Julian, first of all thanks for the info, it seems accurate and coherent.

H-6, thanks for the link.


Interesting info. But you got a small typo error, I guess that you meant R73 and instead of R77 (R77 is the AA-12)!
Didn't know that several F/A-18 pilots found tactics to counter very effectivelly the Mig-29 HMS/R73, good to know.
The last that I heard about an F/A-18 versus Mig-29 "dogfight" comparison was in an AirforcesMonthly article that compared the 2 aircraft (it was used a Swiss F/A-18 and a German Mig-29) and it was "found" that the F/A-18 was more agile than the Mig-29 but the Mig-29 had an advantage over the F/A-18 in a dogfight situation only because of its HMS/R73 "combo" (using you words ).


Well I said or claimed that the F/A-18 could probably have a smaller turn radius than the F/A-22 because of the Maximum AoA manouver that can be attained by the F/A-22 that is 60 degrees. This data was given by you (I also reserched about this and the other values that I get concur with the ones given by you -> 60 degrees).
So if the Hornet/Super Hornet can execute manouvers with higher AoA than the F/A-22 than it's possible that in a low speed dogfight "situation" the Hornet could for example still keep describing a circle manouver and keep "pressing on" that manouver (thus incressing its AoA) while the F/A-22 have already "aborted" that same circle manouver due to loss of sustentation!
I don't know, but did I explained this well or not? (Sometimes I not that good explaining my thought or ideas, that is why I asked)
I came up with that "theory" only because of the 60 degrees AoA of the F/A-22. Before that I also thought that the F/A-22 would have an advantage over the Hornet/Super Hornet (even in a slow speed situation) because like you said the F/A-22 have TV engines.
I have 2 model kits (1:72 scale) of an YF-22 and an F/A-18F and about those aircraft wings personally I would bet that the Super Hornet ones would give more sustention than the F-22 ones (at least that's the impression that I get)! But I'm NO aerodynamics expert so I could be wrong?


Don't worry I know that you're not an F/A-22 zealot!
You've been showing you points of view very well and it's always good to have a civilized discussion with someone over these forums which sometimes appears to be hard around these forums, don't you agree?

Heyas!

No, the Super Hornet doesn't have a higher STR than the F/A-22. You see, there's a byproduct when maneuvering and it's kDi or CDi - induced drag. Having a good STR in which Ps=0 is determine by thrust. The more thrust you have the higher the STR. For example, with the anemic TF30s in the F-14A and compared to the F110 F14, the STR increase by several degrees with engine change plus a substantial increase in acceleration. Although at SL at the transonic region, the TF30 engine ramps up and increases thrust to about 8K lbs per engine. The F110's thrust at FL100 matches the TF30's thrust at SL. Interesting, isn't it?

Nonetheless, the Raptor's T:W will be near unity or way above it thus having lots of energy in reserve. Having said that, I don't doubt for one bit that the STR and as well as ITR is substantially higher than any US aircraft out there. It is like a nitrous button just waiting to be pressed.

The aerodynamic design of the Super Hornet is a drag inducing airframe with lots of it. Naval aircraft aren't solely designed for STR fighting. Furthermore, talking to one IAF fighter pilot, he told me," if you are in a turn more than 50 degrees, you've turned too long!"

One of these days, I'll post a theoretical drag chart depiciting Le angles.

The USN philosophy emphasizes radius more then rate in which they like the slow fight from what I recall Chunx stating that at Frugal's.


Sorry for the typo about the Archer as I am not proficient with their weapons yet.

Don't worry I know that you're not an F/A-22 zealot!
You've been showing you points of view very well and it's always good to have a civilized discussion with someone over these forums which sometimes appears to be hard around these forums, don't you agree?

I am more favored towards the naval aircraft although the Eagle is slowly growing on me. Must be the Eagle drivers talking to me.

I think majority of the discussions have been clean even though a bit touchy for some in which the moderators lock up the thread way too early IMHO. But that's another story.

Back to flight modeling and avionics programming...

