-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The Tomcat Legacy; 35+ years from Fleet Air Defender to Recce to Precision Strike
- Thread starter webmaster
- Start date
backseater82
Registered User
U-utility
vegita1220
User
hehe kev yeah the Sukhoi is sweet...i read an article by an exMarine who flew in one, even tried the Cobra, his only criticism was of really minor things like seat placement and FBW control sensitivity, all of which are easily modified...at least relative to designing a whole new plane.
Pitz
FighterPilotManual.com
I used to fly the Tomcat. I never flew the Hornet but I fought them quite a bit. I wanted to fly the Tomcat because it was the last real fighter. At that time it was purely mechanical, whatever control input you put into the stick was what was delivered to the control surfaces. Unlike the Hornet which the computer might say, sorry thats a bad idea and then do what it thought was best.
The Tomcat is a tough plane to bring aboard the boat. It has a 19.7 foot hook-to-eye distance. The greater the hook-to-eye, the tougher it is to land aboard the boat, lineup is extremely critical with a large hook-to-eye. The Hornet's hook-to-eye is 16.7 feet and although no boat landing is easy, the Hornet is more predictable to bring abaord the boat.
During a multi plane engagement it was nice to have a RIO to pad-lock an extra bogie while I shot another one down. Single seat guys don't have the advantage of having an extra set of eyes in the cockpit.
Today, all Tomcat guys are transitioning to the F/A-18F so eventually the argument will be mute, everyone will be a Hornet guy.
All my friends who flew both airplanes say that the Hornet is much easier to fly than the Tomcat, but don't think that it's easy by any means, the Hornet is getting more and more complicated every day as more bombs are developed and all weapons systems and tactics become more sophisticated.
I've never met any pilot who didn't love his or her aircraft and difend its capability against all others. Its always tough to get a good answer since everyone always loves their aircraft. But one thing for sure, being a fighter pilot is the greatest job in the world, and nobody will ever dispute that!
I wrote a book about navy fighter aviation you may find helpful, you can read it at http://www.NavyBluePress.com
Check six,
Pitz
The Tomcat is a tough plane to bring aboard the boat. It has a 19.7 foot hook-to-eye distance. The greater the hook-to-eye, the tougher it is to land aboard the boat, lineup is extremely critical with a large hook-to-eye. The Hornet's hook-to-eye is 16.7 feet and although no boat landing is easy, the Hornet is more predictable to bring abaord the boat.
During a multi plane engagement it was nice to have a RIO to pad-lock an extra bogie while I shot another one down. Single seat guys don't have the advantage of having an extra set of eyes in the cockpit.
Today, all Tomcat guys are transitioning to the F/A-18F so eventually the argument will be mute, everyone will be a Hornet guy.
All my friends who flew both airplanes say that the Hornet is much easier to fly than the Tomcat, but don't think that it's easy by any means, the Hornet is getting more and more complicated every day as more bombs are developed and all weapons systems and tactics become more sophisticated.
I've never met any pilot who didn't love his or her aircraft and difend its capability against all others. Its always tough to get a good answer since everyone always loves their aircraft. But one thing for sure, being a fighter pilot is the greatest job in the world, and nobody will ever dispute that!
I wrote a book about navy fighter aviation you may find helpful, you can read it at http://www.NavyBluePress.com
Check six,
Pitz
kevin
Registered User
im just gonna say it again. the af thinks it's getting 4 wings of f22, no jsf. if they dont get it, no one will be getting it (maybe foreigners, but from ive read interest is weaning). pilot in the af told me that his compadre was one of the initial test pilots for the jsf and said the thing was not much above crap, not to mention underpowered.
vegita1220
User
You know all this has me wondering...
does the Navy plan on getting/designing a true Tomcat replacement anytime in the future?
By that I mean something like a navalized raptor that can hit ground targets and has the same long range as teh Tomcat.
Honestly, it makes me wonder if all this light fighter stuff is really a good idea...
does the Navy plan on getting/designing a true Tomcat replacement anytime in the future?
By that I mean something like a navalized raptor that can hit ground targets and has the same long range as teh Tomcat.
Honestly, it makes me wonder if all this light fighter stuff is really a good idea...
kevin
Registered User
vegita asked about a raptor-like airplane for the navy.....not to harp on this topic, and not than any powers that be care what i think, but does it piss anyone else off that the air force is getting this incredibly expensive advanced aircraft to replace its ageing air superiority jet and the navy gets an upgraded version of an old plane to replace it's own? let's leave the jsf out of it, because even if all the services get it, it's a piece, and obviously a "filler" aircraft, if you will. so what does this mean....the air force is in charge of air superiority now for the duration of manned flight? with the talk of increasing difficulty for af to put planes on the ground in certain foreign areas, what is the navy supposed to do, "make the most of it"? i could be way off, and i realize im not a politician or stratetician (sorry, "strategeryician"), but wtf?