you named were Fighters.
Old comment but not quite right, the aircraft is limited to 7.5 because the navy wants the airframe to have a longer lifespan as navy aircraft take much higher stresses on carriers than land based fighters, they are already over built due to this requirement. Swiss F18s are limited at 9G's and it possesses no structual differences from other Hornets, simply a software change.
....These kind of loads are not rare in combat manoevers, aerobatics [ at subsonic speeds] If you don't believe it you can search on youtube for HUD videos recorded during airshows. The load factor is always indicated.
it certainly would be nice to have 9 g's. but as someone who works in engineering i can say its not always possible or practical. To increase strenth weight is usually increased. To negate the weight gain, design and materials cost is increased. A lot. And then there is the fact that 9 g's isnt just a pull and do manouver. The right operating conditions need to be met as well. speed, angle of attack and so on. So there becomes the overdesigning problem and overcost. 7.5 has met the requirement.
i think usually they dont go over 5 Gs in combat, u nly reach 7 Gs going supersonic and making a very hard turn ... thats no usual in moder air combat. maybe if u are trying to evade a missile...
Wow the show forgot about the Leading edge slats???
Thanks for sharing! But 7.5 g's is not that much! pilots should be able to sustain 10 g's with modern fighters like the F-22, Rafale, Eurofighter etc.( even 11 g for the Mirage 2000)
the tomcat is only a decade older than the hornet
kirk, its not the pilots. its been proven that the human body can only take 9 consistantly. The reason the hornet is limited to 7.5 is strucural. Its a LIGHT airframe but carries a substantial load. EVERYTHING its carrying its multiplied 7.5. Design a light airframe that can do that and still call it dissapointing. 7.5 is a lot.
Haha VMFA-242 representing 6:50!!
You know what i say... Thank god for you flyboys putting yourselves thru that bullshit hell.. I couldn't nor wouldn't want to.... I got your back while your out their fighting off the aliens..
Well in case of f18 you are right.. but in case of f22 the pilot is the fault of not sustaining 9g's for large amount of time! thats why they are building this unmanned f22 type stealth fighter so that i can do more than 9 g's.. but still pc never wont replace human!
I remember curving the world pulling over 600 g's no suit
thats fair enough.
7.5 gs? Bullshit that! The f 15 can do 12 gs
Yoga is t best fr this Pilots... Please practice it... dont think Indian Yoga is not useful... it is the best... !