I’ve seen Australian Hornets sitting at 50 degrees, almost hovering as they flew over us maintaining perfectly... Can’t even imagine what 70 degrees would look like, that’s nuts!
Crazy how Americans research thrust vectoring and never apply it on their aircraft until the f22 but good for Russia they don’t need to research anything just let the Americans do the experiment we just apply it to our jet
I have over 1500 hours in the Hornet, beginning in 1982. Some of the maneuvers I have seen in recent air show footage, the high alpha regime has indeed been expanded. Due no doubt to the testing performed at Edwards. We used to routinely fly to what was then relatively high alpha. We obviously had only touched on the full capabilities of the Hornet. Thanks for this video. Made an old geezer remember the good ole days.
@@hughjass3266 just being able to trap onto a carrier makes you a beast of a pilot air, but that many hours makes you a true badass. Much respect from a former civil Air Patrol cadet.
They took this data and applied it to the F-22 project 2 decades later. The F-22 doesn't have 360° thrust vectoring, instead it uses two independent vertical thrust vectoring nozzles. It allows them to use thrust vectoring for fast roll maneuvers, or crazy pitch up or down maneuvering. It also doesn't prevent them from being able to go supersonic.
@@chadnelson1777Interestingly, the Ruzzians also use 2D thrust vectoring. They just vector the engines at a 45° angle to simulate 3D vectoring. The F-15 ACTIVE and the F-16 with thrust vectoring used true 360° nozzles which the Ruzzians couldn’t replicate.
You’re definitely right, it was a golden age for these experimental aircraft back then! Makes me wonder what kinds of experimental projects they’re researching nowadays. On a completely unrelated note, for the Ace Combat fans out there, this era was likely the inspiration for AC7’s EASA, and Mihaly’s Su-30SM. The orange wingtip paint scheme, dry lakebed test facility, and even the Worm logo are extremely similar. Also another interesting note - the CFA-44 Nosferatu design has a converge nozzle inside the three paddle thrust vectoring module, which explains why it’s capable of supersonic speeds.. they really thought things out for the design! Anyway sorry for going off topic but thanks for making this video, really interesting topic! I remember seeing the black F-18 HARV on a poster that I got from an air show at Ames back in 2003. So glad to finally get to learn a lot more about the design. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed the video and thank you for the excellent points on the Ace Combat crossover...I am planning on livestreaming through an Ace Combat 7 play through and AC related videos in the future. Stay tuned!
CNN after reading praise to Russian technology: _"ORANGE WINGTIP BAD!"_ Political commentary aside: XFA-27 and CFA-44 were my favourite Ace Combat designs because they seemed well thought and relatively realistic. It's a shame the Falken and especially the Wyvern have become the most iconic fictional planes in the franchise when the first seems barely capable to lift-off with its abysmal wing area and the later would cramble apart at g 5 with its retarded retractable reverse wing design.
@@nickkorkodylas5005 Funnily enough, the Falken is capable of flying on the X-plane aerodynamic simulation... But yes. Most of the original aircraft are the classical case of "function follows form".
@@DonVigaDeFierro Funnily enough, the Falken is based on an existing design. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL-230_Skorpion It's just that the real one was planned as a light CAS-aircraft and not a supermaneuverable dogfighter (and the engines did not stupidly protrude way past the wing/lifting body area).
@@karlsinger4760 hate to tell you but you are very wrong in that regard. Stealth does not make you invisible and the Air Force as well as aircraft manufacturers know this. Maneuverability in regards to fighters and multi-roll future air craft is still key.
This aircraft, the F-15 ACTIVE, and the thrust vectoring F-16 were more maneuverable than any Sukhoi, as the basic airframes were better to begin with, and because they developed true 360° thrust vectoring (at least on the F-15) which was superior to what Ruzzia uses. However, the US decided against putting thrust vectoring on future aircraft besides the F-22 (which was already in production), because it tempted pilots to get into turning fights instead of sticking to the US tactics that have been effective since 1942 and continue to be superior.
Indeed! I plan on a VISTA video and depending on how much source material I can find will either include the CCV/AFTI as a separate video or combine them. Thanks for commenting and for being a subscriber!
