F14 vs F18F

"fudog50" wrote in message
...
LOL! What the hell do you care Tarver, ("I want an airborn
(sp) platform that can be available".) You can "want" all day long
sitting at your desk pretending to be "competent" in Naval Aviation
matters, c'mon out and play with us real warfighters, if you got any
nads.

A major portion of the Navy's Super bug is based on my work and I am proud
of it. My HARV simulator at Dryden was the first accurate F/A-18 simulator,
replicated at PAX River, and is the machine that allowed the Navy to perfect
the aircraft's model. The RPL model, created by Federal Electric
Corporation, is the basis of COTS and AS9100; something I made up and got
aproved by Rome Labs. (see Mil HBK 217F)

The war games I played were based on Global thermonuclear war, during which
all US CBGs would be burning junk. I can assure you that you don't want to
play.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

A major portion of the Navy's Super bug is based on my work and I am proud
of it. My HARV simulator at Dryden was the first accurate F/A-18 simulator,
replicated at PAX River, and is the machine that allowed the Navy to perfect
the aircraft's model. The RPL model, created by Federal Electric
Corporation, is the basis of COTS and AS9100; something I made up and got
aproved by Rome Labs. (see Mil HBK 217F)

Some interesting claims...

What are the criteria you use as the basis for your claims of "based on my work"
and "My HARV simulator" and "I made up and got approved"?

The Hornet can't be all that bad a fighter though. At least judging
from the fact that a number of airforces - not Navies(!) - have chosen
it as their primary (air-to-air) fighter. It's the F-18 A/B and C/D
though, not the heavier 'Super' E/F, which makes a big difference.

Canada, Finland, Spain and Switzerland spring into mind. Eg in the
case of Finland, F-18C/D beat in competition in the early '90s
JAS Gripen, Mirage 2000-5, (the then current) F-16 and MiG-29.
The competition was all about air-to-air, as air-to-ground capability
wasn't even considered (not a requirement). The Hornet got the highest
absolute score, and also the highest score per dollar (life span
cost). Sure, there were other issues too, like availability (Gripen)
and politics (eg whether AMRAAM would be part of the package), but
still it seems obvious that the Hornet was the overall favourite of
the FAF.

F-14 would have been in different league (weight, price etc), had
there been a modern version to consider. Much like eg F-15 or Su-27
weren't considered.

You have to keep in mind, that the F-18C/D offered to Finland and
Switzerland at the start of the 90's had a new radar (APG-73) and more
powerfull engines (F404-402 EPE) then the then current version of F/A-18C/D.
And they were offered with then modern weapons AIM-9 M / AIM-120 B and self
protection systems ALR-67 / ALE-47 / AN/ALQ-165. I don't know what they
offered with the other planes, but I doubt it was as current.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

(see Mil HBK 217F)

Which pages?

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:gUwTb.163870$5V2.843269@attbi_s53...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

A major portion of the Navy's Super bug is based on my work and I am
proud
of it. My HARV simulator at Dryden was the first accurate F/A-18
simulator,
replicated at PAX River, and is the machine that allowed the Navy to
perfect
the aircraft's model. The RPL model, created by Federal Electric
Corporation, is the basis of COTS and AS9100; something I made up and
got
aproved by Rome Labs. (see Mil HBK 217F)

Some interesting claims...

The tab on my RPL work dwarfs NASA's entire budget.

What are the criteria you use as the basis for your claims of "based on my
work"
and "My HARV simulator" and "I made up and got approved"?

I designed and built the HARV simulator at Dryden. I had the instrument
panel, conectors, with wire stubs suitable for butt splicing, and
instruments removed from Hornet #1 for HARV. Soon after the HARV simulator
started producing data, Dryden and NASA Lewis were called before Congress to
explain their results. PAX River received equipments from Hornet #3 from
Dryden, to replicate HARV there. That work brought Dryden from a flight
test facility back a flight test center.

