"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
12/02/2015 at 19:34 • Filed to: model bloat, planelopnik, hornet, super hornet
3
8|
"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
12/02/2015 at 19:34 • Filed to: model bloat, planelopnik, hornet, super hornet | 3
| 8 |
Today’s !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! by ttyymmnn features the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (man they sure love forward slashes) as the headline aircraft. The F-18 Super Hornet (for simplicity’s sake) is, obviously, a development of the F-18A through D “Legacy” Hornet. Roughly 20% larger and 7,000 lbs(!) heavier, which represents a staggering amount of model bloat by the standards Oppo is used to. But it doesn’t end there!
image taken from an apparently now-defunct site via the SecretProjects.co.uk message boards
In the 1950s the “model bloat” of existing fighters was already becoming a great concern. Though nimble and very simple fighters (in terms of outward appearance at least) like the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! were still serving the front lines, they were already being displaces in generals’ minds by the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and the Navy was anticipating the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . The Northrop company (who at the same time developed prototype flying-wing bombers) thought there would be a market for a “lightweight day” fighter (i.e. one without radar) that would match the relative lack of complexity of then-current fighters with the performance of fighters on the drawing board. The result was the Northrop Model 102 “Fang” which was built only as far as a few mockups as seen above. It was designed around a single one of the same J79 engines that power the F-4. It’s hard for me to tell the exact scaling but it looked as if it would’ve been around the same size as an F-86, a tiny aircraft by today’s military standards (not much bigger than an RQ-9 Reaper drone). Research, development and refinement continued even as mockups were being constructed and the design was not considered finalized; it would undergo further redevelopment to the point of finally being put into production in a form unrecognizable compared to the original concept.
The Northrop 102 grew into the Northrop 156, approved for production by the USAF as the F-5 under the ultra-patriotic name “Freedom Fighter.” The single J79 was replaced by two J85 turbojets, though each J85 was much smaller and lighter (a civilian version is what powered very early LearJets). The design grew somewhat in light of additional supersonic research coming to light in the mid-late 50s and to allow for more useful combat loads, but still remained a very small and nimble jet. So much that the USAF really wasn’t impressed with it when it already had F-4 Phantom IIs with big radars and missiles, but they were more than happy to give them to countries that lacked the resources to maintain such complex fighters (the real reason why it was named “Freedom Fighter,” sort of America’s flying answer to the AK-47).
Then the F-5A grew into the F-5E (less patriotically named “Tiger II”) with modest weight gains, namely the addition of a relatively primitive radar and greater weight and fuel allowances, and then growing again into the F-5G, later renamed F-20 Tigershark. The twin J85s were replaced with a single F100 engine out of a much more modern F-16 and radar upgraded accordingly to take advantage of missile range increases. Again, weight allowances were increased to take advantage of newer weaponry, thanks to the massive upgrade in power. It didn’t take because of a variety of reasons (depending on who you ask, lobbyists had too much money riding on the competing F-16).
Prior to that the N-102/N-156/F-5 design would take on additional model bloat into the P-530, again to the point where it was no longer recognizable. The J85s were replaced with much larger, more powerful YJ101 engines, and this time still retaining two of them, which necessitated a corresponding scaling-up of the whole aircraft. But now it could carry a full multi-mode radar and an assortment of air-to-air or air-to-ground weapons. The Air Force approved the design as the YF-17, but production would be on the condition of winning a “fly-off” between the YF-16, the prototype of that pesky aformentioned F-16. It did not win.
But just because Northrop lost to the F-16 twice doesn’t mean the story (or the bloat) ends there. Northrop contracted with McDonnell Douglas to modify the P-530 design into a carrier-based fighter, the McDonnell Douglas Model 267. Although still the same basic design, it saw dramatic weight increases with all the carrier equipment plus a heavier wing, but gained more powerful engines and a vast electronics upgrade to compensate. The Navy approved it for production as the F/A-18 Hornet (yes the F-forward slash-A is a part of the official designation due to abandoning a dedicated attack variant and then trying to make it look more attractive to Congressional budget approval).
Which brings us to the F/A-18E and F Super Hornet. At ~32,000 lbs empty, it represents 372% bloat over the original F-5A’s ~8,600 lb empty weight.
K-Roll-PorscheTamer
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
12/02/2015 at 19:55 |
|
And you’re getting fat, and you’re getting fat, and you will get fat, and you will especially get fat....
EVERYONE GETS FAT!!! :P
Biggus Dickus (RevsBro)
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
12/02/2015 at 19:58 |
|
The F-5 is one of my favorite fighters!
Manwich - now Keto-Friendly
> K-Roll-PorscheTamer
12/02/2015 at 20:02 |
|
And your wife will get fat too!
|
K-Roll-PorscheTamer
> Manwich - now Keto-Friendly
12/02/2015 at 20:06 |
|
Don’t have one. :p
DoYouEvenShift
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
12/02/2015 at 20:11 |
|
8600 lbs empty for an F5?!?! I had a 3/4 Silverado that weighed close to that. Thats nuts.
d15b
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
12/02/2015 at 20:53 |
|
Fuck yeah.
e36Jeff now drives a ZHP
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
12/02/2015 at 20:56 |
|
To be fair, the bloat does allow for some improvements. a bit more range(760nmi vs 1275nmi), better climb rates (34k ft/min vs 44k ft/min), alot more payload, (7k lbs vs 17k lbs), a bit more speed (mach 1.6 vs 1.8), and the ability to land on a carrier.
Not saying the bloat is good, just that there are upsides to it.
also, holy crap, an F/A-18E/F can just about carry 2 empty F-5s into the air...
|
Manwich - now Keto-Friendly
> K-Roll-PorscheTamer
12/02/2015 at 22:58 |
|
Then it will be your husband, boyfriend, girlfriend, cat OR dog who will get fat... OR ALL OF THEM!!!