Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Can the mudhen still be flown properly with just one pilot and is the mudhen just as capable as its light grey cousin in air to air combat?

F-16.net Sponsor

The rear cockpit has no flight controls, so noncombat flight will not be impacted by the WSO's absence. In the A2A arena, the Beagle will have the disadvantage of its CFTs and heavier loading, but I believe its avionics (in the APG-82) are actually superior to the Golden Eagle's. It also has fewer rounds for the M61 (600-something vs 900-something), but this really should not be an issue. The Beagle's JHMCS/-9X will also partially compensate for any weight-based disadvantage, as will the more powerful engines. Overall, it's an excellent aircraft that I hope to fly one day, and I hope that the USAF inducts several hundred more in its latest Silent Eagle guise.

southernphantom wrote:

The rear cockpit has no flight controls, so noncombat flight will not be impacted by the WSO's absence. In the A2A arena, the Beagle will have the disadvantage of its CFTs and heavier loading, but I believe its avionics (in the APG-82) are actually superior to the Golden Eagle's. It also has fewer rounds for the M61 (600-something vs 900-something), but this really should not be an issue. The Beagle's JHMCS/-9X will also partially compensate for any weight-based disadvantage, as will the more powerful engines. Overall, it's an excellent aircraft that I hope to fly one day, and I hope that the USAF inducts several hundred more in its latest Silent Eagle guise.

AS I understand it, APG-82 was originally APG-63 (V)4. It combines the APG-63 (V)3 with the strike capabilities of the APG-79. IOC, though, won't be until FY 14, assuming that doesn't get cut. LRIP 1 wa. sn't awarded until September of 2011, for six units. LRIP 2 and LRIP 3 will compromise a grand total of 27 units (assuming that doesn't get cut), so it'll be a while before we see APG-82 in meaningful service.

Regarding Silent Eagle, there doesn't seem to be that much interest in it anywhere. Even Boeing seems to be backing off a bit. S. Korea was interested, but their order alone wouldn't be enough to make the project viable, unless they were willing to fund the whole R&D costs which they don't seem to be of a mind to do.

First deliveries of APG-82s are in 2013 (x3) and the total planned delivered through 2017 is 86.

Here's a different question. I spent the afternoon yesterday watching some Strike Eagle flightline ops and sorties. I was wondering about the loud "WHIIRPPP" noise that I kept hearing as they taxied and at EOR. Something cycling but I had never heard it before.

In a similar vein, a "WHIMPER" noise was at times heard from the backseat of an F-4 before takeoff.

Very Happy

Seriously, this sounded like a gear noise of something cycling. Just curious.

darkvarkguy wrote:

Here's a different question. I spent the afternoon yesterday watching some Strike Eagle flightline ops and sorties. I was wondering about the loud "WHIIRPPP" noise that I kept hearing as they taxied and at EOR. Something cycling but I had never heard it before.

That would be the F100's Convergent Exhaust Nozzle Control or CENC.

The CENC is air driven from high-pressure bleed air that comes from the 13th stage of the compressor. This supply air runs through an air-motor within the CENC and is exhausted through a port in the bottom of the engine bays directly below the CENC. The CENC is located on the aft-fan duct just ahead of the flange where the augmentor duct/nozzle module attaches to the motor.

Whenever the nozzle opens/closes; IE- throttle movements; you will hear WHIRRRRRP noise of the air running through the motor and pouring out the exhaust.

This 'screech' is partly how the Eagle first got it's name.

Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfNeAr8ix10 (1:25-on in the video)

This is to test full open/close or close/open (341 revolutions for the CENC & nozzle actuators) At full speed the nozzle can open/close in about a second. (faster than in the video) When performing a taxi, you will hear the CENCs whenever the pilot throttles up/back to gain/loose speed.

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

BTW...

Pratt & Whitney F100 powered Vipers make the same sound. GE Vipers do not, their nozzle actuation system is hydraulic.

Every F100 has; YF100-PW-100 through the newest F100-PW-229EEP

Photo of the CENC's location in relation to the other components that 'move' the nozzle.

The CENC turns the Primary Flex-Shafts (2), that turn the Primary Actuator (1), that is interconnected to all the Secondary Actuators (4) by the (5) Secondary Flex-Shafts (which all move together as a rigged system). As the rotational energy of the CENC is transmitted to each of the (5 total) actuators through the collection of (7) shafts, the actuators' internal 'jack-screws' push/pull on the synchronizing-ring inside the nozzle support as they turn. This ring is attached to the various nozzle components that open/close the nozzle through a series of links, levers and pivot points.

As I said, from fully extended to fully retracted is 341 (+/-1) revolutions and can be accomplished by the CENC in less than 1 second when moving at operational speeds.

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

TEG to the rescue!

Thanks TEG, I appreciate it! Funny, I can't ever remember hearing that before. I never got to work F-15s but have been around them enough and just don't ever remember hearing that. Also 'Southernphantom's comment about the WSO not having any flight controls in the back seat is news to me also. I know the F-14 WSO had no controls but thought all USAF jets had controls in both seats. Confused

darkvarkguy wrote:

Thanks TEG, I appreciate it! Funny, I can't ever remember hearing that before. I never got to work F-15s but have been around them enough and just don't ever remember hearing that. Also 'Southernphantom's comment about the WSO not having any flight controls in the back seat is news to me also. I know the F-14 WSO had no controls but thought all USAF jets had controls in both seats. Confused

Actually, disregard that comment Confused

It turns out that the Beagle does in fact have rear flight controls, albeit extremely primitive ones rivalling a Cessna 172. However, at least the visibility is better than an F-4's or a Thud's rear 'pit!! Laughing

Well, I've got a follow up for TEG if he has the time... or anyone else... why is it that the F100 powered F-16 is equipped with the covered feathers and the draggier F-15E's F100 is not? TIA-

geogen wrote:

Well, I've got a follow up for TEG if he has the time... or anyone else... why is it that the F100 powered F-16 is equipped with the covered feathers and the draggier F-15E's F100 is not? TIA-

Wasn't there a problem with the turkey feathers ripping off in flight with the mudhen?

Quote:

Actually, disregard that comment Confused

It turns out that the Beagle does in fact have rear flight controls, albeit extremely primitive ones rivalling a Cessna 172. However, at least the visibility is better than an F-4's or a Thud's rear 'pit!! Laughing

Actually... The front and rear controls for F-15 B/D/E models are completely identical and each can be flown just as well from either pit (except for forward visibility from the rear of course). The only flight control I can think of that's not in the back is the flap switch. The auto flight control switches (NOT necessarily auto-pilot in the case of the E) are in the front only but they get turned on at start up by the pilot and aren't strictly necessary to fly.

Operationally is a different matter. B and D rear pits were designed for training/instructors, the E was designed for a WSO...although he can still fly the plane.

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

F-15E strike eagle questions