F-16.net

This is more of an exercise in raw numbers and aerodynamic capability rather than technological advance.

Which aircraft has the better qualities in terms of flight performance, ordinance load, and range?

F-16.net Sponsor

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Just for fun here are some thoughts.... since you did specify the family model F Super

-Safety- Super Hornet, all the way around, flying qualities arriving and departing the carrier, including an excellent one engine approach performance. F-4 had some dead man areas on rolls and turns that could kill if you didn't have space to recover. Super has weeded out a large number of classic Hornet adverse safety issues.

-Fuel capacity (internal)- Super Hornet

-Range, Even the F Super has an edge here all though not a big one.

-Avionics-Super Hornet even more when you get into Block II. The Super Phantom offered some things but no where near the ability of Super, then of course this leads to ....

-Maintenance- Super Hornet, ... the Phantom had a lot of man hours per day and even putting in modern avionics to the Phantom you would still have the legacy back end analog airframe stuff. Cost per flying hour would be pretty different.

-Dumb bombing- Had to put in something for the Phantom. Where the classic Hornet is an excellent day bomber on par with the F-16, the Super Hornet with it's silly canted out pylons is the last machine you want to take to a bomb comp where you have to do dumb bombing. The big technical reason you won't see a Super in USMC colors (besides the fact that it isn't in their plan) is that they are still tasked with tossing M-77 ( sans fins for a nice tumble), as one USMC Hornet pilot told me, M-77 with the Super would be a crap shoot. Good luck. As an F-16 pilot once said about dumb bombing with 500lb'ers, "If you didn't hit the truck you were having a bad day." CEP with Super slinging dumb iron should be all over the place. There are some photos OEF of dumb iron on some Supers but I bet that didn't last long. Super stays with in it's skillsets as a PGM carrying jet.

-Contempt of engagement. There is no way a Super could chase down an F-4. Forget about it. In some fantasy world with a Super F-4, it could give the Super some trouble. However given everything else mentioned, the F-4 would have some serious challenges.

Here the F-4 shows again, like many other examples, that the Super has weak transonic performance vs. many fighters past and present.

elp wrote:

Just for fun here are some thoughts.... since you did specify the family model F Super

-Safety- Super Hornet, all the way around, flying qualities arriving and departing the carrier, including an excellent one engine approach performance. F-4 had some dead man areas on rolls and turns that could kill if you didn't have space to recover. Super has weeded out a large number of classic Hornet adverse safety issues.

-Fuel capacity (internal)- Super Hornet

-Range, Even the F Super has an edge here all though not a big one.

-Avionics-Super Hornet even more when you get into Block II. The Super Phantom offered some things but no where near the ability of Super, then of course this leads to ....

-Maintenance- Super Hornet, ... the Phantom had a lot of man hours per day and even putting in modern avionics to the Phantom you would still have the legacy back end analog airframe stuff. Cost per flying hour would be pretty different.

-Dumb bombing- Had to put in something for the Phantom. Where the classic Hornet is an excellent day bomber on par with the F-16, the Super Hornet with it's silly canted out pylons is the last machine you want to take to a bomb comp where you have to do dumb bombing. The big technical reason you won't see a Super in USMC colors (besides the fact that it isn't in their plan) is that they are still tasked with tossing M-77 ( sans fins for a nice tumble), as one USMC Hornet pilot told me, M-77 with the Super would be a crap shoot. Good luck. As an F-16 pilot once said about dumb bombing with 500lb'ers, "If you didn't hit the truck you were having a bad day." CEP with Super slinging dumb iron should be all over the place. There are some photos OEF of dumb iron on some Supers but I bet that didn't last long. Super stays with in it's skillsets as a PGM carrying jet.

-Contempt of engagement. There is no way a Super could chase down an F-4. Forget about it. In some fantasy world with a Super F-4, it could give the Super some trouble. However given everything else mentioned, the F-4 would have some serious challenges.

Here the F-4 shows again, like many other examples, that the Super has weak transonic performance vs. many fighters past and present.

What do you mean by the "canted" pylons?

Also, the point of this thread, for me, was to see how viable it would've been to create a "Super-Phantom" in the 1990s instead of a Super Hornet. While it would've NEVER happened, I was curious to see which aircraft actually would have offered the best overall performance with all things being equal. (IE, building the Phantom design today with improved design technology from scratch)

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

skrip00 wrote:

What do you mean by the "canted" pylons?

After making the jet they found out certain weapons wouldn't safely deconflict when being released. It is a bigger wing with 6 hardpoints vs the classic Hornet's 4 on a smaller wing yet the distance between pylons was an issue. They solved it by bending the pylons outward. It solved most of the weapons clearance issues but increased drag on the jet and caused very expensive weapons (like HARM) to have less flying hours on them before a refirb due to vibration.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

skrip00 wrote:

Also, the point of this thread, for me, was to see how viable it would've been to create a "Super-Phantom" in the 1990s instead of a Super Hornet. While it would've NEVER happened, I was curious to see which aircraft actually would have offered the best overall performance with all things being equal. (IE, building the Phantom design today with improved design technology from scratch)

Well if you are talking carrier aircraft, the Phantom has always had a high approach speed for carrier arrival. And yes your idea would have to be completely from scratch: fly by wire, more composites, etc.,much cheaper maintenance methods. The last carrier effort for the Phantom was (late '86? (help me Navy pukes Very Happy

) ) So I don't know. Would have to be one wiz bang proposal to the Navy. After the A-12 failure and end of the cold war ...Navy was in a Super low risk mode that gave us the Super Hornet. Remember that the USN had to pay for a mafia like ship building lobby at the same time that didn't seem to care that there were less available funds. Hard to say what might have been.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 30, 2005 Posts: 21 Status: Offline

ELP - that is a very average photo to show canted pilons. Take a photo of any jet from that angle and that close with a wide angle lens and the pylons are going to be canted outwards.

