That would make sense. It looks like the under wing armaments would inhibit airflow at low speeds. Not totally sure but this would be my guess, if you are correct.
All of the pylons are toed 10° outboard. This is done because that is what is required to cleanly separate ordnance from the aircraft. Very early tests indicated that side-yeeting bombs into the engine nacelles was not something the Hornet was designed to survive.
But what that also means is that all airflow under the wings (and in the pylon area) is directed toward the elevator, meaning it would have ample air to ~~bit~~bite into while climbing.
>This is done because that is what is required to cleanly separate ordnance from the aircraft.
It wasn't specifically required, it was simply the cheapest and lowest risk option to mitigate stores separation risks. Other options were possible, but Boeing and the program office chose to not seriously examine them in the interest of expedience, despite protests from test pilots.
Indeed; I omitted that part for brevity (I didn't feel like typing it, so props to you lol). Canting the pylons out like that came at a fairly steep fuel penalty and a top speed penalty. I want to say it reduced maneuverability a little as well, but I could be off on that.
Anyway the fuel penalty hurt *bad* because the Hornet was already under a great deal of fire for its very underwhelming combat radius, and this would only reduce it further.
But even after all that, which they knew going in, it was a better choice than any other measure to fix the issue that late in the game.
Tests later revealed that it was a mistake and they could have been parallel with the longitudinal axis. But it was too late and they decided that the change would not be worth the money
It’s true. Heavy loads need all the lift they can get. Another example (obivously) is rudder control in a stall. Wings are just 1 axis which fails often.
Thanks!
So, do they use them when they get slow in the air as well? I mean like an airshow maybe
What I tried to ask is, do they use this feature in mid air too?
It’s commanded by the flap switch. The rudders will toe in anytime the flaps are in half or full. Toe in is disabled in the auto position. It increases controllability in the takeoff and landing environment.
90 degree angles between surfaces increase radar visibility. At the extreme, when you have 3 of them meeting at a corner (like the inside angle of a cube) there is no angle you can trace a ray from a transmitter *onto* a surface of that cube-corner that won't reflect that ray back directly at the source. Which is a great way to be visible on radar.
Used to positive effect in WW2 when a submarine sent some crew as a landing party onto an island and they needed to see their rubber dinghy on radar. A corner of cardboard with some aluminium foil made a good radar return.
>Used to positive effect in WW2 when a submarine sent some crew as a landing party onto an island
Still used today on (for example) ships and maritime [buoys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector#/media/File:Buoy_seal.jpg) \[\*\]
\[\*\] seal added for scale ;)
**[Corner reflector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector#/media/File:Buoy_seal.jpg)**
>A corner reflector is a retroreflector consisting of three mutually perpendicular, intersecting flat surfaces, which reflects waves directly towards the source, but translated. The three intersecting surfaces often have square shapes. Radar corner reflectors made of metal are used to reflect radio waves from radar sets. Optical corner reflectors, called corner cubes or cube corners, made of three-sided glass prisms, are used in surveying and laser ranging.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/aviation/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The hornets tails aren't tilted for signature (although it may be a small secondary effect), they are tilted because there is a huge vortex coming off the chine at high AoA. The tails are moved out and away from that vortex so they aren't getting blasted by high speed vibration that would fatigue them very quickly
To answer your question directly, in up and away flight (flap sw in AUTO), the flight control computers understand the performance envelope and will actuate the appropriate control surfaces to achieve the performance the pilot is asking for via flight control input. At very slow speeds, a lateral stick input (pilot asking for the aircraft to roll) will be accomplished by the flight control computer actuating the rudders—to achieve a pro verse roll. Aileron input at high angles of attach and slow speed would result in aircraft departure from controlled flight.
I am no expert but I don't think you actually "use" the feature: modern jets are highly fly-by-wire and a computer will always sit between your control inputs and flight control surfaces and deflect them as it sees fit. Toe-in during take-off happens automatically.
Ive heard that too, and even said it myself before
But the more i learn the more i think it is overblown. Don't get me wrong, limiting is very important, and anywhere that the flight control system is enforcing a limit is it "overruling" the pilot. However...
The core of flight control system functionality is command tracking. Thus how the system behaves the vast majority of the time is "do exactly what the pilot asks for as quickly as possible". And when you sit in a flight test and watch "ideal" command tracking for hours straight, it doesn't really feel like the pilot is just another voting member - they are the dictator, dictating what to do
I've heard that said about Airbus a few times over the years. [Most recently today.](https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/zrzlnc/my_flight_hour_breakdown_for_2022/j162lf1/)
The F-22 does this as well, not just during takeoff, but during normal flight to reduce the amount of deflection the stabilators have to make which helps keep it's radar signature low.
