Boeing and GE confirm that they are developing an enhanced version of the F414 for the F/A-18E/F that increases thrust by 20%, from 22,000lbs to 26,600lbs. The improved version is based on the new engine core that GE is developing for the U.S. Navy to increase engine durability and reduce fuel consumption. The EPE includes the same improved core but adds a new forward fan and compressor modifications to increase thrust.

Story here:

h**p://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/12/326376/boeings-super-hornet-seeks-export-sale-to-launch-20-thrust.html

Phaid This is a very interesting developement indeed.

Thanks for posting the story.

 

Regards, PlG

Phaid,

 

Thanks for the post, I have always heard that the F-18E/F is underpowered so this would be a welcomed addition. Is this something for upgrades on previous builds as well or just new planes?

Nevermind I just read the article, I should have known it was to appeal to the export market.

 At this level i don't know of any underpowered fighters appart for the flamers, one might have superior TWR or lower, they still all boast loads of it.

I think people often and wrongly look at TWR and when they see anything less than 1:1 they think of the fighter as inferior with regard to thrust. What folks should realize is that they do not build these aircraft and check to see how much the TWR is. They know from the beginning based on the design and SPEC. If you can achieve 1:1 great but that may not be an overriding feature of the design. Also, TWR can be misleading as they actual weights of these aircraft under combat conditions is never the nice neat precise numbers seen when you click specification in Wiki. The aircraft is continuously getting lighter as it burns fuel and the TWR is always changing. There are other factors to consider such as drag. Bottom line is that all of the modern designs have acceptable levels of TWR to be effective in air combat. So when one gets a 20% boost during life cycle, thats a major upgrade.

It's the same for the other Specs like Maximum Mach that people get all caught up over without realizing most combat loaded warplanes NEVER fly that fast and certainly not for any sustained period due to fuel limitations and mechanical limits on the engines and airframe. The only operational aircraft that go beyond what's typical in terms of flight performance speed are the F-22 and Mig-25/31. But these are specialized designs. All the rest are about the same from a flight performance point of view having their platform specific advantages and disadvantages.

-DA 

Allow me to desagree on several point:

There are several ways for computing of empty weight...

 

   Empty without whatever you canot flush like oil or ecces fuel.

 

   Operational weight empty with everything included crew but without weapon and fuel.

 

   Combat weight is computed on the basis of 50% internal fuel and weapon only (assumed jetissoned external tanks).

 

   As for Maximum mach it is generaly divided between Operational (A2Aconfiguration, AAM load otherwise clean) and Max DASH.

 

  FADEC limits engine wear for you these days and one can pretty much run at full A-B for hours.

 

  The Mirage IV was doing it for 500 km at speeds between Mach 2.08 and Mach 2.14 and 1000 kn with an average speed of 1 822 km/h in 1960, over its normal range it would be supersonic more than 50% of the time.

 

  The limitations of sustained M 2.0 flight being structural due to kinetic heating and fuel consumption.

 

  Saying that high dash speeds is not so important is ignoring what the egress time involves in terms of incresased likelyness of intercept, as the A7 Corsair II pilots figured for themself over Vietnam so our latest strikers and external tanks are all stressed for sustained M 1.6 to be safe.

 

  In short you want to bug out as fast as possible becasue we want you back home to do it all over again.

 

  Ingress is generaly done using a typical 89% military power with full external load which results into a <> M 89 cruising speed on most modern strikers as low as 100 ft.

 

 

 

 

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

  You views that Dash speeds aren't useful and never used and Max Mach values not sustained, in operation the opposite happens much too often expecialy if your life depends on it.

 

Regards, PlG

I didn't say dash speed isn't useful, you did. I know what happens in operation and I can tell you that combat configured warplanes are not flying around at the wiki V_Max.

-DA 

 

Illustrating what fighter pilots have to worry about in terms of limitations when it comes to speed.

 

From the 1970 edition Mirage IIIE Flight Manual.

 

DarthAmerica        5/13/2009 11:04:50 AM

I didn't say dash speed isn't useful, you did. I know what happens in operation and I can tell you that combat configured warplanes are not flying around at the wiki V_Max. -DA

OK so you want a confrontation? OK what do you want to fight about? FADECS? FOR WHAT. That isn't a question BTW. Look, stop trying to create something from nothing. Fighters do not fly or fight at anywhere near the speeds listed as V_Max on wiki, .mil sites or manufacturers websites when operationally configured. What brief sprints into upper mach numbers they do, are very brief. Unless of course we are talking about aircraft that are purpose built to fly and fight at those sustained speeds. YOU have no idea what I have an idea of. Stop trolling and start debating/discussing. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask. If you have any kind of real exposure or insight into these issues then you should know exactly what I'm speaking about.

Let me break it down for you so you can get it with an analogy. My bike is powerful enough and geared properly to reach just over 200mph. In 5 years of racing with this machine I've reached that speed about 3 or 4 times and then only for brief moments. Most often, I'm in the 100mph-160 mph range. Similarly, a Rafale may have a listen V_Max of Mx.x but that doesn't mean its routine to fly that fast.

-DA 

You are mystaking me for one of the guys writng about our aircrafts and procedures.

  You bike is fact but it is not a military aircraft, my FZR 1000 Thunderace was 170 mph fast and  i took it to donigton park for a track day where i managed to turn circles around Dukes and ZX9Rs using =Kenny Roberts Senior riding techniques, dragging the rear wheel and carrying a hell of a lot of corner speed, i used to outbrake these sportbike under Dunlop easly...

 

  I dont mystake it for a MS 880 or a Cessna F150 though.

 

  The picture i posted show YOU what parameters are under scrutiny for the pilot to worry about when flying an aircraft from the 70s, the V-Max mentioned in Wiki are invalid here because they do not apply for aircraft with military loads but clean airframes and ewvery single one have the same V-Max limitations for structural load reasons.

 

  Today FADEC take care of engine ware and  DASH speeds can be reached and sustained for much longer than then, this is WHY it is used, the limitation is NOT an engine or aiframe problem (although sustained M 2.0 flight involves a certain amount of kinetic heating) but external loads depending in ther configurations...

 

Another piece of ehard vidence you try to deny, but i would like to see YOU posting anything as genuine as this to make your points other than mentioning a public information vulgarisation internet website, where i happen to write myself when i have time.

 

 It is full of innacuracies and even propaganda depending on the writers...

 

  The parameters shown in this Mirage III manual picture show this to you very clearly, dont tell ME you know better, i havent  seen you anywhere in the AFBs i was and i doubt very much you know better than this book does.

 

  What we know is:

 

  Rafale and Mirage 2000 CAN and DO easly fly at M 2.0 and M 2.2 and some missions requiers DASH speeds in particular high altitude interception, in operation it would be used just as well if necessary. AGAIN, FADEC.

 

Regards, PlG

Why do you keep twisting the debate to FADECS and such? I didn't say these planes aren't capable of M2.0. I said it's a cold day in hell when they actually do it and almost never when operationally configured. Why are you trying to dispute an obvious fact? 

I'll tell you what. Post for me an operationally configured Rafale mission profile that involves M2.0 speeds. Or, alternatively, list for me one example of an air to air interception and subsequent dogfight where a V of over M1.5 was a factor.

 -DA