I hadn't realized that the F/A-18F is currently replacing the the F-14 in fleet
service. Why does the two seater need to replace the F-14? Cannot the single
seat F/A-18E do the same role?

Since the F/A-18F is replacing the F-14, we will be seeing the Hornet at local
airshows instead of the Tomcat for the Navy flight demonstrations. Having seen
the Hornet just this past weekend, the aircraft was flown in the demo with both
seats occupied. I couldn't help but comment about how strong a stomach the
back seater must have. The F/A-18F has a much more robust flight display than
the F-14; the aircraft seemed more agile in the slow speed regime than the
Tomcat. Two maneuvers stood out: the high alpha pitch up, where it suddenly
stopped with the shredding air being easily heard during the pitch up.
Secondly, during a high alpha - slow speed climb out, the Hornet seemed to do a
rudder roll, which almost looked like a light aircraft snap roll. Some recent
publications described the F/A-18E & Fs as being almost departure proof. This
lends itself to some interesting flight display maneuvering.

(More 2 cents, but no politics)
VL

In article >,
(MLenoch) wrote:

>I hadn't realized that the F/A-18F is currently replacing the the F-14 in fleet
>service. Why does the two seater need to replace the F-14? Cannot the single
>seat F/A-18E do the same role?
>
>Since the F/A-18F is replacing the F-14, we will be seeing the Hornet at local
>airshows instead of the Tomcat for the Navy flight demonstrations. Having seen
>the Hornet just this past weekend, the aircraft was flown in the demo with both
>seats occupied. I couldn't help but comment about how strong a stomach the
>back seater must have. The F/A-18F has a much more robust flight display than
>the F-14; the aircraft seemed more agile in the slow speed regime than the
>Tomcat. Two maneuvers stood out: the high alpha pitch up, where it suddenly
>stopped with the shredding air being easily heard during the pitch up.
>Secondly, during a high alpha - slow speed climb out, the Hornet seemed to do a
>rudder roll, which almost looked like a light aircraft snap roll. Some recent
>publications described the F/A-18E & Fs as being almost departure proof. This
>lends itself to some interesting flight display maneuvering.
>
>(More 2 cents, but no politics)
>VL

With the arrival of the Super Hornet the Max Gross of the F/A-18 is now
close to that of the F-14A. I don't have my sources here with me but
the F-14 still has a higher T/W ratio than the Super Bug. It was
designed to excel in that regeim and not the slower demo situation.
High alpha pitch up is not a wise manuver in ACM.

--
Dana Miller

Vlado -

Realize that the Navy has some kind requirement for FAC(A) aircraft to be
2-seaters. With the Tomcat leaving, I'm guessing they must have the F model
to be able to continue to fulfill this role. I worked with a number of F-14
FACs and F-18F FACs over in Iraq last year, and they were some of the best
I've seen ever (Marines and A-10s included).

Also, realize that the 2 seats in the Tomcat were needed because of the lack
of automation with the AWG-9 radar -- for the intercept role, you needed
that RIO back there to work the gadget. The 2 seats in the F-18F are there
for a different reason -- it is a striker, and like the F-15E the Super Bug
is able to employ a wider range of air-to-ground ordnance more precisely
with that 'FO back there guiding it in.

I don't agree with the other poster's assertion that "High alpha pitch up is
not a wise manuver in ACM." I'm not sure what kind of "Air Combat
Maneuvering" that poster has ever done, but in the stuff I've done the
ability to point your nose and/or completely stop your forward movement over
the ground is *very* valuable. In a single circle BFM fight, that is
*exactly* the type of aircraft performance I'd like. Same thing goes for if
I'm in a defensive engagement...the ability to slow down quick and remain
flying is pretty convenient when you want to set up a flight path overshoot
and the hopeful follow-on reversal. People downplayed the ol' Flanker's
"Cobra Maneuver" a decade ago not because it didn't have tactical
application, but because it wasn't executable in a "real" flanker without
the radar removed, etc. You can talk until you're blue in the face about
"his wingman will pop you when you get too slow" -- and there is absolutely
something to be said about that -- but to say that there is no tactical
application, or that it's not wise, is not correct.

