A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cat peeking out of the bag?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 26th 04, 01:41 AM
Tony Volk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 26th 04, 01:53 PM
José Herculano
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #23  
Old November 2nd 04, 08:26 PM
Mary Shafer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 24 Oct 2004 14:33:05 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

Tamas- Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious
place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN is
retiring all Tomcats. BRBR

It wasn't the swept wing that doomed the F-14. In my experience in 2 F-14
squadrons, the wing sweep mechanism was never a maintenance issue.


It's pretty much bulletproof, too, being overbuilt and armored. Wing
sweep problems are really rare. The folks at Pax tested the one wing
stuck aft flyability and landability (I don't remember whether they
tested trappability, though), I think as the result of that actually
happening once. That was fairly recently, like in the last decade, so
it's probably related to system wear.

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.

BUT it had nothing to do with it being a varible geometry A/C...


Exactly.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

  #24  
Old November 3rd 04, 01:49 AM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 3rd 04, 02:35 AM
Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 3rd 04, 03:49 AM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 3rd 04, 04:42 AM
Dave in San diego
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old November 3rd 04, 12:17 PM
Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 3rd 04, 03:11 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.