Well I'm not very familiar with some acronyms or abreviations but think that with STR you mean Sustained Thrust Ratio and ITR - Instantaneous Turn Rate, right?

what I meant previously regarding the SH "versus" F/A-22 wasn't a STR situation but more an ITR a low speed!
Well, in a situation when you pull the stick very hard at low speed you will dramatically incress your AoA, right?
So in the situation above an aircraft capable of Higher AoA manouvers will describe tighter and faster curve than an another one capable of less AoA manouvers since the later will stall first than the former.
Since the SH is capable of Higher AoA manouvers than the F/A-22 it will have the advantage in that particular situation.
So you probably ask what do I mean with this?
I mean that in a "merge" or dogfight situation at low speed the SH will be able to turn toward an F/A-22 faster than the F/A-22 turns toward the SH (note always in a low speed situation) thus giving the SH a first shoot oportunity (with an AIM-9X for example)!
Obviously I admit that if in that situation the SH for some reason misses it's shoot the SH will be in a BIG Trouble and the F/A-22 will most probably win the "confrontation" because like you said previously it has a Higher Trust-to-Weight Ratio and STR!

Ric,

You need to get out of your mind that the SH is can out nose the Raptor at low speeds. Big wing, lots of lift - look at the Fox video and see the big vapors coming from it, and TV added to the mix. The nose and bleed rate on the Raptor will be a lot faster than the SH. Think about that for a moment.

Since we're talking about the high AOA, like the Hornet, the SH is just going to float for a bit while the Raptor is still has a lot of control authority since typically at high AOA, the control deflection moment drastically lessen. The control authority when comparing both aircraft at 60 alphas, the Raptor has the edge while the SH has already past its peak.

I don't know if the video is online or not, but there's a video of a Raptor cruising along at 60 alphas at high altitude. the TP is still in full control as he maneuvers. It looks like a big power slide.

Here's flight info of a SH at 48 AoA:

Thanks, H-6.

Anybody: One of the pilots (either the F-16 pilot or the F/A-22 pilot) in the pictures at the link in the post above is nearsighted and wearing glasses. I thought that you can't be a U.S. fighter pilot if you are nearsighted and need to wear glasses. What's the deal?

Doc in 1998 the USMC took pilots with vision correctable to 20/20 if they had 20/30. In 2000 the US Navy took a few pilots and gave them laser surgery. Now from a few guys I met from VF-32, they are doing it now but only if the US Navy does it. The USAF last I heard had guys who were 20/50. Lol we are talking damn near blind!

Thanks, Raven.

Wow, think of all the guys during the past 50 or so years who had dreamed of becoming fighter pilots and couldn't because of being nearsighted!

One question, Raven: When you say, "they are doing it now but only if the US Navy does it," do you mean that the Marines are doing laser eye surgery on potential Marine pilots but only if the Navy would do it for a potential Navy pilot with the same degree of nearsightedness?

Also, do nearsighted USAF and Marine fighter pilots wear only glasses and never contact lenses when flying, whereas nearsighted Navy fighter pilots never wear glasses nor contact lenses when flying but have to have had laser eye surgery to correct their nearsightedness, and does the surgery have to be done by Navy doctors under the auspices of the Navy, or can someone who is nearsighted get laser eye surgery as a civilian and then join the Navy and become a pilot?

I thought combat pilots could not have laser eye surgery. It was my understanding that the proceedure weakens your cornea, and the weakened cornea may not hold up under high G.

Times change, enrollment into the armed services have been declining from what I recall hence the openess to LASIK or other fixes.

I talked with a WSO from VMFA-533, then Major Byberry. He told me that at the time there were a few guys flying missions at NAS Fallon who had been given laser surgery by US Navy Doctors and they were testing to see if there were anyside effects. About a year later I met up with Lt Shawn Kurlin who was at the time with VF-32(He was with VFA-122 last I heard from him). Shawn and his RIO explained that the Navy had approved surgery as long as it was the US Navy who preformed the surgery itself. Have it outside of Navy facilities and you were DQed. There were so many pilots and other aircrews DQed because of vision. Many pilots wear glasses after dark due to landing problems. Now the US Navy and Marine Corps are allowed to dip into a pool of highly capable pilots and WSOs who would not have been allowed to fly a few years ago.

Thanks for the info, Raven and everybody.

One question: I had thought that nearsightedness was never a disqualifying factor for becoming a WSO (assuming that the nearsightedness was not ridiculously extreme). Was that not the case?