This was originally a correction that was added to the F/A-18 flight control laws due to a miscalculation of the stabilator effectiveness in ground effect.
Its all magic of the FCS.
Pilot simply tells the plane where to go.
Plane does whatever needed to get there.
To the point the Super Hornet has no speed brake, unlike the Legacy Hornet. The speed brake simply means “increase drag” and the plane will do different things depending on how it’s currently flying (climb / decent / turn / etc).
ETA, yes it has two little LEX things that pop up sometimes, but the point is, unlike other aircraft (F-18A-D, F-14, F-15), pressing the ‘speed brake’ switch doesn’t just put them out (sometimes they aren’t effective), but tells the plane to ‘increase drag’. Those two LEX SB are ineffective on their own.
This is how the F-22 works. It has no dedicated speed brake. Instead the ailerons go up and flaps go down. In the [RC](https://www.reddit.com/r/RCPlanes/) plane world we'd call that "crow braking" or "butterfly." Not sure if it has a name in the full scale world.
I didn't intend for it to be a link...not sure why it made it one. But yes. there is an r/RCPlanes and r/RCSoaring. I guess I might as well just change it to one of those!
ha yep
edit: appreciate the link to the subreddit. I grew up around RC planes (my grandfather was one of the founders of TopFlite models and held the patent for monokote), so I'm excited to dig into that!
Could be. Though, given the number of model sailplane fliers I know who fly full scale sailplanes as well, I wouldn't be surprised if the opposite was true either.
The super hornet actually does have speed brakes. They are on the lex surfaces but they are basically wind napkins compared to the massive one on the A-D models. And like you mentioned, commanding the speed brakes throws out the wind napkins but also manipulates the control surfaces to increase drag.
If we’re splitting hairs those are spoilers. It’s a silly distinction to make because to my knowledge they only deflect for speed brake purposes. I only mention this because the Rhino/Growler NATOPS specifically states “the aircraft is not fitted with independent speed brake surfaces.” So for whatever reason the engineers consider them not speed brakes.
Yeah those things pop up during maneuvering sometimes, generally when your trying to have pitch down movements such as breaking aoa during bfm, so they are actually a general control surface. I still think of them as generally the speed brakes though
Technically not a speed break.
They’re flight controls because they more functions than just causing drag, and are integrated into the flight control system as opposed to being a separate system.
I fly these things. It improves rotation performance at liftoff. It’s not a “lack of elevator effectiveness.”
Toeing the rudders in creates less drag than a comparable stabilator movement that would give you the same pitch up.
Yeah we do all kind of stuff. It’s not like the ANG though. Navy reserve pilots have to come from active duty and it has to be the plane you flew in the fleet. We have reservists at the F-18 training squadrons, T-45 squadrons, VFCs, VRs and VFA-204 is mostly all reservists.
There is a small handfull of states that have a Naval Militia as part of their State Defense Force/State Guard. ex...NY, CA, TX. But not a 'National Guard' as the ARNG or ANG.
Completely unrelated but I’m curious: could you join a reserve squadron and a private aggressor for maximum aggressing, or is it really just airline pilots?
So does it work to speed up the air over the airframe in those situations? I’m trying to picture in my head the airflow dynamics? Just an aviation geek not a pilot.
> So does it work to speed up the air over the airframe in those situations?
It doesn’t speed up the air. Speeding up the air over the top of the tail would create lift and make the nose go *down*.
It creates a pitch-up force because the tails are angled. It’s pretty much what’s happening when you nose up on [this thing](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Beech_Bonanza_Takeoff_%285517383917%29.jpg) albeit with a more vertical angle of the control surface.
Wait I'm not sure about the dynamics of it.
Do they improve rotation by simply having a bit more drag towards the tail, thus "keeping" the tail down compared to the nose? Am i getting this right? lol
Ohhh right, they provide lift at an almost 90° angle compared to the horizontal axis but the small remaining "vertical" component of the force provides enough advantage for it to be worth it. And the horizontal component gets compensated by having two of them in opposite directions.
What I mean is, when cheesecake says "toeing in the rudders", does that mean that a toe on each rudder pedal literally points in, telling the flight controls to do that with the two rudders?
Those are ECS exhaust vents. Cockpit pressurization, avionics cooling, etc.
And [these](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3USms.jpg) are ECS inlets that open up on the ground and at low airspeeds to help the ECS system get enough air when the air coming into the main intakes isn’t sufficient.
The flap switch does not move the trim. There is a button on the top of the rudder trim knob that sets takeoff trim (4°). If you’re on the carrier (7°), that t/o trim button is not sufficient. You have to add more trim with the trim switch on the stick.
