-
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
Why are the engines on the F-18 so close??
- Thread starter Broadsword2004
- Start date
- Status
Lonestar155
is good to go
Good information gents.. thanks!
Broadsword2004
Registered User
Yep, sure did, thanx for all the info people, I learned a lot I didn't know about engines on aircraft and rudders.
I have one other question though, and maybe this one is stupid, but I have always been curious on this one: since rudders were mentioned, I remembered that scene from the movie "Behind Enemy Lines," when they are in the F-18 being chased by the missile, and the pilot says, "Alright, I'm going for a head-on pass...here it comes, RIGHT SIDE!!" Then CLANK and then, "Oh it clipped us!!" (the missile had come straight at them and "clipped" the plane) anyhow, when they show the back of the plane, you see part of one of the flaps or whatever it is called on the right side of the aircraft cut partially off. However, the right-side rudder itself still looks pretty intact. Then Owen Wilson starts yelling to the pilot to turn, that the missile is coming back around, and the pilot says something like, "I've got no turn left, controls are shot."
My question is, why wouldn't the plane turn if only a small part of the back of the plane that controls the up and down motion was missing partially, while the rudders were still fully intact?? Did the electronics controlling the flaps get messed up from that or something (since the F-18's controls aren't mechanically connected to the parts of the plane) or was that just Hollywood stuff; or did that small part getting knocked off still dramatically affect turning ability?
I have one other question though, and maybe this one is stupid, but I have always been curious on this one: since rudders were mentioned, I remembered that scene from the movie "Behind Enemy Lines," when they are in the F-18 being chased by the missile, and the pilot says, "Alright, I'm going for a head-on pass...here it comes, RIGHT SIDE!!" Then CLANK and then, "Oh it clipped us!!" (the missile had come straight at them and "clipped" the plane) anyhow, when they show the back of the plane, you see part of one of the flaps or whatever it is called on the right side of the aircraft cut partially off. However, the right-side rudder itself still looks pretty intact. Then Owen Wilson starts yelling to the pilot to turn, that the missile is coming back around, and the pilot says something like, "I've got no turn left, controls are shot."
My question is, why wouldn't the plane turn if only a small part of the back of the plane that controls the up and down motion was missing partially, while the rudders were still fully intact?? Did the electronics controlling the flaps get messed up from that or something (since the F-18's controls aren't mechanically connected to the parts of the plane) or was that just Hollywood stuff; or did that small part getting knocked off still dramatically affect turning ability?
vegita1220
User
HOLLYWOOD! There were reports of F/A-18Cs surviving much worse SAM hits and landing safely in Desert Storm...and you'd figure the Rhino would be even more survivable than that.
kmac said:
E-4B's are owned and operated by the AF, with AF flight crews. The battle staff in the back is joint though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-4
Here is some trivia for you, the most pwerful airplane engines in the world are the 777-300ER's engines.
The 777-300ER contains many modifications, including the GE90-115B engines, which are currently the world's most powerful jet engine with 115,300 lbf (513 kN) thrust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777
Actually....
Actually....we do this because the nose strut compresses another 4 inches or so at cat launch (aside from the regular kneel). If you had your head back against the head rest it would get tosses forward, then be flung back and bang hard against the headbox. Not what you need on a cat shot...so we brace for the nose strut compression and subsequent cat shot by leaning forward a bit to prevent that from happening.
r/
G
Pitz said:
Actually....we do this because the nose strut compresses another 4 inches or so at cat launch (aside from the regular kneel). If you had your head back against the head rest it would get tosses forward, then be flung back and bang hard against the headbox. Not what you need on a cat shot...so we brace for the nose strut compression and subsequent cat shot by leaning forward a bit to prevent that from happening.
r/
G
Broadsword2004 said:
First off it's Hollywood, so it's all BS. We don't turn with rudders, they control yaw. We use asymmetric differential stabs or horizontal tails to roll the jet (a tiny bit of rudder) then when our lift vector is where we want to go we do a smooth pull with both horizontal tails taking an even bite to produce positive G and turn in an arc. Sort of a basic explanation, but I hope it helps.
OBTW, F/A-18 handles single engine very nicely. Like an A-4 I've been told.
r/
G
Man, I don't get how a hyper-realistic modern movie about Air Combat like "Behind Enemy Lines" would be so wrong on that one...
Me and some buds went and saw that movie at the base theater...when the "Huey" scene came up at the end I think we ruined the movie for some people because we started laughing hyserically.
The best scene in that movie is when they first crash land: "Your legs broken. You wait here by the big white parachutes and all the wreckage while I go climb that hill."
Oh well, as long as Top Gun is still 100% accurate we can always go off that one.
Me and some buds went and saw that movie at the base theater...when the "Huey" scene came up at the end I think we ruined the movie for some people because we started laughing hyserically.
The best scene in that movie is when they first crash land: "Your legs broken. You wait here by the big white parachutes and all the wreckage while I go climb that hill."
Oh well, as long as Top Gun is still 100% accurate we can always go off that one.
Flash- Come on give that battle staff some love. And so I still say it's "used" by both the AF and Navy.
Pitz- I never put my head against the headrest. Nor do I really look at my engine instruments. To me airspeed is the first concern, and the C/P can keep an eye on the engines. The audible change and yaw would be my first indication of an engine problem.
Pitz- I never put my head against the headrest. Nor do I really look at my engine instruments. To me airspeed is the first concern, and the C/P can keep an eye on the engines. The audible change and yaw would be my first indication of an engine problem.
Sorry...guess I should have put a "/sarcasm" tag at the end of my post. I thought it was thick enough to be obvious 
I was being incredibly sarcastic when I said:
"Man, I don't get how a hyper-realistic modern movie about Air Combat like "Behind Enemy Lines" would be so wrong on that one..."
-and-
"Oh well, as long as Top Gun is still 100% accurate we can always go off that one."
Guess it didn't convey too well via the net.
I was being incredibly sarcastic when I said:
"Man, I don't get how a hyper-realistic modern movie about Air Combat like "Behind Enemy Lines" would be so wrong on that one..."
-and-
"Oh well, as long as Top Gun is still 100% accurate we can always go off that one."
Guess it didn't convey too well via the net.
My personal favorite in "Behind enemy lines" was the missile going after the plane. First missile...supposedly total IR. However, the flare released directly from the plane didn't get trick the missile. But, the gas tank that was jetisoned from the plane did? Now, I'm not certain but I'm pretty sure that a flare designed to trick IR seeking missiles would burn hotter than a gas tank that has fumes of JP-5 in it? Second, that warhead LOLOLOLOLOL. Any program that tries to build that complicated of a surface to air missile is just dumb. Too much crap can go wrong with that. Current SM-2 BLK IV doesn't even come close to being that complex. The SM-3 is probably the closest but then it also is a kinetic warhead going for objects in space. That's a cool warhead but really can't say anything else on it.
Our 73 cruise we had one of our Phantoms swatted by a Bear. We were in the north atlantic above the arctic circle at the time. Our Phantom made it back to the boat with its rudder missing and one stabilizer hanging vertical. Worse part was all the rewiring I had to do.
Jack
X-Phantom Phixer
Jack
X-Phantom Phixer
- Status