I hadn't even heard of the HARV until an earlier video where you discussed it in brief. This was an excellent overview of what was clearly a critical program in the development of the US's fifth generation fighter aircraft. Many thanks!
IV EV it’s an old Japanese Anime from back when I was a kid ! Lol. Not really a Tomcat but the Veritech was definitely inspired by the Cat ! Lol. You should google Rick Hunters Veritech !
awesome. it was the blacksmiths solution to the thrust vectoring problem ....... it got better later but it needed weight to prove it in the beginning, i salute you engineers
Thank your kids for their service and I plan a video all about the P-47, hopefully it will do their grandpa proud. Thanks for commenting and glad you enjoyed the video.
Former Navy jet pilot, trained in F-9F, A-4H, and crashed in A-3D---well sure! Loved it, just want to know where that technology is NOW for us---I know Russia and China use it.
Thanks for your service and looks like you had a great career...glad you survived the A-3D crash...I met someone who flew them as well and he told me the nickname was All Three Dead....ouch!
Raw performance and 3-d thrust vectoring was dropped since dogfighting is not expected of pilots in modern theaters, it's all long-range and stealth these days. Hence the F22 and F35.
So I went on to SimplePlanes and put on a quasi-thrust vectoring system on the stock F-18. Manoeuvrability was indeed excellent, but the thing bled energy faster than a decapitated turkey. Welp, time to add those cool looking strakes I guess.
Another thing I should add is that I had the luxury of enlarging the wings to counter the shift in COM in the game, while the chaps of NASA probably had to make do with counterweights irl.
_>the thing bled energy faster than a decapitated turkey_ An understatement, "the thing bled energy faster than a Super Hornet" would be a more accurate comparisson (still beat the F-22 in mock dogfight though).
Your work is awesome on the researching of the HARV (Hornet), every new technology has years of research behind it. We have not been privy to the actual programs for years. Your presentation allowed many to see the evolution to todays gen 6 platforms. When the P-51 design hit the world, it was unheard of... Yea, Top Secret and all that, but the actual designers never got the benefits of years of development. Rushed into production for the war effort, it was found lacking after actual experience of veteran combat pilots, changes were designed and implemented along the way. And the world had the first true air dominance platform. (my humble opinion). Kinda sounds like the F-35... The F-16 was the modern P-51.
In the 90's research was still going Cold War full bore. Edwards was busy as could be. After the collapse of the Soviet Union focus shifted, but still had to address evolving threats.
I've been here watching your journey when it comes to these types of videos. Very informative and educational! They've helped me consider whether or not on joining the Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps to become a pilot. I hope your success can lead to more people to understand the majesty of these great aircraft!
Great video, I remember watching this a/c taking off during that time out at Edwards AFB. Being stationed out at Edwards AFB was amazing being able to see A/C most don’t ever get to see fly.
Thank you for this. I remember seeing footage of a fighter doing insane manurers a while back but couldn't recall what the plane was and assumed it was Russian - it wasn't, it was the HARV.
Because of the leading edge extensions the rudders have to be tilted out as you see on the f18 because when in a high alpha the extensions block all the air from running across the rudders.
fun fact: Malaysian Air Force still prefers their Legacy Hornet over their top of the line Su-30MKMs. The Sukhois can pull more stunts, but the Hornet can pull enough alpha to keep up with everyone in a dogfight (and way easier to maintain too!)
@deadfrontier240 no, but i do hear a lot of approvals of the Hornet from these people. They really like the Hornet, the last AF chief even said he wanted more Hornets and no more Russian jets. It's the least problematic jet in their service.
@deadfrontier240 yeah something like that. Supply issues + how the jets itself are designed. it is true that Flankers have (way) better on paper specs and performance. Another thing is Western fighters have more intuitive man-machine interface and more versatile weapons than Russian systems. If you put a new fighter pilot or a pilot who flew old Russian jets in a Flanker, he'd think it's great, but if you put a Hornet pilot in a Flanker cockpit he'd prolly think it's somewhat horribly designed lol. You can mitigate this with more training or modifications but then again you'd rather have something with less workload during combat.