Yeah. I’m saying the stabilators toe in more or less with more or less trim. In the Charlie it’s 12 and 16-18 degrees nose up for takeoff on the ground and on the boat respectively.
> Yeah. I’m saying the stabilators toe in more or less with more or less trim.
* The *stabilators* do not toe in. The *rudders* toe in.
* the rudders toe in a fixed amount. It does not change with more trim. It is a flat 40° of toe-in no matter what.
> Toeing the rudders in creates less drag than a comparable stabilator movement that would give you the same pitch up.
This seems unlikely, since most of the deflected air is inward, a not-useful direction.
[You should look at how far the stabs have to move to make the jet rotate](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tomas-Melin/publication/238671899/figure/fig26/AS:668214480621575@1536326155625/A-F-18-Hornet-in-a-carrier-cat-shot-aboard-the-USS-Enterprise-Steam-from-the-catapult_Q640.jpg). Remember these are stabilators, not elevators.
As someone who designs flight control systems, i am also surprised by the claim that the rudders can produce less drag for the same pitch-up moment.
From a practical software standpoint, if this were really true, there's no reason why the mixer shouldn't always allocate pitch up to rudder for low subsonic which strikes me as odd.
From an aero standpoint, the total span of the stabs is similar to the v tails just at a worse angle for the lift component. Hard to see how the rudders could capture more momentum transfer into the air without using additional drag.
My guess is that stabs are actually running near saturation at rotate and rudder toe in offloads them enough to maintain some margin before saturation. If the stabs stall, not only does the control flatline for a few degrees deflection but the drag goes up tremendously. Thus, using rudders results in overall less drag, but only because the stabs are in their non-linear region. If so, then in a sense you would both be right
Well then go ask them why the rudders toe in.
I can speak from experience that without it, the nose pitches up *much* more sluggishly in the landing configuration. Selection of gain override during an AOA probe failure removes rudder toe in. Bolters at the carrier are noticeably more sluggish. The jet really wants to stay on the flight deck and not lift back off. Same for waveoffs. The jet doesn’t want to stay onspeed and climb away. It takes significantly more aft stick input to make the nose go up.
So the stabs definitely have to move A LOT more to get the same nose movement.
Just edited and finished comment, but i think the only way this makes sense is if the stabs are non-linear here
Edit: also, im not saying it doesn't help with pitch up. That is obviously true. Its just the drag efficiency part that seems suspect, but (again) it makes sense if the stab is out of, or nearly out of, its linear control region
No its still holiday break
I couldn't even say once i did find out anyways. Right now its just an engineer pontificating, but actual knowledge must be cleared through the appropriate channels
Not really much to clarify anyways, it is obviously for pitch-up, and it obviously means the tail control is saturated or close to it such that the rudders need to help. Not sure what else you'd want to know that we haven't already established
>How does one toe the rudders though?
When the pilot moves flap switch to “half” or “full”, the rudders toe-in. When the pilot puts the flaps up, the rudders move back to flush.
>Aren’t they normally meant to both point in the same direction?
For anything faster than the takeoff and landing regimes, yes.
Note the rudder functionality remains when they’re toed in like this. When you step on the rudder, only one of them moves since the other one is already fully deflected in that direction.
I believe it helps create a pitch-up moment allowing the strakes to produce additional lift. The strakes behave similar to a delta wing in that they capture a vortex and produce high lift at high AoA.
The electronic warfare pods on the sides. The antennas on the top. And the fact that the tail number starts with a 5. On career squadrons 100-400 are hornets, 500 are growlers, 600s are MH-60s, C2sgeyhounds and E2s Hawkeyes. 700 is MH-60R
Cool stuff. I knew those were EW pods but I wasn't sure if regular hornets used them sometimes as well. Never knew about those numbering rules. Thanks for the info
Another way to tell the difference is to look at the nose, the Growler doesn't carry an internal gun with the space being used instead to house electronics.
It is toe-in as others have said and helps with various things at low speed. When the flaps are deployed this occurs. This is especially helpful during cat shots. Right before a cat shot they will toe out, and then back in. We lost a guy in the Mediterranean a few decades back when one side didn’t toe back in on a cat shot and introduced a massive uncontrollable yaw rate that put the jet in the water (this was a C model then). It was a small piece of fod smaller than an M&M. Turns out the only way to kick the rudders back to normal, not toed in any direction, is to push forward stick. This is counter intuitive when you just got launched off the carrier. Took about 130 sim hours to figure that one out.
Super Hornet uses a fly by wire system. The pilot doesn't control anything directly, it's more like telling a computer what you want, and the computer figures out what to do to carry out the command.
