JarheadEd
-
Posts
10 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JarheadEd
-
-
Making Legacy A's backwards compatible with a software update would be about as hard as flashing your car's engine controller for more power or better mileage. Probably take a little longer because of the paperwork...
So, it takes a bit longer than that, especially back in 87-88. Usually a full software suite was about a 3 hour affair to do both mission computers and the armament computer.
I do remember we were flying Harpoon once we got our first mission computer hardware upgrade in A models. We were all amazed that the cpu was updated to run at 16 MHz, and memory was doubled to the astonishing amount of 512K.
-
Yes, if they were interested in removing the canted pylons in order to fix the drag/performance issues.
I've driven us into the world of semantics. Of course USN is interested in streamlining the pylons, but no one has a big enough bucket of money to flight test it. The original change was made early on in EMD, before flying qualities and weapons separation were done. I am saying that IF the decision was made to straighten them, the engineering/structure/provisioning is in place to do it. During EMD flight test, the first 7 jets, (E1-E5 and F1-F2) were delivered with straight pylons. They were toed out once USN chose the path Boeing was to to take to mitigate the potential for weapon collision during separation. Toe out was the least risk and cost option decided by the customer. The only change in the wing for pylon attachment between the EMD jets and production jets is where the electrical receptacle is located. That will drive some skin removal to relocate the penetration for the receptacle. Structure needs no changes to re locate the connector, just go back to the original fitting bracket. The forward pylon attach point needs no change. The aft attach is an external plate that would need to be changed out for a new one, the aft attachment points on the wing for that plate remain the same.
So, No we won't see pylon straightening, it seems we're in agreement there. But USN source telling you there needs redesign is not that correct. (USN would have to do an engineering design review) I am saying what they need is re work, but no redesign, because nothing in structure was changed to prevent the move back.
Pylon straightening keeps coming back like a bad penny because everyone hopes a new program will pay for it:), but they never do. :(
This also can't be good for frontal RCS.All I have to say on that is, a pylon on the wing is the RCS cost.
-
There is no redesign. Who said there is one? :) in fact they aren't doing that any time soon. I am talking about an upgrade, in case someone was interested in removing those pylons.
Well, You posted that you were told that there would have to be a redesign.
-
Someone from the U.S Navy told me they would have to redesign the Super Hornet wings in order to remove the canted pylons and replace them with standard pylons that are not going to cause the drag problems that the SHs have.
There is no redesign. The engineering is done since it's the same from EMD when we originally toed them out. Could be done during depot rework. But will they ever be made straight?
No.
Why? USN would have to re-validate every store that hangs off the pylons. i.e: flying qualities, loads, jettison testing, cats and traps, fuel burn validation etc. That is crazy big money and time to fix a not so big performance hit. Yes it is a performance hit, and ugly as sin, but not the end of the world.
-
-
Sorry, was working on SuperBug Stuff when I posted
Wait, WHAT? Echo or Fox?
If You're heading into the merge, best thing to do is either fire them off, and hope for a hit, or jettison them and the LAU115C+LAU-127AsUnofficial lore is you'll only see the 10 X AMRAAM load when the Ticonderoga/Arleigh Burke's are out of SAMS and you feel like the group needs defense.
It is an official load out, but you aren't going far or fast with it. It also makes for great photo ops.
-
I never cycled the battery either, and Betty always answered right away when I went to circuit B. But then again, I always stared at the fire warning lights real hard to see if there was failure.
-
I think it's interesting that they blurred out the engine-transmission interface on the nacelles. Now I really want to see them.
History of changes with each F/A-18 variant
in DCS: F/A-18C
Posted
Nope, they were from the 70's, and prone to 1970's reliability issues. They worked great right up until when they didn't.
They were good enough to get the job done, but technology was advancing and the new Mission computers not only had more performance, but were much more reliable and had more growth to them.