Example - take a photo of a railway line, and the tracks appear canted outwards, particularly when close to the camera.

But I think you know that and are trying to use the photo to push your barrow...

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Guess again. I am a photographer ... for over 20 some years. There are many photos showing the canted pylons. More, there is plenty of documentation talking about the idea to put the pylons out like that for the very reason I mentioned. You might first want to be up on a subject before you comment on it. You aren't.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

More on the pylons since you are the doubting thomas. Not trying to make too big of this. Hey the USN didn't have a lot of money to throw around on this project....

Quote:

Other range-related issues are associated with the Navy’s attempts to
resolve design problems that had resulted in bombs colliding with each
other or with the aircraft. To correct this problem, the Navy toed, or
slanted, the inner wing pylons

Do the canted pylons apply to missiles and other munitions?

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 30, 2005 Posts: 21 Status: Offline

Whoa whoa whoa, chill out dude. Firstly, I was just pointing out that the choice of photo provided was and can be skewed to show what you wanted to get across. e.g. http://home.wi.rr.com/hozerdome/f16.jpg - the weapons appear to be canted out, though not to the same degree as the SH. Its an illusion champ, get over it.

Secondly, yes I have been a lurker and have read your posts on the subject previously, so I am aware of the canted pylons.

Finally and perhaps most importantly - Now, who drops dumb bombs in warfare these days? What percentage of weapons released are unguided? From what I recall it was something like 90% guided bombs in GW2, and the percentage is probably even higher now. Is it such a problem then that the SH isnt going to win a bombcomp when it can drop LGB/JDAM with CEP of 3m. Drag + Weapon life issues, fair enough. I'm lead to believe the drag isn't as severe as some people make it out to be. Once again, finding hard data is difficult.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 1152

Quote:

Its an illusion champ, get over it.

But it's NOT an illusion. With a wide angle lens yes, you will get distortion. But the Super Hornet HAS a 4 degree toe out on all wing pylons. There's no obfuscation going on, it's just a fact.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 30, 2005 Posts: 21 Status: Offline

Sorry that should have read : the degree to which the pylons appear to be canted outwards is exaggerated by the wide angle lens and angle of the shot.

anyway, essentially we are agreeing, yes the pylons do point outwards, end of story

Back on topic.

Looking at the picture, the SH doesn't have canted pylons for AAMs... Or it doesn't seem to.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/downloa ... rnet_1.jpg

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 07, 2006 Posts: 65 Status: Offline

Quote:

Dumb bombing- Had to put in something for the Phantom. Where the classic Hornet is an excellent day bomber on par with the F-16, the Super Hornet with it's silly canted out pylons is the last machine you want to take to a bomb comp where you have to do dumb bombing.

Quote:

CEP with Super slinging dumb iron should be all over the place. There are some photos OEF of dumb iron on some Supers but I bet that didn't last long. Super stays with in it's skillsets as a PGM carrying jet.

Your ignorance is showing once again.

We drop unguided "dumb" bombs all the time. All of the MK-80 and BLU series. 500, 1000 and 2000lb bombs. We also drop them high or low drag. Last week I dropped 2 Mk-83's with con fins (dumb) from 15K and shacked both targets. Not LGB's or JDAM, just iron.

Not entering a Rhino in a bombing derby? Come on man give me a break. The Rhino is an air to ground machine. And we also dont use CCIP very often. Most guys are Auto bombers and use CCIP in an undesignated back up type situation.

Quote:

The big technical reason you won't see a Super in USMC colors (besides the fact that it isn't in their plan) is that they are still tasked with tossing M-77 ( sans fins for a nice tumble), as one USMC Hornet pilot told me, M-77 with the Super would be a crap shoot. Good luck.

Are you kidding me? Where do you get your bad info from. Once again, here-say and bad information are now fact. And I doubt that any hornet pilot would talk smack about a Rhino in ANY air to ground or A/A mode.

And your reason for the USMC not wanting the Rhino is way off. It has less to do with the Rhino and more to do with the political wranglings of the USMC keeping VSTOL aircraft. I KNOW a ton of harrier guys and marine 18 bubbas that would love to get there hands on a Rhino.

I though that you guys would stop pulling quotes out of your asses and passing them off as fact. Why not just ask?

Here is a photo from our Fallon det. Note 11 MK-83's. These were all dumb bombs dropped high drag. We were the first operational squadron to drop a stick of 11.

Any more questions about Rhino's dropping dumb bombs?

F-16.net

Forum: Other Military Aircraft

F/A-18F vs. F-4E(or J)