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> I hadn't realized that the F/A-18F is currently replacing the the F-14 in
fleet
> service. Why does the two seater need to replace the F-14? Cannot the
single
> seat F/A-18E do the same role?
>
> Since the F/A-18F is replacing the F-14, we will be seeing the Hornet at
local
> airshows instead of the Tomcat for the Navy flight demonstrations. Having
seen
> the Hornet just this past weekend, the aircraft was flown in the demo with
both
> seats occupied. I couldn't help but comment about how strong a stomach
the
> back seater must have. The F/A-18F has a much more robust flight display
than
> the F-14; the aircraft seemed more agile in the slow speed regime than the
> Tomcat. Two maneuvers stood out: the high alpha pitch up, where it
suddenly
> stopped with the shredding air being easily heard during the pitch up.
> Secondly, during a high alpha - slow speed climb out, the Hornet seemed to
do a
> rudder roll, which almost looked like a light aircraft snap roll. Some
recent
> publications described the F/A-18E & Fs as being almost departure proof.
This
> lends itself to some interesting flight display maneuvering.
>
> (More 2 cents, but no politics)
> VL

The F-18 and particularly the F-18E/F has significantly better high alpha
capability than the F-14. In a 1v1 environment, that can be decisive, even
against an adversary with superior overall energy maneuverability. Or not.
A somewhat less maneuverable machine (F-14 etc) with superior excess power
can drive the fight into the vertical and eventually gain a positional
advantage over the F-18. It takes considerably more skill and patience than
to merely point and pull, but it can be (and often is) done.

The major disadvantage of entering the high alpha regime is that you are
volunteering to be a target. When you throw out the anchor to perform a
high alpha fight, you might just as well paint a bullseye on the aircraft
.... the bogeys start appearing like flies around a fresh cow pie.

And of course there's the problem of egress. Time consuming when you're
accelerating from next-to-no knots and particularly frustrating when many of
the bogeys can accelerate more quickly and reach considerably more knots
than your Bug.

As to airshows, I've heard the E/F high alpha moves and square loop are
simply dazzling. OTOH, the double dirty Immelman the F-14 performs is a
rather stunning display of raw power.

R / John

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 05:53:16 -0400, "R Haskin"
> wrote:

>Vlado -
>
>Realize that the Navy has some kind requirement for FAC(A) aircraft to be
>2-seaters. With the Tomcat leaving, I'm guessing they must have the F model
>to be able to continue to fulfill this role. I worked with a number of F-14
>FACs and F-18F FACs over in Iraq last year, and they were some of the best
>I've seen ever (Marines and A-10s included).
>
>Also, realize that the 2 seats in the Tomcat were needed because of the lack
>of automation with the AWG-9 radar -- for the intercept role, you needed
>that RIO back there to work the gadget. The 2 seats in the F-18F are there
>for a different reason -- it is a striker, and like the F-15E the Super Bug
>is able to employ a wider range of air-to-ground ordnance more precisely
>with that 'FO back there guiding it in.
>
>I don't agree with the other poster's assertion that "High alpha pitch up is
>not a wise manuver in ACM." I'm not sure what kind of "Air Combat
>Maneuvering" that poster has ever done, but in the stuff I've done the
>ability to point your nose and/or completely stop your forward movement over
>the ground is *very* valuable. In a single circle BFM fight, that is
>*exactly* the type of aircraft performance I'd like. Same thing goes for if
>I'm in a defensive engagement...the ability to slow down quick and remain
>flying is pretty convenient when you want to set up a flight path overshoot
>and the hopeful follow-on reversal. People downplayed the ol' Flanker's
>"Cobra Maneuver" a decade ago not because it didn't have tactical
>application, but because it wasn't executable in a "real" flanker without
>the radar removed, etc. You can talk until you're blue in the face about
>"his wingman will pop you when you get too slow" -- and there is absolutely
>something to be said about that -- but to say that there is no tactical
>application, or that it's not wise, is not correct.