I saw one flying while over decade ago during my teaching practice. It was far away but I could still recognize it's silhouette and the dark gray skin(the MIG 29s were lighter gray) against the bright blue sky. I saw another much closer just over a year ago as it flew in front of my hotel. I thought another one flew past my village a couple of months ago but sadly it turned out to be just a steam roller clanking about at high speed in front of my house. Several years there was an incursion of sort by some foreigners and the country's military response was spearheaded with a bombing run with F/A18s. I was surprised by this because I expected the new MULTI-ROLE COMBAT AIRCRAFT SU-30MKMs would be chosen.
@deadfrontier240 I know it's anecdotal but USN technicians have told me that F-18As were major hangarwhores and the -C models weren't significantly better.
Great job again! Been looking forward to this video. I've been watching videos on the x planes for years but I don't remember ever seeing a video on this aircraft. Thank you
The yarn is called TUFTS we used them in Super Hornet flight test too. During the infamous "wing drop" testing. What is now production wingfold porous door on E and F and the wing fence on G are the results of that.
Super nice video of F-18 hornet also other aircrafts which had technical relationship with F- 18 hornet and steps of developing each versions of these air crafts...too interests video thanks....amazing shapes and colours
Nice job on a well done overview of the HARV program. I was assigned to this program to help install many of the unique flight test and research components you mentioned. As a side note, NASA almost got the VISTA aircraft to do additional aerodynamic work. Bob
Thank you. I've found this particular aircraft fascinating. I half wonder what kind of results they'd have gotten, maneuverability wise, if they left the longer cutouts in the LEXs - even though (as I recall) they ended up being a huge source of drag.
Thanks for commenting and I believe some of this research helped develop the Super Hornet which does have larger LEX area, and to your point there is a point where the drag penalty is not worth it.
@@PilotPhotog Ahh, but it wasn't the area in the LEX that was causing the drag. It was the actual cutouts along the side - if you look at the early test models, *early* in testing, you'll see the longer slots. The idea was (as I'm recalling) to pass air through (and/or create vortexes, perhaps) so that the vertical surfaces wouldn't lose effectiveness - but they caused a *lot* of unexpected drag, so they were mostly filled in. (Just to be clear. :) )
I think 70 degree AOA was shown, beginning @ 12:20. Per this viddy, it never occurred to me that "alpha" would be useful in a dogfight. Great video because great to know about. TY PP~!
I was at Edwards while these were flying. The YF22 and YF23 were flying as well. I was on the AC-130U Gunship Test Team at the time. The C-17A was in test at this time as well. A good time to be in test and evaluation.
@CSXRockford I agree with you. The wise choice would have been for the Tomcat to be upgraded. Why do you think this foolish choice of eliminating the F-14, in favor of downgrading to the smaller Hornet, having less speed and range, and hauling half the payload, was selected? Minus avionics, doesn't this diminish the carrier's defensive and offensive capabilities for air combat? Would it be possible to restart the Tomcat assembly lines, if the tooling needed is available?
I work in China and when I was talking to a local Mainland Chinese colleague about the faults about China's economic development and its inability to do hi-technology in a lot of fields this video is an excellent case in point. It seems like a lot of Chinese companies with a few exceptions and Chinese academia does not do specialized research projects like HARV. They do not understand that technology only come out when governments and academia (at least the STEM parts) do fundamental research about the natural world which involves a lot of trial and error.
Thanks for commenting and your insight. Research and Development is a costly undertaking and not every project will yield results. There needs to be an understanding that most projects will not lead to breakthroughs but the ones that do are sometimes revolutionary.
Correction: The angle of attack is the vector formed by the chord line and the direction of the planes motion, or in other words, the angle at which the plane's wing meets airflow relative to the plane as a frame of reference.
kinda weird to think about, since the f 18 forward aerofoils already give it a high alpha critical point compared to other aircraft like the f 15, f 16, and f 14.
I’ve seen Australian Hornets sitting at 50 degrees, almost hovering as they flew over us maintaining perfectly...
