dbc
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Messages
- 6,551
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
Actually it is said, but I expected exactly this! I really liked your posts in the past, because they were often were very informative, but the recent discussions that we had showed me, that you are biased towards US arms and techs!
The part that you quoted and that I expected, is talking about the F18 Hornet, not the Super Hornet that is offered in MMRCA!
The Hornet has a T/W above 1 unlike the Super Hornet, as well as a lower wing load and as I showed you in my last post, that improves climb and turn rates, so manoeuverability.
So even the older F18 Hornet versions are more manoeuverable than the actual Super Hornet, let alone new fighter designs like the EF, or Rafale for example.
All you proved is, that you again claim wrong things and keep on with them, while completely ignoring the points I made in my posts, so a furhter discussion really makes no sence.
The fact remains, the F18 Super Hornet has one of the lowest T/W ratios and one of the highest wing loads in the competition!
It's extremely amusing you think the Hornet's capabilities diminished and the Super Hornet is less maneuverable than the original Hornet.
I guess we really screwed up by calling it "Super Hornet"
The F18SH is good in BVR and strikes, in WVR combats it depends on its techs and weapons, but can't point with flight performance.
Go on sir I have no wish to cure you of your ignorance.
For the rest, here is an article published by Flight International. This should debunk the poor maneuverability nonsense some members have been peddling.
Extraordinary at high AOA
At M0.84, we climbed at an average rate of 12,500ft/min, and quickly reached an altitude of 25,000ft over Death Valley. Once level, I pulled the throttles to idle to set up for slow flight. At 260kt indicated, I selected "speedbrake" to aid deceleration. Unlike most aircraft, the Super Hornet does not have a dedicated speedbrake. The speedbrake function is performed by deflection of various control surfaces, including spoilers and ailerons.
Although the system does not actively seek a constant deceleration rate, selected control surfaces are deflected more as airspeed decreases and hinge moment loads decrease. I found speedbrake operation to be totally transparent, at no time causing more than a slight variation in pitch attitude.
Speedbrake deselected, we slowed down in level flight. Light airframe buffet was present at 17° AoA (130kt), but was gone as AoA increased past 25°. At 30° AoA, I selected military power and captured 35° AoA. I was able to control AoA to within 1° as we descended wings level at 6,000ft/min and 105kt indicated. I put in partial right rudder, and the aircraft smoothly entered a 30° banked turn. After a 60 ° heading change, I released the rudder and reversed the turn direction using left lateral stick - I hesitate to say "aileron", because the E/F's flight control system (FCS) can use a number of different surfaces to perform the "aileron" function. I found control responsiveness in all three axes (pitch, roll and yaw) to be excellent, with no wing rock or yaw wandering tendencies.
With wings level, in an effort to demonstrate the E/F's resistance to departure from controlled flight, I simultaneously put in full right lateral stick and full left rudder. This abrupt cross-control input had no discernible effect, the aircraft remained rock steady at 35° AoA.
Next, I reduced the AoA to 30°, with the aircraft in a 25° nose-high pitch attitude. I rapidly pulled the stick to the full aft stop and held it there. The aircraft pitched to 45° nose up, an increase of 20° from the stabilised value, as the AoA peaked at 59°. This large pitch reserve, available at such a low airspeed, will be useful should the Super Hornet pilot find himself in a close-range visual fight.
The aircraft stabilised wings level at 48° AoA and 70kt indicated, in a full aft stick stall. Aircraft heading tended to oscillate ±3° from the steady heading at about 2Hz. Seeking to prevent a departure in the yaw axis, the FCS actively uses yaw rate feedback to keep the aircraft pointing forward. One benefit of this control scheme has been the elimination of the "falling leaf" departure mode present in the basic Hornet.
A full left rudder input rolled the aircraft into a 45° banked turn, with AoA stabilised at 45°. A stabilised yaw rate of 6.25°/s was attained, and I was able to control aircraft heading accurately. After levelling the wings, I moved the stick to the full forward stop to recover from the stall. The aircraft pitched over to 40° nose low at an impressive rate of 17°/s.
Next, we performed a full forward stick inverted stall. As was the case with the aft stick stall, the aircraft was extremely stable, attaining a steady state AoA of -32° at -1g.
The final high AoA manoeuvre we performed was a vertical recovery. A military power 4g pull to a vertical attitude started the event. Heading straight up at 100kt indicated, I selected maximum power. At this extreme condition, the digitally controlled engines, which have no pilot-observed limits, responded by smoothly lighting both afterburners. I started the recovery by pulling aft stick to bring the nose toward the horizon. The nose tracked smoothly downward, and I released the stick when the aircraft was in an inverted, 20° nose-low attitude. Without any pilot inputs, the aircraft slowly rolled upright and stabilised in a wings level 30° dive. It was as if the Super Hornet knew how to complete a recovery from an extremely low-speed vertical attitude.
Pirouette manoeuvre
Finally, we performed a pirouette manoeuvre. This is essentially the Hornet equivalent of a hammerhead turn - a slow-speed, nose-high to nose-low, yaw rate turn in the near-vertical plane. When first developed, the E/F was unable to perform this stock Hornet manoeuvre, but modifications to the yaw rate feedback schedule put this back into the repertoire.
In military power, I started the manoeuvre at 210kt and 13,000ft altitude by pulling the nose up. At 150kt in a 65° nose high attitude, using slight aft stick pressure to keep the AoA above 25°, I put in full left rudder and left lateral stick. To my amazement, the aircraft yawed smoothly 180° to the left, ending up in a nose-low attitude on a reciprocal heading. Recovery to level flight and 200kt completed the manoeuvre. The entire operation took less than 25s, yielding a turn rate of about 8°/s.
Area work complete, we turned to the west for our recovery to Lemoore. Flight control laws limit maximum roll rate to 225°/s in an air-to-air configuration, and 150°/s with wing-mounted fuel tanks or air-to-ground munitions. At 15,000ft, I performed full lateral stick rolls at 240kt and 360kt indicated. At both speeds, a 360° roll was complete in less than 2s.
During our cruise home, I was able to reflect on the Super Hornet's manoeuvrability. The second leading cause of Hornet losses in the US Navy has been departure from controlled flight. At all conditions, the flight control system had allowed me to manoeuvre the aircraft predictably without regard to airspeed or AoA. The Super Hornet's demonstrated departure resistance is exactly what "carefree" manoeuvrability is all about.
Extreme manoeuvres-11/07/2000-Flight International
Last edited: