Flanker vs F-15

Matthew G. Saroff wrote in message . ..
"Ken Duffey" wrote:


The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.

Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
2,200 for the F-18.

It should be noted that the Su-27 is G-limited with a
full fuel load. Some of the internal tanks are not designed for
manoeuver when full.

Right, that's what I figured and why I wondered how long it'd take a
Flanker pilot to dump enough gas to get to ACM weight. Why wouldn't
they go with external tanks instead? Was it that important to have
the wings and body clear for ordnance?

In article ,
Jeb Hoge wrote:

Why wouldn't
they go with external tanks instead?

Less drag this way, so longer range.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
1) What is happening will continue to happen
2) Consider the obvious seriously
3) Consider the consequences - Asimov's "Three Laws of Futurics", F&SF, Oct 74

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"monkey" wrote in message
om...


The stick moves to operate the cable actuated system control
system.

Do you know the airplane at all, monkey sock?

I'm actually talking about CAS - the only FCS configuration you
would
EVER fight the Hornet in - not DEL or MECH modes.

I take it you never flew the airplane.

you know what- I' don't need to justify what I've done to some wannabe
clown- if you've flown it you would know that all the DEL modes
(analog, digital, etc)and MECH are backup modes only for when the CAS
system fails.

Or when CAS is switched out. Which is the way an F-18 can do a cobra
like a
Flanker.

Besides, I'm on this board for entertainment purposes
only - the one I read for real professional discussion, you can't get
on unless you can prove you're a military pilot. I noticed you're not
on it Tarver.

I did however design the HARV simulator at NASA and I am well aware of
how
an F/A-18 works. (first accurate F/A-18 simulator)

OK, now I see where you are coming from - academically. It's taken
awhile for me to see your viewpoint. Operationally, one never uses any
mode except for CAS - there's no need to unless it craps out or you
get battle damage resulting in it. Referring to the checklist, DEL ON,
MECH ON, FCS CAUT, AIL OFF, FC AIR DAT, FCS HOT, FLAPS OFF, FLAP
SCHED, R LIM OFF, RUD OFF are all considered EMERGENCY situations and
are dealt with as such. I guess the test pilot dudes might play around
with that sort of stuff, but never the line guys.

The line guys need to know the emergency procedure of breaking the stick out
in order to be safe. The fact that you are still disputing that seems odd
to me.
NO. In my air force we have been flying the Hornet for over 20 years.
I can't speak for the USN guys, but our jet does not even have a
switch to turn off CAS - except for FCE 1, 2, 3, 4, CBs. When you talk
about the switch on the "left" there is FCS reset or GAIN ORIDE, which
just controls LEF and TEF. I also took a look in more detail at the
PCL and there is NO emergency in which the system would be disable by
the pilot - it automatically reverts. I'm also not sure about the USN
jet but ours is pretty much alpha unlimited in normal operation. If
you're talking about the g limiter/paddle switch I understand- but i
think you are confusing test bed features with production aircraft.
I'll tell you what, we have a Marine exchange O on our sqn, I will
talk to him tomorrow about their EPs.

"monkey" wrote in message
om...

NO. In my air force we have been flying the Hornet for over 20 years.
I can't speak for the USN guys, but our jet does not even have a
switch to turn off CAS - except for FCE 1, 2, 3, 4, CBs.

That does not mean that CAS can never fail and that alone causes your
training to be unsafe for that case. Unless of course you mean that you do
not fly the hornet and never have. Much like a Turkish 757 pilot with
static port problems thinking the pitot static system is based on pitot
tubes and the airspeed can't be doing what it is; right into the drink.

(Jeb Hoge) wrote in message . com...
Matthew G. Saroff wrote in message . ..
"Ken Duffey" wrote:


The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.

Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
2,200 for the F-18.

It should be noted that the Su-27 is G-limited with a
full fuel load. Some of the internal tanks are not designed for
manoeuver when full.

Right, that's what I figured and why I wondered how long it'd take a
Flanker pilot to dump enough gas to get to ACM weight. Why wouldn't
they go with external tanks instead? Was it that important to have
the wings and body clear for ordnance?

i don't think they need to dump down to any acm weight - you can turn
with gas - our f-18s routinely train/fight in a two tank
configuration, but it's the extra drag that kills you flying against a
category 4 bandit with external fuel

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
(Jeb Hoge) wrote in message
. com...
Matthew G. Saroff wrote in message
. ..
"Ken Duffey" wrote:


The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it
s
5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.

Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the
F-15C &
2,200 for the F-18.

It should be noted that the Su-27 is G-limited with a
full fuel load. Some of the internal tanks are not designed for
manoeuver when full.

Right, that's what I figured and why I wondered how long it'd take a
Flanker pilot to dump enough gas to get to ACM weight. Why wouldn't
they go with external tanks instead? Was it that important to have
the wings and body clear for ordnance?

i don't think they need to dump down to any acm weight - you can turn
with gas - our f-18s routinely train/fight in a two tank
configuration, but it's the extra drag that kills you flying against a
category 4 bandit with external fuel

An electric feedback control system could make Russian fighters quite
attractive to some countries. Poor reliability has been the major
limitation of the Russian fighters since 3rd generation production began. I
expect the long legs would save a lot of money that would otherwise be spent
on tankers.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"monkey" wrote in message
om...

NO. In my air force we have been flying the Hornet for over 20 years.
I can't speak for the USN guys, but our jet does not even have a
switch to turn off CAS - except for FCE 1, 2, 3, 4, CBs.

That does not mean that CAS can never fail and that alone causes your
training to be unsafe for that case. Unless of course you mean that you do
not fly the hornet and never have. Much like a Turkish 757 pilot with
static port problems thinking the pitot static system is based on pitot
tubes and the airspeed can't be doing what it is; right into the drink.

you know what dude, I'm tired of you and your pigheaded opinions - I
don't see why you have this need to continually act like an ass and
try to condescend people - I have absolutely NO need to justify myself
to you - I notice that you make a lot of posts, so I guess your "job"
doesn't keep you busy enough. The only reason I can think for your
argumentative nature is this forum helps you out with your "small
rocket' syndrome - see ya, clown.

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"monkey" wrote in message
om...

NO. In my air force we have been flying the Hornet for over 20 years.
I can't speak for the USN guys, but our jet does not even have a
switch to turn off CAS - except for FCE 1, 2, 3, 4, CBs.

That does not mean that CAS can never fail and that alone causes your
training to be unsafe for that case. Unless of course you mean that you
do
not fly the hornet and never have. Much like a Turkish 757 pilot with
static port problems thinking the pitot static system is based on pitot
tubes and the airspeed can't be doing what it is; right into the drink.

you know what dude, I'm tired of you and your pigheaded opinions

I did not offer you an opinion, I explained how the F/A-18 stick works in
different FCS modes. If you thought any of what I wrote was opinion, then
you have a deep seated denial that is beyond the scope of these newsgroups
to solve.

- I
don't see why you have this need to continually act like an ass and
try to condescend people - I have absolutely NO need to justify myself
to you - I notice that you make a lot of posts, so I guess your "job"
doesn't keep you busy enough.

I am living off royalties right now, but I'll be busier later in the year.
Thank you for your concern.

The only reason I can think for your
argumentative nature is this forum helps you out with your "small
rocket' syndrome - see ya, clown.

You came up and corrected me about something you were wrong about, short
stick. At one time I would have just allowed you to think you are right,
like I used to with Weiss, but these days I know that blowing you out of the
sky is the only way to break through your thick ego.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"John Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

I take it you never flew the airplane.

...and I take it you never flew an airplane.

I flew the simulator, which puts me ahead of either of you WRT how the
operator inputs work. Monkey was playing a little game and got caught, but
I have never been one to believe pilots know how airplanes work. That would
be silly.

Of course these days the civil side of the system is beginning to drive out
operator ignorance. It is something that should have been done long ago.