Can’t even imagine what 70 degrees would look like, that’s nuts!
Fancy seeing you here Mr Scottish Koala explains .
@thescottishKoala I tried flying 50 degrees in DCS...fun and challenging! Thanks for commenting and looking forward to a collab!
True, 50 degrees is eye catching, 70 degrees is nuts, but what is really mind blowing is the reported X29 89 degrees!!!!
Crazy how Americans research thrust vectoring and never apply it on their aircraft until the f22 but good for Russia they don’t need to research anything just let the Americans do the experiment we just apply it to our jet
William Jr There’s an old aviation adage that while the americans take years planing, projecting, developing; other countries are using it!
I have over 1500 hours in the Hornet, beginning in 1982. Some of the maneuvers I have seen in recent air show footage, the high alpha regime has indeed been expanded. Due no doubt to the testing performed at Edwards. We used to routinely fly to what was then relatively high alpha.
We obviously had only touched on the full capabilities of the Hornet. Thanks for this video. Made an old geezer remember the good ole days.
Nice
@@hughjass3266 just being able to trap onto a carrier makes you a beast of a pilot air, but that many hours makes you a true badass. Much respect from a former civil Air Patrol cadet.
They took this data and applied it to the F-22 project 2 decades later. The F-22 doesn't have 360° thrust vectoring, instead it uses two independent vertical thrust vectoring nozzles. It allows them to use thrust vectoring for fast roll maneuvers, or crazy pitch up or down maneuvering. It also doesn't prevent them from being able to go supersonic.
And combined with the massive fucking rudders and high T/W achieves the same maneuverability as 3d+ canards.
Yep it’s called 2D thrust vectoring
Yeah um that makes no sense... This plane flew AFTER the yf22.
@@chadnelson1777Interestingly, the Ruzzians also use 2D thrust vectoring. They just vector the engines at a 45° angle to simulate 3D vectoring. The F-15 ACTIVE and the F-16 with thrust vectoring used true 360° nozzles which the Ruzzians couldn’t replicate.
I'd still love to see an F18 with thrust vectoring. I think it would basically make it into the American SU37
You’re definitely right, it was a golden age for these experimental aircraft back then! Makes me wonder what kinds of experimental projects they’re researching nowadays. On a completely unrelated note, for the Ace Combat fans out there, this era was likely the inspiration for AC7’s EASA, and Mihaly’s Su-30SM. The orange wingtip paint scheme, dry lakebed test facility, and even the Worm logo are extremely similar. Also another interesting note - the CFA-44 Nosferatu design has a converge nozzle inside the three paddle thrust vectoring module, which explains why it’s capable of supersonic speeds.. they really thought things out for the design! Anyway sorry for going off topic but thanks for making this video, really interesting topic! I remember seeing the black F-18 HARV on a poster that I got from an air show at Ames back in 2003. So glad to finally get to learn a lot more about the design. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed the video and thank you for the excellent points on the Ace Combat crossover...I am planning on livestreaming through an Ace Combat 7 play through and AC related videos in the future. Stay tuned!
CNN after reading praise to Russian technology: _"ORANGE WINGTIP BAD!"_
Political commentary aside: XFA-27 and CFA-44 were my favourite Ace Combat designs because they seemed well thought and relatively realistic. It's a shame the Falken and especially the Wyvern have become the most iconic fictional planes in the franchise when the first seems barely capable to lift-off with its abysmal wing area and the later would cramble apart at g 5 with its retarded retractable reverse wing design.
An F/A-18E with HARV technology and a railgun sounds like my default setting. ;)
@@nickkorkodylas5005 Funnily enough, the Falken is capable of flying on the X-plane aerodynamic simulation... But yes. Most of the original aircraft are the classical case of "function follows form".
@@DonVigaDeFierro Funnily enough, the Falken is based on an existing design.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL-230_Skorpion
It's just that the real one was planned as a light CAS-aircraft and not a supermaneuverable dogfighter (and the engines did not stupidly protrude way past the wing/lifting body area).
Your videos about these more obscure aircraft are truly gems!
Thank you, glad you enjoy them!