Does everyone agree that the military loosened the lack of nearsightedness requirement because of a paucity of people enlisting to become military pilots? Were there any other reasons for loosening that requirement?

Do you think that loosening that lack of nearsightedness requirement will result in less capable military pilots?

Do you think that lack of nearsightedness was a valid requirement?

I have never thought the vision requirement was valid. You can get CVC helmets with prescription visors!! And even back in the day, if a pilot's vision dropped below 20/20 with age, he or she wasn't taken off flgiht duty. It's solely a way to winnow the pool of aviator wannabes. Now that the AF and Navy spend 3/4 of their time deployed, retention is going down and they've got to open the requirements.

20/40 vision kept me from flying Blackhawks in the Army in the late '80s. If I was 25 and in the Army today, I'd have Lasik on my own, not tell anyone, and THEN apply for the flight warrant program. I'm so pleased to see the requirements opening up some so another gal in my position back in the day will have her chance to fly.

Miao, Cat

Thanks for the input, Cat. Good points.

Some questions:

Does the Army, analgous to the Navy (see posts above), "allow" laser eye surgery for its potential pilots only if the surgery is done by an Army doctor? If so, it wouldn't be a good idea to get eye surgery on your own, because I presume that the Army docs would be able to detect that you've had corneal surgery when they examined your eyes, and would therefore disqualify you as a potential pilot, because the surgery wasn't done under Army auspices by an Army doc.

Does the Army, unlike the Air Force, presently disqualify potential pilots who wear eye glasses (i.e., spectacles)?

Does the Army presently not allow potential pilots to wear contact lenses?

Also, I thought that I had heard from someone at this forum here that the Army has gotten away from having warrant officers pilot aircraft and is now tending toward having only commissioned officers pilot aircraft, like in the Navy and Air Force. Is that not correct?

Hmmm...

seems to be some confusion here as to vision standards for pilots, so I'll pipe in and try to help out .

As a pilot in the navy you must be 20/40 or better correctable to 20/20 during your initial NAMI screening. PRK surgery is waiverable from any source, as long as you have documentation. so... like my roommate from the academy found out, who is now flying super hornets as well... 20/400 vision is not going to keep you out of the cockpit, as long as you can get some good surgery . Personally, my vision didn't start going bad until last year, and now I wear contacts when I fly. Which is actually nice, to tell you the truth, because with my Navy funded acuvue 2 lenses, I see 20/15, versus the 20/20 I started out with. glasses suck to fly with and most pilots just wear contacts instead, although I do carry a pair in my g-suit, just in case.
Laser Eye surgery has been in use by pilots for the 4 years or so. It was initially only allowed by navy doctors, but like I mentioned before, now civilian doctors can perform the procedure, as long as they provide the required documentation, and do the PRK surger. Lasik is not approved. Something to do with the flap of the eye popping off in extreme pressure shifts, I don't know, I'm not a doctor .

Army still like to their CWO's to fly more than their officers, or so I hear

-Fonz

As always, great info, Fonzie! Thanks.

So, in the Navy, potential pilots' vision can be as bad as 20/40 (but not worse), and their vision has to be correctable to 20/20. Is that correct? The reason that I ask is that you said, "so... like my roommate from the academy found out, who is now flying super hornets as well... 20/400 vision is not going to keep you out of the cockpit, as long as you can get some good surgery. " I'm not sure if the 400 was a typo or if it was a joking hyperbole, or if it was accurate.

yeah, uncorrected going into the program, if you have not had surgery, you have to have 20/40 or better. My roommate, who was 20/400 up until our junior year, got PRK surgery during the trial program (it's in full effect, now) and got a pilot billet. his vision is something like 20/15 now.

so, basically, when you show up for pre-flight (API), you have to have 20/40 or better. if you have worse vision than that, though, you can still get a pilot slot if you get PRK first, and get a waiver for the surgery, both are fairly standardized now and I'm sure recruiters have all the info

-Fonz

Really interesting. Thanks, Fonz.

Since we are talking about vison here, The USAF has allowed navs and WSO to wear glasses since the since god knows when i.e. Jeff Fienstien (sp?). Most of the Navy Helo pilots I have talked to over the years have said you can fly as long as you aren't legally blind, its just when it comes to piloting fighters is where the gray area comes.