Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Canada to purchase Superhornets for RCAF


Thanato

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Sorry, but I've got the impression (and I think Merc thought of that as well) of you implying that operating 18E/F with single engine is an exercise in futility, despite all procedures written down.

Merc's intentions aside, I don't think anyone will disagree that there are indeed emergency procedures both written down and practiced for as many contingencies as possible.

However, even while one prepares for the worst case scenario, it doesn't always mean that one has to attempt the worst case scenario.  Now, I will admit that I am biased, being that a carrier group is going to be a little different than a land-based squadron, however, when an engine on a two-engine jet flames out, the plane will immediately try to nose down and twist away from the still active engine.  That sort of angled corkscrew pattern isn't all that easy to handle at the best of times, and trying to do it while trying to land (in particular, while trying to do a carrier landing).  There may be emergency situations in which you might have to do that, but there is no need to create that situation, and if we are talking about a pilot's life vs the cost of a fighter jet (and possible damage to a carrier), yeah, most pilots ahead of time will pull that handle.

Now, this is not to say that ejecting from a plane is done on a whim.  In any sort of emergency, particularly one that ends up resulting in a lost engine, the pilot is continuously evaluating the situation, determining what his chances are of landing safely.  It isn't that the engine goes out and boom, they eject, rather, the are in an emergency situation, they already have X amount of things they have to deal with, and if suddenly yet another major factor occurs (like a lost engine), then they decide that the problem is just not workable anymore.  A lost engine isn't a single factor among others.  It's a huge factor, and can easily tip the decision in the pilots mind.

Now, the reason I mentioned that it might be an advantage (inasfar as emergencies occurring at incredibly high speeds at incredibly high altitudes go) is because it is, at least, one less factor to worry about.  If you are in a single engine jet and the engine goes out, you aren't going to lose control as badly as you are on a jet that has one engine firing on one wing and no thrust at all on the other (for those who might be unfamiliar with jet design, fighter jets are designed to be unstable in flight, which gives the the ability to turn and dip through the air more easily than a more stable craft).  Granted, fighter jets aren't even mediocre gliders, but a little bit of control is better than actually fighting for control.  And, going back to the question of pros vs cons, that also means that there are less emergency training procedures the pilot has to memorize and keep current, which also translates to faster response time in emergencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We recently had a competition as to which fighter should replace our aging F-16's and the Super Hornet was one of the three candidates, the other two were the F-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon. The winner was, not very surprisingly, the F-35.

It appears that the competition was very much in favour of the F-35 from the beginning, so much so that other candidates like the Saab Grippen and the Dassault Rafale left early in the process because they knew they couldn't win it.

The main reason for this is probably that Denmark is a junior partner in the F-35 programme and there were fears that the Danish sub-contrators would loose contracts if we didn't choose the F-35. Nothing like good old fahioned blackmail is there ? :(   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

The main reason for this is probably that Denmark is a junior partner in the F-35 programme ....

But I have heard a rumor that Denmark`s junior partnership in the F35 program is related to the catering within this program only, is that correct?

:lol:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, toast said:

But I have heard a rumor that Denmark`s junior partnership in the F35 program is related to the catering within this program only, is that correct?

:lol:

I can let you in on a secret, the puchase of F-35's are just to cover that we have infact developed our own super advanced stealth plane. Here is a picture I smuggled out of a highly secret facility in Billund, Denmark:

  LEGO_space_X29_1.jpg

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

We recently had a competition as to which fighter should replace our aging F-16's and the Super Hornet was one of the three candidates, the other two were the F-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon. The winner was, not very surprisingly, the F-35.

It appears that the competition was very much in favour of the F-35 from the beginning, so much so that other candidates like the Saab Grippen and the Dassault Rafale left early in the process because they knew they couldn't win it.