Imagine the type of experimental aircraft they're testing in 2020
Maneuverability isn't as important in the age of stealth. Don't expect much
@@karlsinger4760 hate to tell you but you are very wrong in that regard. Stealth does not make you invisible and the Air Force as well as aircraft manufacturers know this. Maneuverability in regards to fighters and multi-roll future air craft is still key.
Its just AC7
Probably nothing with a pilot onboard😐😐
The U.S. Air Force announced they tested a prototype of a 6th generation fighter yesterday.
This research looks like the precursor to how the Su-35 and -37 has become so agile.
This aircraft, the F-15 ACTIVE, and the thrust vectoring F-16 were more maneuverable than any Sukhoi, as the basic airframes were better to begin with, and because they developed true 360° thrust vectoring (at least on the F-15) which was superior to what Ruzzia uses. However, the US decided against putting thrust vectoring on future aircraft besides the F-22 (which was already in production), because it tempted pilots to get into turning fights instead of sticking to the US tactics that have been effective since 1942 and continue to be superior.
@@bluemarlin8138 wasn’t the thrust vectoring on the F-16 MATV better? It was also 360° and performed the kulbit and flatspin maneuvers effortlessly.
@@PegasusTenma1not sure but it sure could have been.
Don't forget the F-16 CCV/AFTI! That thing could yaw like a racecar and freak everybody out.
Indeed! I plan on a VISTA video and depending on how much source material I can find will either include the CCV/AFTI as a separate video or combine them. Thanks for commenting and for being a subscriber!
I really appreciate that you show units in metric and imperial, it really helps me to actually understand what's being talked about.
Thank you glad to do that and thanks for commenting!
I hadn't even heard of the HARV until an earlier video where you discussed it in brief. This was an excellent overview of what was clearly a critical program in the development of the US's fifth generation fighter aircraft.
Many thanks!
Being into aviation my whole life, thought I seen them all,
Never knew of a TVC F-18, how cool!
Now I want to see an TVC Supertomcat...
Watch Robotech ! Lol
@@ozzy7763 Hahaha seriously, they really made an animation of it? Will check, thanks XD
IV EV it’s an old Japanese Anime from back when I was a kid ! Lol. Not really a Tomcat but the Veritech was definitely inspired by the Cat ! Lol. You should google Rick Hunters Veritech !
XFA-27
@@ozzy7763 hahahaa
will do thanks bud
awesome. it was the blacksmiths solution to the thrust vectoring problem ....... it got better later but it needed weight to prove it in the beginning, i salute you engineers
Outstanding piece of work man - keep this up Sir
By following your normal subscriber progression, I'd say here comes 20K subscribers! You earned that for sure. Good job sir!
Great video, there are so many interesting planes I didn’t know about
Glad you enjoyed it and more on the way!
Great info that my kids, one in the Navy, didn't know. Now they will. Their WW2 Grandpa was with P47s. Thanks
Thank your kids for their service and I plan a video all about the P-47, hopefully it will do their grandpa proud. Thanks for commenting and glad you enjoyed the video.
Great job dude. So much hard work was obviously put into this and is appreciated. Please keep more coming
Thank you much appreciated!
You did an outstanding job putting this together!
Thank you much appreciated!
Former Navy jet pilot, trained in F-9F, A-4H, and crashed in A-3D---well sure! Loved it, just want to know where that technology is NOW for us---I know Russia and China use it.
Thanks for your service and looks like you had a great career...glad you survived the A-3D crash...I met someone who flew them as well and he told me the nickname was All Three Dead....ouch!
Canada has not stopped
Raw performance and 3-d thrust vectoring was dropped since dogfighting is not expected of pilots in modern theaters, it's all long-range and stealth these days. Hence the F22 and F35.
So I went on to SimplePlanes and put on a quasi-thrust vectoring system on the stock F-18. Manoeuvrability was indeed excellent, but the thing bled energy faster than a decapitated turkey. Welp, time to add those cool looking strakes I guess.
Another thing I should add is that I had the luxury of enlarging the wings to counter the shift in COM in the game, while the chaps of NASA probably had to make do with counterweights irl.
