If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know if this is part of your question (it seems to be), but I've
asked about the accuracy of Tom's book[s] about Iranian F-4s and F-14s without getting too much of a straight answer. Heck, not so much as a "wink/nod" to confirm it when talking to Phantom/Tomcat aircrew (current and former). I'd love to know how accurate it is, and while Tom certainly seems credible enough, it'd be nice to get confirmation from another insider source. Certainly, if his claims are true, it'd be hard to see how Tomcat crews could resist bragging about those kills (especially compared to the Eagles ~100 kills). That would also suggest that Iran has a cadre of very skilled and/or experienced pilots in their AF, which would make any action against Iran very interesting to say the least! But that's drifting a little far off topic, so I'll cut it here and reiterate my request to hear more from those in the know. Cheers, Tony |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
little far off topic, so I'll cut it here and reiterate my request to hear
more from those in the know. Cheers, That's the whole idea ;-) _____________ José Herculano |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Shafer wrote:
On 24 Oct 2004 14:33:05 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote: It is an old design, never modified to it's full capabilities with available technology. Analog, push rod type flight controls, tube type avionics, ****poor engines in the majority of the A/C(TF-30). What really did it in was LRUs, Line-Replaceable Units. These greatly reduce the amount of plane-side maintenance by moving it to depots. Instead of repairing or replacing components, the entire defective unit is pulled out and a new working unit is plugged in. This is quick and easy. The LRUs were the result of the military emphasizing ease of maintenance. With LRUs they increased up time, reduced maintenance time, and reduced crew size. We saw a huge improvement in all three at Dryden when we switched from F-104s to F-18s. The USN saw something similar going from A-7s to F/A-18s, according to a couple of captains I talked to back in 1990. Which does raise the question ogf what might have happened to Tomcat availability, etc, if it had been redeisgned from the ground up in the early 1990s like the Super Hornet. (Actually, unlike the Hornet, the base structural design could probably have been retained, even if a wing and inlet redesign was desirable.) I'm sure it would still have been more maintenance-intensive than the SH (bigger engines, second seat, etc.). But it seems to me that switching the electronics over to LRUs, going to modern flight controls, and installing new-technology engines would have done wonders for servicability rates and maintenance costs. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On 11/2/04 6:49 PM, in article
, "Thomas Schoene" wrote: Which does raise the question ogf what might have happened to Tomcat availability, etc, if it had been redeisgned from the ground up in the early 1990s like the Super Hornet. (Actually, unlike the Hornet, the base structural design could probably have been retained, even if a wing and inlet redesign was desirable.) I'm sure it would still have been more maintenance-intensive than the SH (bigger engines, second seat, etc.). But it seems to me that switching the electronics over to LRUs, going to modern flight controls, and installing new-technology engines would have done wonders for servicability rates and maintenance costs. 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. 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. --Woody |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
On 11/2/04 6:49 PM, in article , "Thomas Schoene" wrote: Which does raise the question ogf what might have happened to Tomcat availability, etc, if it had been redeisgned from the ground up in the early 1990s like the Super Hornet. (Actually, unlike the Hornet, the base structural design could probably have been retained, even if a wing and inlet redesign was desirable.) I'm sure it would still have been more maintenance-intensive than the SH (bigger engines, second seat, etc.). But it seems to me that switching the electronics over to LRUs, going to modern flight controls, and installing new-technology engines would have done wonders for servicability rates and maintenance costs. 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)? 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. 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. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in
link.net: snippage 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. There are two factors involved in the difference in engine changes. The first is the amount of support equipment involved - less for the F-18. The second is the amount of airframe disassembly involved - again less for the F-18. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas- Which does raise the question ogf what might have happened to Tomcat
availability, etc, if it had been redeisgned from the ground up in the early 1990s like the Super Hornet. BRBR To late. If it was going to become the 'Super Tomcat or Tomcat 21, it needed to happen in the 80s, when $ was everywhere. The F-14A languished, no new models came out in spite of plans to have a re-engined F-14B after just a few F-14As. It could have been a contender but as soon as the $ went to the F-18, the F-14"E", ala the Strike Eagle, was doomed. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|