|
skicountry wrote:
Nice picture. And to think, they regularly land on carriers that way. Twin rudders probably help as does the Hornet's overall draggier airframe.
Having sat through many briefings on both the F-18 and F-16, I can say that without a doubt, the Boeing boys are always bragging about their asymmetric load capability and the F-16’s lack thereof. Apparently, the old F-16 ADFs didn’t fly too well after firing off just one of their two Sparrows. I don’t recall anymore what the exact limitations were. I’m sure John Will or a pilot could probably enlighten us. Either way, the F-16 has done just fine as a fighter.
Lots of flight testing was done with various levels of asymmetry to check the effects and develop any required limitations. As I recall, there are a few low speed limits for heavier asymmetric loadings, nothing very restrictive. Maybe some of our pilots can check the -1 section 5 Stores Limitations to verify.
With those big fins, guess I'm not surprised asymmetric AIM-7s had some effects. AIM-9 and AIM-120 have smaller fins and are lighter, so don't seem to cause much trouble.
Air to ground is different, with heavier loads, but lower Cat III roll performance. Cat III was developed in part to reduce roll performance of air to ground loadings, primarily with asymmetric loadings.
Here is a free war story - in the YF-16 test program, we wanted to drop a Mk-84 2000 lb. bomb from the midspan wing station, but wanted to check handling qualities with an asymmetric load first. So a flight was made with a single Mk-84. All went well, normal flight in every way, including landing (of concern due to low airspeeds and the possibility of not enough yaw/roll trim). On the taxi back to the ramp, the pilot discovered it was a really bad idea to turn away from the heavy store at the high taxi speeds of the YF. The inside main gear came off the ground, but fortunately the pilot got back down without any damage. |
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