You know what Tarver you are a dick - first of all I'm not playing any
games with you- I am who I say I am - not one of the things I've
posted about the hornet from a pilot perspective has been incorrect
(which by the way I can't say for you) I've yet to see any proof that
you were ever involved with airplanes at all. Oh yeah, by the way,
I've flown all sorts of sims from the old ones to the newest - and i
haven't seen one yet that truly duplicates the experience of flying a
jet, so don't go spewing crap like that - you'll be hard pressed to
find a fighter pilot anywhere who would say that flying a sim is no
substitute for real flying training. You're just going to **** off the
aviators out here because I don't know one who would say he completely
understands the Hornet FCS. But you know what, that's not our job -
ours is to put bombs on target on time, and that keeps us busy enough
without having to learn about stuff we don't need to know to get the
job done. Tarver I don't care what kind of "simulated" stuff you've
done in the sim...I'll be impressed when you strap on a real jet and
take it out on a trip..but by the amount of time you spend on the net
here I'll wager you don't get out of your cubicle enough to experience
the real world. You need to learn that the miltary aviation business
is a team effort...in my line of work not being a team player will get
you booted faster than anything else. You don't see me or any other
drivers spouting insults about support personnel, so perhaps you
should extend the same courtesy to those who operate the equipment you
(supposedly)support. Sorry to everyone else for the rant... I got into
this forum to enjoy discussion about our profession and share some
ideas, not to get involved in stuipd discussions with idiots who have
self esteem problems.

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"John Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

I take it you never flew the airplane.

...and I take it you never flew an airplane.

I flew the simulator, which puts me ahead of either of you WRT how the
operator inputs work. Monkey was playing a little game and got caught,
but
I have never been one to believe pilots know how airplanes work. That
would
be silly.

Of course these days the civil side of the system is beginning to drive
out
operator ignorance. It is something that should have been done long
ago.

You know what Tarver you are a dick - first of all I'm not playing any
games with you- I am who I say I am - not one of the things I've
posted about the hornet from a pilot perspective has been incorrect
(which by the way I can't say for you) I've yet to see any proof that
you were ever involved with airplanes at all.

You mean other than the fact that I know more about the airplane than you
do. You might want to keep in mind that you have only posted as a sock and
therefore you really have no credibility to question anyone about
credentials.

Oh yeah, by the way,
I've flown all sorts of sims from the old ones to the newest - and i
haven't seen one yet that truly duplicates the experience of flying a
jet, so don't go spewing crap like that -

You probably never will find a motion based simulator that is substancially
correct to the airplane model. most sims are only third order, while the
F/A-18A-D are an 18th order system.

you'll be hard pressed to
find a fighter pilot anywhere who would say that flying a sim is no
substitute for real flying training.

The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for real
flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

You're just going to **** off the
aviators out here because I don't know one who would say he completely
understands the Hornet FCS.

I would expect most Hornet operators have read the Dash 1.

But you know what, that's not our job -

Well you know what, as a systems engineer it is my job. All those
instruction on how to operate are written by engineers. If you mean to
claim that correcting safety of flight issues is not my job, well you are
just wrong again.

ours is to put bombs on target on time, and that keeps us busy enough
without having to learn about stuff we don't need to know to get the
job done.

Knowing how to input stick information into the machine is something an
F/A-18 pilot does need to know. These days pilots in the comercial world
are going through a new awareness of how they have exchanged urban legends
that are just not true.

Tarver I don't care what kind of "simulated" stuff you've
done in the sim...I'll be impressed when you strap on a real jet and
take it out on a trip..but by the amount of time you spend on the net
here I'll wager you don't get out of your cubicle enough to experience
the real world.

I have no real interest in flying an airplane, any more than I would want to
be a bus driver. The fact is that a pilot has a pretty poor quality of life
over their career. It is why they deserve the big bucks, while most of the
industry works at a discount to the rest of the world.

You need to learn that the miltary aviation business
is a team effort...in my line of work not being a team player will get
you booted faster than anything else.

I have been at it for 30 years, but do go on.

You don't see me or any other
drivers spouting insults about support personnel,

I see that constantly here at ram.

so perhaps you
should extend the same courtesy to those who operate the equipment you
(supposedly)support.

All letting you think you are correct will do is reduce flight safety, while
causing you to be even more of a prick. There is a consistent patten of
behavior amoung many operators here in the newsgroups and I had to put a
stop to operators acting out; out of respect for some of our less manic
operators.

Sorry to everyone else for the rant... I got into
this forum to enjoy discussion about our profession and share some
ideas, not to get involved in stuipd discussions with idiots who have
self esteem problems.

I don't have a problem at all, but you might want to have a look in the
mirror.