Good point and thanks for commenting, let me know how those strakes work out.
_>the thing bled energy faster than a decapitated turkey_
An understatement, "the thing bled energy faster than a Super Hornet" would be a more accurate comparisson (still beat the F-22 in mock dogfight though).
This is why F-22s don't use thrust vectoring all the time and why thrust vectoring Sukhois are air show meme planes.
@@TK-_-421
t. pre-TOPGUN USN loosing 2 Phantoms for every MiG
Your work is awesome on the researching of the HARV (Hornet), every new technology has years of research behind it. We have not been privy to the actual programs for years. Your presentation allowed many to see the evolution to todays gen 6 platforms. When the P-51 design hit the world, it was unheard of... Yea, Top Secret and all that, but the actual designers never got the benefits of years of development. Rushed into production for the war effort, it was found lacking after actual experience of veteran combat pilots, changes were designed and implemented along the way. And the world had the first true air dominance platform. (my humble opinion). Kinda sounds like the F-35... The F-16 was the modern P-51.
Great video! Thanks so much.
I'm a bit surprised that someone actually used their brain in regard to using an aircraft, purpose-built, for high angles of attack, for this project.
In the 90's research was still going Cold War full bore. Edwards was busy as could be. After the collapse of the Soviet Union focus shifted, but still had to address evolving threats.
you're surprised that world class NASA engineers and scientists used their brains?
Theres actually a DCS HARV Demo done by HeatsOkay during the VFAT 2020 Airshow. It was posted on TH-cam as well!
Great video. Very cool.
Thanks for commenting
20 years of working on F18's. I did not know about this aircraft. i have worked alphas to Foxtrots and this was new to me
I've been here watching your journey when it comes to these types of videos. Very informative and educational! They've helped me consider whether or not on joining the Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps to become a pilot. I hope your success can lead to more people to understand the majesty of these great aircraft!
Thank you for your work. I love these experimental aircraft. They really make me wonder about the future. Please keep doing this.
Thanks, will do and glad you enjoyed the video!
those back to back handbrake turns by tht pilot in the middle of the video are mindblowing when u consider the year it was
Great video, I remember watching this a/c taking off during that time out at Edwards AFB. Being stationed out at Edwards AFB was amazing being able to see A/C most don’t ever get to see fly.
I was a civilian Firefighter at Edwards during that era. I miss being around those programs
Thank you for this. I remember seeing footage of a fighter doing insane manurers a while back but couldn't recall what the plane was and assumed it was Russian - it wasn't, it was the HARV.
Great video Ive been waiting for this video since you asked if we would watch it and let me say you didnt disappoint. Awesome job.
Thank you for making the video also I can't wait to see the F 16 Vista video.
What a terrific video. Can't wait for the next one. Excellent research. Thank you!
Love to see the x29 as well. Great video.
Thanks for commenting and I plan on doing all of the X planes, including the 29
Thanks for the all the awesome content ! Really good stuff..
Glad you enjoy it!
Awesome work from the HARV, and the lessons are priceless; thank you Juan for another great piece of work, and I'll be waiting on the F-16 video!!👍
Thanks Juan, and thanks for your ongoing support! Working on the VISTA video as well as the X-32
@@PilotPhotog Thank you too, I wish I could help the channel but my situation is hard at the moment!!
@@juanarce6900 no worries and I immensely appreciate your comments and continued support!
High quality content bud. I love the videos and detail you provide. Thank you for what you do, it's appreciated!
Glad you enjoy it!
Because of the leading edge extensions the rudders have to be tilted out as you see on the f18 because when in a high alpha the extensions block all the air from running across the rudders.
8:29 perfectly in sync
Thank you, much appreciated!
Greetings from Colorado! More please-all of your ideas. This was FAscinating. Thank you.
Awesome video again!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks for this video. Never knew about this plane. The planes on the nose are a very interesting feature.
Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for commenting
fun fact: Malaysian Air Force still prefers their Legacy Hornet over their top of the line Su-30MKMs. The Sukhois can pull more stunts, but the Hornet can pull enough alpha to keep up with everyone in a dogfight (and way easier to maintain too!)