Well, I'm one of those old fossils that downplay the Cobra bigtime.
For a couple of reasons--first, it isn't BFM. It's combat. That means
you're in an environment in which you agree to not always win, but you
also accept that you can NEVER lose. Second, one should never be in
the arena without a wingman. I know that it happens. I've been there.
But, when it happens, your first priority is to separate, rejoin and
re-engage or separate, hand-salute your fallen comrade and go home.
You don't fight one-v-X. Third, his wingman will pop you when you get
too slow.

Now, all that being said, I'll also concede (reluctantly) that there
is such a thing as a "last ditch" maneuver. That's when you're rapidly
running out of airspeed, altitude, gas and ideas. When nothing else is
available and you're being asked to open wide to bite the big one,
then you dust off the last ditch maneuver. It doesn't necessarily win
the fight, but it lets you live another thirty seconds to consider
your next move. One doesn't resort early to the last ditch maneuver.
It might be a once-in-a-lifetime thing.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

>hobo

wrote:>This is when you start blaming Bush/America.

I didn't need your assinine comment for my technical question.
VL

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:12:58 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>The F-18 and particularly the F-18E/F has significantly better high alpha
>capability than the F-14.


I'd read that in flight testing the Tomcat they flew at 60 and even 90
degrees AOA and that the AOA limitations were mainly due to the crappy
TF30. Are the B&D any better or is it indeed an airframe limitation?

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:12:58 -0500, "John Carrier" >
> wrote:
>
> >The F-18 and particularly the F-18E/F has significantly better high alpha
> >capability than the F-14.
>
>
> I'd read that in flight testing the Tomcat they flew at 60 and even 90
> degrees AOA and that the AOA limitations were mainly due to the crappy
> TF30. Are the B&D any better or is it indeed an airframe limitation?

The F-14 has great pitch rate (more or less equal to the F-18). But it will
take that big bite and then stop flying, it can't sustain the very high
alpha. There's video somewhere of the test program in which they take the
aircraft to somewhere near 90 degrees alpha, but it's momentary and they
really couldn't do much with it after the pitch pulse except recover.

You could enter a split S in the F-14 at 300 knots in full a/b and slap the
stick into your lap. The airplane would give you about 90 degrees of pitch
almost instantly, the airspeed would decelerate to about 120 knots just as
quickly. Then you had to unstall the tails to pull through the rest of the
maneuver ... it wasn't at anywhere near 90 degrees alpha (maybe 25 or so?
AOA gauges are calibrated in units which rarely reflect true alpha in
degrees).

While the TF-30 engines were pretty poor, it was not a function of honoring
their limitations. Purely a matter of aerodynamics.

R / John

On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 06:23:46 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:12:58 -0500, "John Carrier" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The F-18 and particularly the F-18E/F has significantly better high alpha
>> >capability than the F-14.
>>
>>
>> I'd read that in flight testing the Tomcat they flew at 60 and even 90
>> degrees AOA and that the AOA limitations were mainly due to the crappy
>> TF30. Are the B&D any better or is it indeed an airframe limitation?
>
>The F-14 has great pitch rate (more or less equal to the F-18). But it will
>take that big bite and then stop flying, it can't sustain the very high
>alpha. There's video somewhere of the test program in which they take the
>aircraft to somewhere near 90 degrees alpha, but it's momentary and they
>really couldn't do much with it after the pitch pulse except recover.
>
>You could enter a split S in the F-14 at 300 knots in full a/b and slap the
>stick into your lap. The airplane would give you about 90 degrees of pitch
>almost instantly, the airspeed would decelerate to about 120 knots just as
>quickly. Then you had to unstall the tails to pull through the rest of the
>maneuver ... it wasn't at anywhere near 90 degrees alpha (maybe 25 or so?
>AOA gauges are calibrated in units which rarely reflect true alpha in
>degrees).
>
>While the TF-30 engines were pretty poor, it was not a function of honoring
>their limitations. Purely a matter of aerodynamics.
>
>R / John
>


Thanks.

hobo wrote:
> In article >,
> (MLenoch) wrote:
>
>
>>>hobo
>>
>>wrote:>This is when you start blaming Bush/America.
>>
>>I didn't need your assinine comment for my technical question.
>>VL
>
>
>
> Bush made me do it.
<plonk>