Still making F-18’s

Astro14 said:
Canada has the oldest Hornets around. The US Navy retired their F/A-18s of that vintage a long time ago, and the Navy had aircraft that were newer.

Canada’s are F-18A models, built in the late 80s or early 90s. Good airplane at the time. Long overdue for replacement, with something modern, upgraded weapon systems, capabilities and new airframes.

By the way, I have flown the F/A-18, and while it is a great airplane, it is not fast. It is slow, for a fighter.

Looks aren’t everything.
Click to expand...
Cool looking landing gear on the F18.
 
Just a civilian pilot said:
Cool looking landing gear on the F18.
Click to expand...
Hugely different from the gear on the YF-17 prototype, which was the entry against the F-16 in the USAF Light Weight Fighter competition.

When the Navy expressed interest in the YF-17, a complete landing gear design was required, and it still had to fit in the airframe.

The F-14’s gear was big, heavy and simple. The F/A-18s was smaller, more complex, and just about as heavy in relation to the aircraft empty weight. No getting around the strength needed for carrier operations.
 
Astro14 said:
For the record - I have flown against, and drank quite a bit of beer with, the Canadian Air Force F/A-18 pilots.

They are great pilots, and great guys.

Enjoyed every minute I have spent with them, whether looking at them as an adversary in air combat, or next to me at the bar as we each sought to buy the next round.

I would gladly go to war with the Canadians by my side.
Click to expand...
I have only flown with them at the airlines but it’s nice to hear that from you.

I still remember flying with a former CF18 pilot ( when I was an FO ) telling me about doing air combat exercises with F14s in Virginia.
 
slackinoff said:
Googling the f18 out of curiosity - I had no idea we had a rig set up like this to test taking off from these types of aircraft carriers.

wild...check out that elevator action right after lift off.

Click to expand...

The front gear looks like it's bottoming out hard and getting hammered.
 
Astro14 said:
Perhaps - it would make sense. Used airplanes to replace worn out airplanes. Still, even those have to be getting near the end of their service life.
Click to expand...

Reportedly it was just for spare parts. I've heard quite a few of the airframes were 4g limited.

I'd met a couple of RCAF pilots with their CF-18s at the 1997 California International Airshow in Salinas. They were answering questions with a static display. They sounded very stereotypically Canadian - one with Quebecois accent. Obviously they flew them in, but the Blue Angels didn't do a meet and greet or the ground show there because they had to take off from Monterey because Salinas Airport didn't have the minimum required 6000 ft runway. But we did get the announcer.

They said everything they had on the CF-18 was carrier capable if it were ever needed.
 
y_p_w said:
Reportedly it was just for spare parts. I've heard quite a few of the airframes were 4g limited.

I'd met a couple of RCAF pilots with their CF-18s at the 1997 California International Airshow in Salinas. They were answering questions with a static display. They sounded very stereotypically Canadian - one with Quebecois accent. Obviously they flew them in, but the Blue Angels didn't do a meet and greet or the ground show there because they had to take off from Monterey because Salinas Airport didn't have the minimum required 6000 ft runway. But we did get the announcer.

They said everything they had on the CF-18 was carrier capable if it were ever needed.
Click to expand...
Stereotypical Canadians landing on runways that are too short.

What’s a stereotypical Canadian sound like BTW?

Except for Quebec and the Maritimes, I didn’t think we had any accent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4WD
Astro14 said:
I had a Canadian accent when we lived in Winnipeg. It’s subtle.
Click to expand...
I was just about to make a joke about that after talking with you on the phone.

Agreed, I could detect a VERY slight American accent ( you have a great voice BTW ) but it’s nothing like the stereotypical American accent ( South, NYC ).

Always thought Canadians had a mild accent like midwestern Americans.

Now, Quebec and the maritimes takes it to another level.

I am not offended, just curious.

But how would I know, eh?
 
I recently listened to a podcast with a guest making a case for F-18s replacing A-10s for CAS. He had some interesting points on low speed handling and unimproved runway capability among other logistical considerations. He was an A-10 pilot btw.
 
burbguy82 said:
Is this because they were liked by the pilots????? or does that not have much to do with the design as per Uncle Sam normal.
Click to expand...
Off the shelf choice. NACES was the Standard Navy seat at the time.

When the whole "Super Hornet" program was sold to Navy and Congressional leadership, it was touted as "an upgraded version".

Which made it seem low risk - it's just an upgrade, right?

There was some heavy pressure from SECDEF to kill the F-14 Super Tomcat (he did not like Grumman, long story, involving politics and personal feelings). The Super Tomcat used the same airframe and engines as the F-14D, which was then in production.

That was actually the low risk option - same tooling, same production line, common parts.

But the Super Hornet was cleverly marketed, and the Navy and Congress bought it.

The "low risk" airplane, that had new engines, new wings, new fuselage, new landing gear, new tail section. In other words - it had absolutely nothing in common with the previous airplane, and many issues were discovered during flight test - because they were testing an all new airplane.

"Low risk" and "upgrade" became a running joke among those that could see through the eyewash
 
Astro14 said:
Off the shelf choice. NACES was the Standard Navy seat at the time.

When the whole "Super Hornet" program was sold to Navy and Congressional leadership, it was touted as "an upgraded version".

Which made it seem low risk - it's just an upgrade, right?

There was some heavy pressure from SECDEF to kill the F-14 Super Tomcat (he did not like Grumman, long story, involving politics and personal feelings). The Super Tomcat used the same airframe and engines as the F-14D, which was then in production.

That was actually the low risk option - same tooling, same production line, common parts.

But the Super Hornet was cleverly marketed, and the Navy and Congress bought it.

The "low risk" airplane, that had new engines, new wings, new fuselage, new landing gear, new tail section. In other words - it had absolutely nothing in common with the previous airplane, and many issues were discovered during flight test - because they were testing an all new airplane.

"Low risk" and "upgrade" became a running joke among those that could see through the eyewash
Click to expand...
Does not sound low risk to me, sounds like palm greasing. The Super Hornet look much like the other OG, but I suppose looks can be deceiving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

9
1994 Boscombe Down Crash
Replies
7
Views
258
AZjeff
T
'13 F-150 3.5 Ecoboost 4,789 mile OCI Motul 8100 Eco-Lite 5w-30
Replies
14
Views
747
thirdgenlxi
G
Help: New Frigidaire Refrigerator Not Cooling Well - w/Pics
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Nick1994
Z
HPL NoVII 5w-30, will my ‘18 4Runner like it?
Replies
13
Views
551
ka9mnx
D
FORscan payment drama
Replies
8
Views
825
zzyzzx
Back
Top Bottom