Good to know and thanks for commenting!
@deadfrontier240 no, but i do hear a lot of approvals of the Hornet from these people. They really like the Hornet, the last AF chief even said he wanted more Hornets and no more Russian jets. It's the least problematic jet in their service.
@deadfrontier240 yeah something like that. Supply issues + how the jets itself are designed.
it is true that Flankers have (way) better on paper specs and performance. Another thing is Western fighters have more intuitive man-machine interface and more versatile weapons than Russian systems.
If you put a new fighter pilot or a pilot who flew old Russian jets in a Flanker, he'd think it's great, but if you put a Hornet pilot in a Flanker cockpit he'd prolly think it's somewhat horribly designed lol. You can mitigate this with more training or modifications but then again you'd rather have something with less workload during combat.
I saw one flying while over decade ago during my teaching practice. It was far away but I could still recognize it's silhouette and the dark gray skin(the MIG 29s were lighter gray) against the bright blue sky. I saw another much closer just over a year ago as it flew in front of my hotel. I thought another one flew past my village a couple of months ago but sadly it turned out to be just a steam roller clanking about at high speed in front of my house.
Several years there was an incursion of sort by some foreigners and the country's military response was spearheaded with a bombing run with F/A18s. I was surprised by this because I expected the new MULTI-ROLE COMBAT AIRCRAFT SU-30MKMs would be chosen.
@deadfrontier240 I know it's anecdotal but USN technicians have told me that F-18As were major hangarwhores and the -C models weren't significantly better.
@PilotPhotog Another great video on another great plane mate. Thanks for posting
I'm really glad I found this channel I enjoy all your videos can't wait for the next one
Amazing video, thank you for taking the time to explain the physics and history behind the jet. I always lean something new from every video
Love for your videos
May i suggest, for next video, try mig 1.44 or su 47
Great video!
Thanks for commenting
Great job again! Been looking forward to this video. I've been watching videos on the x planes for years but I don't remember ever seeing a video on this aircraft. Thank you
Great coverage!!
Thank you!
The yarn is called TUFTS we used them in Super Hornet flight test too. During the infamous "wing drop" testing. What is now production wingfold porous door on E and F and the wing fence on G are the results of that.
Yay! You got it out
Nice mate. Good job. Loved it. Look forward to that F16. Didn't know about that one either. Salivating
Super nice video of F-18 hornet also other aircrafts which had technical relationship with F- 18 hornet and steps of developing each versions of these air crafts...too interests video thanks....amazing shapes and colours
Liked the video, hoping for a future video on Rutan's ARES project, and its recent resurrection and successor
Outstanding job! Loved it! Encore, encore!!😂👍👁👁🇺🇸
Amazing video. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Very good, love your vídeos! Congrats from Brazil!
Thank you so much! Greetings from Texas!
Excellent information 👌🏻
Thank you and thanks for commenting
Glad this plane is still around!
Great video sir
I've been waiting for this!
Your channel is really great and reliable! 🙏🏼
I participated on several of the early testing and each advanced product have recieved a life all their own.
Seems like it was beneficial for the thrust vectoring technology and research.
i cant wait, love your work!!
F15-Active also tested at NASA Dryden also had amazing performance.
Then you'll enjoy this if you haven't seen it yet: th-cam.com/video/IhPhxWgpaC8/w-d-xo.html
Nice job on a well done overview of the HARV program. I was assigned to this program to help install many of the unique flight test and research components you mentioned. As a side note, NASA almost got the VISTA aircraft to do additional aerodynamic work.
Bob
Thanks for commenting and I always appreciate your feedback from someone who was there! Can you imagine what NASA could have done with the VISTA?
Wow something new to learn everyday!
Glad you think so!
Man, that murdered-out Hornet is badass lookin’.
Love NASA's love for blacked out planes
Beautifully made video bro!
Good Idea 👍🏼 Any F 4 or A V 8 Harrier Videos?
Another great one! Info dense, well thought out, straightforward. These NASA demo planes are inspired and you do such a good job.
F18 hornet: Who are you?