The main reason for this is probably that Denmark is a junior partner in the F-35 programme and there were fears that the Danish sub-contrators would loose contracts if we didn't choose the F-35. Nothing like good old fahioned blackmail is there ? :(   

Denmark has an Air Force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Denmark has an Air Force?

and a navy and an army. Why is that a surprise ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Danish_Air_Force

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

Merc's intentions aside, I don't think anyone will disagree that there are indeed emergency procedures both written down and practiced for as many contingencies as possible.

However, even while one prepares for the worst case scenario, it doesn't always mean that one has to attempt the worst case scenario.  Now, I will admit that I am biased, being that a carrier group is going to be a little different than a land-based squadron, however, when an engine on a two-engine jet flames out, the plane will immediately try to nose down and twist away from the still active engine.  That sort of angled corkscrew pattern isn't all that easy to handle at the best of times, and trying to do it while trying to land (in particular, while trying to do a carrier landing).  There may be emergency situations in which you might have to do that, but there is no need to create that situation, and if we are talking about a pilot's life vs the cost of a fighter jet (and possible damage to a carrier), yeah, most pilots ahead of time will pull that handle.

Now, this is not to say that ejecting from a plane is done on a whim.  In any sort of emergency, particularly one that ends up resulting in a lost engine, the pilot is continuously evaluating the situation, determining what his chances are of landing safely.  It isn't that the engine goes out and boom, they eject, rather, the are in an emergency situation, they already have X amount of things they have to deal with, and if suddenly yet another major factor occurs (like a lost engine), then they decide that the problem is just not workable anymore.  A lost engine isn't a single factor among others.  It's a huge factor, and can easily tip the decision in the pilots mind.

Now, the reason I mentioned that it might be an advantage (inasfar as emergencies occurring at incredibly high speeds at incredibly high altitudes go) is because it is, at least, one less factor to worry about.  If you are in a single engine jet and the engine goes out, you aren't going to lose control as badly as you are on a jet that has one engine firing on one wing and no thrust at all on the other (for those who might be unfamiliar with jet design, fighter jets are designed to be unstable in flight, which gives the the ability to turn and dip through the air more easily than a more stable craft).  Granted, fighter jets aren't even mediocre gliders, but a little bit of control is better than actually fighting for control.  And, going back to the question of pros vs cons, that also means that there are less emergency training procedures the pilot has to memorize and keep current, which also translates to faster response time in emergencies.

Can't totally disagree with what you've said, you bring some good points here. Thanks for elaborating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

and a navy and an army. Why is that a surprise ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Danish_Air_Force

Just jerking your chain. Of course your government would choose the plane in whose manufacture your country had a part. Takes parts to keep planes flying, so most will come from NATO countries close to Denmark as well as from within it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#76...wondering aboot :

" however, when an engine on a two-engine jet flames out, the plane will immediately try to nose down and twist away from the still active engine.  That sort of angled corkscrew pattern isn't all that easy to handle at the best of times, and trying to do it while trying to land (in particular, while trying to do a carrier landing). ".

i don't know...Seems true (nose and twist away) that an engine loss on an aircraft - where the engines are widely separated (mounted on wings) vs engines on craft like the Hornet, where engines are pretty much center line...Are there any pilots here who could comment on that?

And - would anyone try to land a disabled 1 engine jet onto a multi billion dollar AC

Canada has no AC, and our concern is 2 engine craft being more reliable.

Most US Navy AC craft are two engine for the same reason Canada wants two...Why didn't they make F16 for carrier ops: because it couldn't fulfill the prerequisites. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/8/2016 at 9:50 PM, Poppi said:

i don't know...Seems true (nose and twist away) that an engine loss on an aircraft - where the engines are widely separated (mounted on wings) vs engines on craft like the Hornet, where engines are pretty much center line...Are there any pilots here who could comment on that?

An engine loss on a twin engine aircraft where the engines are more spread out is harder to compensate for.  A loss of thrust on one side causes a loss of lift which requires control trims to compensate for.

This isn't an issue with F-35 vs F-18 because the thrust nozzles are centered on both aircraft.    An F-14 would be a more difficult ship to handle, so is the Cessna 310.  They don't call it "doctor killer" for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.