Super Hornet a Step Backwards...

[wilbur81]

Hey, All.

 

I know this is going to be very unpopular, but here it goes:

 

I've been a huge fan of the Blue Angels ever since I was a kid and have seen them live dozens of times. I've been following these practice videos with the new Super Hornets and have slowly (pun intended) come to the conclusion that, from a spectators perspective, the new show is not going to be as dynamic because the Super Hornet appears to be too stable/'dull' in its maneuvering. As I watch the solo's take off in the video below around minute 5:10 , the pitch-up take off just looks dull and slow compared to the old Legacy's pitch authority. The maneuvering of the Super's just looks really slow and lumbering. Yes, the new shows will be louder, but I'm not sure they'll be as interesting to watch. I already miss the Legacy Hornet... but I'll have to reserve final judgment until I see them this summer. I'm just judging based upon all the practice videos that have been posted thus far.

 

 

[Mars Exulte]

My understanding last time I read about it, due to safety they were toning down the aggressiveness of the shows to start with. 

 

Both Hornets are FBW and honestly not that different in raw capability aerodynamically. Afaik most the changes to the shape were to reduce the radar cross section and improve overall drag and such, not to somehow drastically alter performance. Legacy hornets, as I understand, were provided with FBW software updates that gave them most the same maneuvering capabilities as the Supers.

[wilbur81]

4 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

My understanding last time I read about it, due to safety they were toning down the aggressiveness of the shows to start with. 

 

Both Hornets are FBW and honestly not that different in raw capability aerodynamically. Afaik most the changes to the shape were to reduce the radar cross section and improve overall drag and such, not to somehow drastically alter performance. Legacy hornets, as I understand, were provided with FBW software updates that gave them most the same maneuvering capabilities as the Supers.

Interesting... I've not heard anything about the Blues toning down their show. I certainly doubt that; or at least highly doubt they'd ever broadcast that.

As to the Legacy vs. Super performance: Everything I've heard/read speaks to the Super being more draggy (though that may just have to do with pylons which would be a moot point with the Blues) and less nimble than the Legacy. Both Vincent Aiello ("Jello") and Brian Sinclair from the Fighter Pilot podcast (who flew both Legacy and Super) have said the same: The Super is more capable in terms of endurance, software integration, and combat practicality, but a small step back in terms of maneuverability. "Jello" has also indicated (along with Navy Jet SME Nick Pirnia) that people underestimate the fact that the Super Hornet really is a different airplane altogether and that the Navy really dropped the ball in not designing a more capable aircraft altogether to replace the Legacy, but politically, in order to push the new project through congress/pentagon, they had to sell the Super Hornet as really just "an upgraded Hornet".

 

The FCS in the Super is vastly different than the Legacy because it is a completely new/different airframe. The Super's FCS is "Better" than the Legacy in that it is more stable and even less likely to depart (which the Legacy was already 'super' strong in that regard).

 

This all leads back to my initial point: From a spectator's perspective, it appears that the Super is going to be a less dynamic looking airplane for the dynamic maneuvering of an airshow demonstration. But again, maybe these practice performances are not indicative of how the shows will actually be.

 

As to a less aggressive show: Sheesh, that would be a bummer. The Thunderbirds are a slightly boring show in my opinion (though I adore the Viper) compared to the Blues because the Air Force seems to have regulated things more than the Navy (Just watch sneak passes and see the difference in altitude from the Blues to the 'Birds'). But I've digressed.

Edited January 31, 2021 by wilbur81

[probad]

what is up with the transmissions is somnambulistic throatsinging the new big thing

[wilbur81]

5 minutes ago, probad said:

what is up with the transmissions is somnambulistic throatsinging the new big thing

 

Precisely and well put. I was definitely thinking the same thing... and ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz

Edited January 31, 2021 by wilbur81

[SUBS17]

On 2/1/2021 at 4:28 AM, zhukov032186 said:

My understanding last time I read about it, due to safety they were toning down the aggressiveness of the shows to start with. 

 

Both Hornets are FBW and honestly not that different in raw capability aerodynamically. Afaik most the changes to the shape were to reduce the radar cross section and improve overall drag and such, not to somehow drastically alter performance. Legacy hornets, as I understand, were provided with FBW software updates that gave them most the same maneuvering capabilities as the Supers.

 

FBW Updates? 

On 2/1/2021 at 4:21 AM, wilbur81 said:

Hey, All.

 

I know this is going to be very unpopular, but here it goes:

 

I've been a huge fan of the Blue Angels ever since I was a kid and have seen them live dozens of times. I've been following these practice videos with the new Super Hornets and have slowly (pun intended) come to the conclusion that, from a spectators perspective, the new show is not going to be as dynamic because the Super Hornet appears to be too stable/'dull' in its maneuvering. As I watch the solo's take off in the video below around minute 5:10 , the pitch-up take off just looks dull and slow compared to the old Legacy's pitch authority. The maneuvering of the Super's just looks really slow and lumbering. Yes, the new shows will be louder, but I'm not sure they'll be as interesting to watch. I already miss the Legacy Hornet... but I'll have to reserve final judgment until I see them this summer. I'm just judging based upon all the practice videos that have been posted thus far.

 

 

That video is from "PLANET THE JOCKS PLAYGROUND" and they are not the real Blue Angels. 5.10 take off and barrel roll. Earths Blue Angels do not do that kind of take off for safety reasons. You'll also find something interesting in regard to aircraft serial numbers. 

[brettt777]

I read an article years ago from a Hornet pilot and he confirmed that the older C model was definitely more nimble than the larger E/F models.

[bies]

According to it's pilots "big motor charlie'' was better for BFM then Superhornet.

 

And the original F/A-18A was even better than F/A-18C being lighter, especially lighter nose, having lower wing loading and even better nose authority.

 

Original F/A-18A would be the best Hornet for the airshow or the gun fight.

[SUBS17]

On 7/22/2021 at 1:11 AM, bies said:

According to it's pilots "big motor charlie'' was better for BFM then Superhornet.

 

And the original F/A-18A was even better than F/A-18C being lighter, especially lighter nose, having lower wing loading and even better nose authority.

 

Original F/A-18A would be the best Hornet for the airshow or the gun fight.

The Super can turn on a dime it is a good airframe.

[kseremak]

Every Hornet variant was good for a low speed turn on a dime.

[FoxHoundELite]

Is it true that Boeing already axed the CFT on Block 3 Rhino?

[Nealius]

Higher agility among earlier variants is pretty much a given across the history of fighter development. They start off in an age where there's fewer avionics and weapons. Time goes on, requirements change, more avionics, weapons, and even more avionics to support those weapons gets added on. Ergo the airframe gets heavier, ergo less agile.