F18 Harv: I’m you but on steroids.
Awesome vid!!!!!
F-16 Vista was badass! Saw it too while I was there.
The video is cool as usual
Facinating, even as a laymen I love this stuff.
I cant wait for the video on the Vista. Hard to find any content on it. Great job bud. 👍
Thank you and working on sourcing info and footage.
@@PilotPhotog thats a tall order im thinking. Look forward to it.
Thank you. I've found this particular aircraft fascinating. I half wonder what kind of results they'd have gotten, maneuverability wise, if they left the longer cutouts in the LEXs - even though (as I recall) they ended up being a huge source of drag.
Thanks for commenting and I believe some of this research helped develop the Super Hornet which does have larger LEX area, and to your point there is a point where the drag penalty is not worth it.
@@PilotPhotog Ahh, but it wasn't the area in the LEX that was causing the drag. It was the actual cutouts along the side - if you look at the early test models, *early* in testing, you'll see the longer slots. The idea was (as I'm recalling) to pass air through (and/or create vortexes, perhaps) so that the vertical surfaces wouldn't lose effectiveness - but they caused a *lot* of unexpected drag, so they were mostly filled in. (Just to be clear. :) )
I cant wait to see your future vids
Thank you, new one on Monday with an Eagle pilot who flew in Desert Storm
I think 70 degree AOA was shown, beginning @ 12:20. Per this viddy, it never occurred to me that "alpha" would be useful in a dogfight. Great video because great to know about. TY PP~!
Thanks for commenting!
Love the F/A 18. Yes please make more videos on the research aircraft for TV.
Annnd we are past 20K subscribers! Congrats Sir!
Thank you and thanks for all of your support!
Great video
Glad you enjoyed it
Yes, I think that you should do the video on the advanced F-16, Harv and F-31, which is the one that I am most curious about.
Awesome video, awesome plane! And thanks for the metric numbers
Thank you, I will include both units of measure from now on...thanks for commenting!
@@PilotPhotog Appreciate that :)
I was at Edwards while these were flying. The YF22 and YF23 were flying as well. I was on the AC-130U Gunship Test Team at the time. The C-17A was in test at this time as well. A good time to be in test and evaluation.
This F/A 18 tested was not the newer and larger F/A 18 Super Hornet.
Imagine how the refitted Super Hornet would perform with thrust vectoring.
Indeed it could be a game changer - thanks for commenting!
@CSXRockford I agree with you. The wise choice would have been for the Tomcat to be upgraded.
Why do you think this foolish choice of eliminating the F-14, in favor of downgrading to the smaller Hornet, having less speed and range, and hauling half the payload, was selected? Minus avionics, doesn't this diminish the carrier's defensive and offensive capabilities for air combat?
Would it be possible to restart the Tomcat assembly lines, if the tooling needed is available?
I work in China and when I was talking to a local Mainland Chinese colleague about the faults about China's economic development and its inability to do hi-technology in a lot of fields this video is an excellent case in point.
It seems like a lot of Chinese companies with a few exceptions and Chinese academia does not do specialized research projects like HARV. They do not understand that technology only come out when governments and academia (at least the STEM parts) do fundamental research about the natural world which involves a lot of trial and error.
Thanks for commenting and your insight. Research and Development is a costly undertaking and not every project will yield results. There needs to be an understanding that most projects will not lead to breakthroughs but the ones that do are sometimes revolutionary.
Correction: The angle of attack is the vector formed by the chord line and the direction of the planes motion, or in other words, the angle at which the plane's wing meets airflow relative to the plane as a frame of reference.
More please.
Absolutely loving your channel! Fascinating stuff! You’re covering stuff I’ve never seen anyone else cover. 👍
kinda weird to think about, since the f 18 forward aerofoils already give it a high alpha critical point compared to other aircraft like the f 15, f 16, and f 14.
Wow, very interesting documentary!
Thank you!
eager to learn more on the "vista" F-16
Thanks for commenting, still working on it - footage is hard to come by.
Yea I do like the plan for the f16 vista
Awesome fighter.
Great job,
Thank you! Cheers!
this was cool , thank you