On 11/2/04 8:49 PM, in article
. net, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
Tom,

The Super Hornet issn't as much of a ground-up redesign as it is an
improvement on the old model. It's amazing how similar the two jets
are.

Electronics wise, I know this is the case. Airframe-wise, it's bigger in
all dimensions and signiicantly reshaped; there can't be that much parts
commonality. I know all the skin panels are different, thanks to RCS issues,
and the fuselage structure has to be different, since the engines are
larger. Does it have *any* common non-electronic parts aft of the cockpit
(aside from perhaps the hook and various ejector racks and dispensers)?

The shape of the airframe is different, but my understanding is that the
design features that make the aircraft maintainable remain--with some
additional improvements.

I can't tell you what does remain the same though. I've ridden in the E/F,
but never actually spent a lot of time "under the hood."


From a maintenance standpoint the Tomcat would have to make some MAJOR
changes to keep up with the Hornet WRT MMH/FH. e.g. Engine
changes... it's WAY easier to do on a Hornet because it was DESIGNED
to be easier. That'd be tough to design in on a Tomcat.

Well sure. I'm just wondering how much better than the original Tomcat you
could get. I'm betting there was lots of room for improvement.

I get your point.

For example, what makes the Hornet's engine changes easier? I vaguely
recall that the Hornet's engine comes out through the bottom of the
aircraft, while the Tomcat's has to come out the back. I can see the clear
space advantage of being able to do the work in the plane's shadow on the
hangar deck, but I have to wonder if the Tomcat could be made to do the same
thing.

I'm out on a limb a bit here because I'm NOT a maintainer and never have
been. What makes the engine change easier on the Hornet is the ability to
disconnect the motor and all of its accessories very easily--like the AMAD.
The drive (generator, fuel pump, hyd pump) is very easily and simultaneously
disconnected. There are only three bolts that hold each engine in the bay
in the Hornet and very few linkages. After that, it's simply a matter of
lowering the transporter. Once the process gets going (i.e. jet in hangar,
mechs and tools in position), I think I've seen a motor come out in about an
hour.

The jet was intelligently designed. The diagnostic MSP codes it pumps out
(while not 100% accurate) significantly reduce trouble shooting--for
instance leading AT's to the correct LRU the first time--as opposed to the
(admittedly more "romantic") troubleshooting techniques on older Grumman
jets. This is the result of a systems engineering approach to maintenance.
(F-35 is even better OBTW.) A ground-up redesign on the Tomcat might be
able to incorporate some of these features, but you're still saddled with
the constraints of the basic airframe.

--Woody