Super Duper Hornet Walkaround

[Banjo33]

Two engines and two seats... I'm sold!!

Build a good engine and train a good pilot and you only need one of each.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Isn't that a YF-17 with NAVY painted on the sides?

Yup, NAVY is hiding in back.

 

[Pugs]

My uncle flew F-4s and said that everything was pretty much the same. I believe that they either welded or bolted the arresting hook to the airframe.

Unlikely. The USAF still takes field traps when needed. The F-16 and F-15 both have hooks up under panels they can use.

 

[flaps]

 

[Fog]

My uncle flew F-4s and said that everything was pretty much the same. I believe that they either welded or bolted the arresting hook to the airframe.

The F-4C was the same a/c as the Navy F-4B except that it had a stick in the back seat (they initially flew it w/ 2 pilots) & the AF female refueling receptacle behind the canopy. The "D" & "E" models were much more tailored to AF requirements.

 

[AllAmerican75]

Unlikely. The USAF still takes field traps when needed. The F-16 and F-15 both have hooks up under panels they can use.

The F-4C was the same a/c as the Navy F-4B except that it had a stick in the back seat (they initially flew it w/ 2 pilots) & the AF female refueling receptacle behind the canopy. The "D" & "E" models were much more tailored to AF requirements.

Thanks for clearing that up. It's been a while since my uncle and I have talked "shop," so my memory's a bit hazy.

 

[badger16]

Build a good engine and train a good pilot and you only need one of each.

FOD kills a good engine just as easy as a bad engine and I'll take four sets of eyes over two.

 

[Banjo33]

FOD kills a good engine just as easy as a bad engine and I'll take four sets of eyes over two.

Not often enough to justify the extra expense of adding a second cockpit nor to train someone to sit back there. 4 sets of eyes RARELY make that big of a difference. Granted, dual seats has its benefits sometimes, but technology has quickly minimized its usefulness.

 

[Fog]

Not often enough to justify the extra expense of adding a second cockpit nor to train someone to sit back there. 4 sets of eyes RARELY make that big of a difference. Granted, dual seats has its benefits sometimes, but technology has quickly minimized its usefulness.

JMHO: (a) Technology has made the value of the RIO/WSO/ECMO even more critical because it exponentially multiplies the aircrew's ability to run the AA/ Air-to-Mud/ECM gear while allowing the pilot to fly the plane in the most effective manner possible for the mission at hand; and,
(b) It's that 2nd set of eyeballs that makes you aware of the bogey sliding into your 6 so that you can live to fight another day.

If you'd rather have 600lbs more gas than what that 2nd seater provides, then your ego is definitely larger than your good judgment (if not brains).

 

[A4sForever]

USAF F-4s and A-7s had and used tailhooks -- think wet, windy, wild, and possibly emergency field landings. USAF base runways were replete w/ long & short field gear when those two birds were in the AF inventory ... and the USN nose-tow link was not present on the USAF A-7 variants as a general rule.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Two eyes or four eyes ... ??? I'll go for 4 eyes. But while generally a 'good thing' -- as w/ most things in Aviation -- it depends.

I've got beaucoup time in both communities and my preference usually comes down on the side of: I'd like to have those 'extra set(s) of eyes' in the cockpit -- in general. But don't over-think it too much, because sometimes it's as simple as: if it's Tuesday and it's severe-clear and CAVU to the moon and I'm just going to go out and 'yank & bank' ... I might wanna' do it all by myself. But if it's Thursday and the WX sucks and/or it's zero-dark-thirty ... another set of eyes would be 'nice'.

Regarding those 'extra eyes'. A MANDATORY corollary of having another 'set of eyes' is they MUST contribute to the mission. Ditto, as always, for the pilot/driver (obviously), but another 'set of eyes' just for the sake of it is not necessarily a good thing. I've had newbie 'extra eyes' in the cockpit and that's not always a plus ... but then again, with time in the seat and growing experience, most 'extra eyes' provided by newbies eventually become "ol' guys eyes" and their relative value to the A/C and mission exponentially goes UP ...

An extra pair of eyes AND an extra brain ... now we're talkin'.

Another corollary that I've discovered: if I'm 'going downtown' or crossin' the Big Pond ... more eyes (and hands and brains) are always mo' bettah'.

Just my $20 worth ...

 

[Pugs]

Not often enough to justify the extra expense of adding a second cockpit nor to train someone to sit back there. 4 sets of eyes RARELY make that big of a difference. Granted, dual seats has its benefits sometimes, but technology has quickly minimized its usefulness.