Later, Shafer and her buddies attempted to discredit me in the real world,
which led directly to her retirement and Ken Peterson being told to, "create
a basis for your own funding. Peterson did nothing for a year and lost 1/3
of Dryden's total budget.

At RPL, I wanted to procure parts to maintain ground equipments for the
purpose of facilitating rocket motor tests; as opposed to using parts from
NSN bins. I made up a means of satisfying the criterion for NSN parts, with
commercial electronics. Later, RL (Rome Labs) the owner of RPL inspected
my shop. The inspector told me, at 25, I was "clearly incompetent to be
doing what I had done". Once he stamped off, there was the thunder of
engineers tabbing to my work. The RPL Model allowed engineers to buy modern
parts, as the Mil-spec component system collapsed. I made up the basis of
what Steidle is doing at NASA and what he did for the F/A-18E/F/G.

AS9100 is a large shop adaptation of my USAF "many small shops RPL model".
Federal Electric Corporation now has as their sole business "reliability",
tabbed from my work at RPL.

Whom did you think you were posting to, Weiss?

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:S5xTb.161933$Rc4.1266022@attbi_s54...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

(see Mil HBK 217F)

Which pages?

The data contained in the Rome Labs (RAC) companion book is a direct result
of my work.

The analogy between a carbon resistor and a mil-spec resistor, in Mil-Hbk
217F, is a direct quote of me.

The idea of "designing for reliability" is a conclusion drawn from the Rome
reliability data sample.

In article , "rstro"
wrote:

Good point--but as you mentioned--all AirForces with Point Defense" in
mind---these contrysd are not into power projection and "reaching out and
touching someone"---look at the sit in Afganistan---the Hornet cannot reach
target without refueling multiple times and carries have the bomb
load---seems to me if we can keep a 50 years platform(The Buff) affordable
and mantainable--we could do it on the Cat----

Major, major differences in flight profile and therefore airframe stress.

Like comparing a long-haul 18 wheeler with a short track race car.
The race car takes a tremendous beating everytime it goes out.
The 18 wheeler is in a much more benign environment.

(Although I do have a through-the-cockpit photo of a Buff in low
level training in Tenessee(?). I don't think they even train for that
mission anymore.)

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Don't forget that many countries value economic spin off as a high
priority, not just bang (in the military sense) for the buck.

Brendan


"tadaa" wrote in message ...
The Hornet can't be all that bad a fighter though. At least judging
from the fact that a number of airforces - not Navies(!) - have chosen
it as their primary (air-to-air) fighter. It's the F-18 A/B and C/D
though, not the heavier 'Super' E/F, which makes a big difference.

Canada, Finland, Spain and

From: "Tarver Engineering"


"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:S5xTb.161933$Rc4.1266022@attbi_s54...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

(see Mil HBK 217F)

Which pages?

The data contained in the Rome Labs (RAC) companion book is a direct result
of my work.

The analogy between a carbon resistor and a mil-spec resistor, in Mil-Hbk
217F, is a direct quote of me.

The idea of "designing for reliability" is a conclusion drawn from the Rome
reliability data sample.

Wow, you must be around 200 years old. I have seen the term "designing for
reliability" in documents going back to the 1840s. I bet there are examples
going bacl thousands of years.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Tarver Engineering"


"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:S5xTb.161933$Rc4.1266022@attbi_s54...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

(see Mil HBK 217F)

Which pages?

The data contained in the Rome Labs (RAC) companion book is a direct
result
of my work.

The analogy between a carbon resistor and a mil-spec resistor, in Mil-Hbk
217F, is a direct quote of me.

The idea of "designing for reliability" is a conclusion drawn from the
Rome
reliability data sample.

Wow, you must be around 200 years old. I have seen the term "designing for
reliability" in documents going back to the 1840s. I bet there are
examples
going bacl thousands of years.

Perhaps your bong is malfunctioning again, Dan.