Noted is your vast experience of flying with the second set of eyes and another brain in an operational environment in the jet. Just because you could maybe do the mission single seat if everything works perfect doesn't mean it's best done single seat and my experience with technology is that it makes the envelope of the possible mission expand faster than the ability of the crew to become expert in and excute that expanded role.

We're buying jets that will be operational for the next 50 years. Buying them all as single seat will be a mission limiter.

 

[Banjo33]

Noted is your vast experience of flying with the second set of eyes and another brain in an operational environment in the jet. Just because you could maybe do the mission single seat if everything works perfect doesn't mean it's best done single seat and my experience with technology is that it makes the envelope of the possible mission expand faster than the ability of the crew to become expert in and excute that expanded role.

We're buying jets that will be operational for the next 50 years. Buying them all as single seat will be a mission limiter.

As I said, it has its benefits sometimes. Is it a necessity? Absolutely not! Can we do the mission without them: for most scenarios absolutely. The "systems" are becoming more and more intuitive and from my perspective can be operated by the same person operating the flight controls. Are their caveats? Sure. An example would be trying to sort targets while also reacting to surface-borne threats. However, the same arguments used against the JSF based on current operating environment can be used to justify a single seat aircraft. I think (having been in the JSF sim a couple of times) with the technology it brings to the fight, a WSO would be an unnecessary cost. 600 lbs extra for another cockpit AND 180 lbs pilot? Not hardly.

I've been in theater, I've conducted limited acm, I've landed in zero-zero. Only once have I wished I had a dual set of controls: translant so I could take a nap. And you can ask any of my peers: it's NOT because I'm a great pilot! Lol

 

[bluesig1]

JMHO: (a) Technology has made the value of the RIO/WSO/ECMO even more critical because it exponentially multiplies running the AA & Air-to-Mud gear while allowing the pilot to fly the plane in the most effective manner possible for the mission at hand; and,
(b) It's that 2nd set of eyeballs that makes you aware of the bogey sliding into your 6 so that you can live to fight another day.

If you'd rather have 600lbs more gas than what that 2nd seater provides, then your ego is definitely larger than your good judgment (if not brains).

+1
There's a reason why they didn't make the growler single seat, there's no way way a pilot could effectively run all the electronics and jamming by himself. Could the role of a FAC(A) be done by a single seat guy, sure. But once again the work load keeps him from being as effective as a two seater.

I may not have wings and I'm biased based on my job security but I would think the benefits out way the amount of fuel saved not having the second seat. Plus who's going to tell the pilot that he's special and there's no one else like him, to secure his fragile ego.

To add: though a dated study (1989) it does go into some interesting pros and cons of the single seat/ two seat hornet, including the fact that there are 102 gallons less in the two seat hornet but a lower fuel burn rate... They also had several scenarios of two seat vs single seat survival rates in the air-air environment and air-ground environment. A good read if you have time.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/PJA.htm

 

[Catmando]

....
An extra pair of eyes AND an extra brain ... now we're talkin'.

Another corollary that I've discovered: if I'm 'going downtown' or crossin' the Big Pond ... more eyes (and hands and brains) are always mo' bettah'.

Just my $20 worth ...

The ultimate mission is to go into harm's way, rather than to just train.

What may be somewhat easily handled by one, even in a demanding training scenario has no comparison to actually being over highly defended enemy territory with multiple air and ground threats trying desperately to kill you.

It is difficult for one person, even with the help of technology, to focus on a specific task adequately with distracting audio warnings of inbound threats, both enemy and friendly comm.-jamming, flares and chaff, enemy aircraft about, friends taking hits, tracers whizzing by, and mach-3 missiles coming at you from both the surface and the air, in addition to large and small flashes of AAA bursting close by.

Then, as A4s sez... "An extra pair of eyes and extra brain is mo' bettah'.".. ..Beyond belief, it is!

Give me a two-person cockpit, or just let the drones go in to get shot down, thank you.

 

[flaps]

remember doing a bit of 2v2, f8's (navy) vs f4's. f8's could out turn us but we had better thrust to weight (i.e. high/low yo yo). don't remember ever losing (mostly draws where nobody got a shot prior to hard deck), even with a nugget pilot.. a rio is a bit more than 'an extra set of eyeballs'.

also,1v1 tomcat vs tomcat. student pilot w/instructor rio vs an instructor pilot w/student rio.... even money.
...
pretty good video
..