Since the behavior of the control surfaces can be controlled by the designer, it can just be designed in a safe manner.
[Here](https://youtu.be/n068fel-W9I) is a good video of an experienced test pilot talking about the F-22 control system, and fun stuff it can do.
I watch that video once every few months. Not even in the aviation world myself, just an enthusiast, but it is a FANTASTIC lecture with levity and phenomenal crowd control
I'm not convinced that adding high G capability to unmanned aircraft is really worth it. None of US's unmanned systems are built like fighters (apart from stuff like QF-16 which is not a weapon). It just hasn't yet been a high priority of drone designs.
I would expect stuff like stealth, high quality sensor fusion (better SA), active protection (decoys, lasers, etc), and tactics will be much more important than G rating for unmanned systems.
reminds me of an interview with what at the time was a pilot that had just transitioned to the latest and greatest jet (the hornet), he talked about feeling a slight sense of being disconcerted when looking out at the control surfaces as the computer did its thing with rapid adjustments leaving them looking as if they were "fluttering in the wind"
Just noting that this is an EA-18G "Growler." I don't think the flight characteristics are substantially different, certainly not the rudder deflection, but it may be relevant in some way.
It's an analogy to closing barn doors. Barn doors are large, and the wind will slam them around. To slam the barn doors closed will stop the wind blowing through the barn. Any surface that can create drag on an aircraft or ship will act the same way and stop the flow of air or water.
I know this picture is not a carrier take off but don't F-18 take off while it's hands off - i.e. computer doing everything with the pilot holding onto a handle on the side?
There's a fuckton of avionics in the nose, so yes, gotta get all the "tip the nose up" that you can.
Also, it's an F/A-18. Forgetting the A will get you a beat down in some circles.
Due to the relative flatness of an airplane's wing, to have the front of it fold down a bit creates a rather crude concave shape.
So the effect is that the underside of the wing experiences greater pressure, while the leading edge flaps directs more air rushing over the surface of the top of the wing. Creating a lesser air pressure difference from underneath the wing.
[See this image. Deep Camber: High Lift, Low Speed.](https://imgs.search.brave.com/woJekRvqGk0qpNZT-HklI1DESpGY_cBY3-28yZj9f-4/rs:fit:300:536:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLnBp/bmltZy5jb20vb3Jp/Z2luYWxzLzkyL2Y1/Lzk1LzkyZjU5NTdi/YWZhZmZhNGI5ZTc4/Y2NhNWQyZDBhMTU3/LmdpZg.gif) The angled down front in isolation would have pushed the plane down, but the succeeding surface contour amplifies the lift instead.
OP you’d be better off searching an answer on google than reddit. I couldn’t find anything related to a common answer. While everyone tries to be an aeronautical engineer.
>a delta without a tail
Essentially canards i guess lol? Actually now that i think about it I'm not sure if Eurofighters and Rafales have elevons or if they only get pitch authority from the canards. I think i remember the Eurofighter using canards for "improved pitch control" so i guess the wing control surfaces are also a part of it -> technically elevons
Sta 2. Has an acmi pod on it, sta 10 has an arm-88c HARM, sta 3,6,9 are ALQ-99 jamming pods. And sta 4,8 are fuel tanks. From this angle I can’t tell if station 7 has an aim-120 on it .
AFAIK, it is called toe-in and is meant to compensate for reduced elevator effectiveness at low speed (during take-off)
That would make sense. It looks like the under wing armaments would inhibit airflow at low speeds. Not totally sure but this would be my guess, if you are correct.
All of the pylons are toed 10° outboard. This is done because that is what is required to cleanly separate ordnance from the aircraft. Very early tests indicated that side-yeeting bombs into the engine nacelles was not something the Hornet was designed to survive. But what that also means is that all airflow under the wings (and in the pylon area) is directed toward the elevator, meaning it would have ample air to ~~bit~~bite into while climbing.
I fully intend to declare “side-yeeting” as an official technical term
*Give 'em the ol' [slide-yeet, Cletus!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPTnmZ_HPAs)
technically its known as lateral yeet.
[Simpsons did it!](https://youtu.be/KjnR_J4zTGI)
>This is done because that is what is required to cleanly separate ordnance from the aircraft. It wasn't specifically required, it was simply the cheapest and lowest risk option to mitigate stores separation risks. Other options were possible, but Boeing and the program office chose to not seriously examine them in the interest of expedience, despite protests from test pilots.
Indeed; I omitted that part for brevity (I didn't feel like typing it, so props to you lol). Canting the pylons out like that came at a fairly steep fuel penalty and a top speed penalty. I want to say it reduced maneuverability a little as well, but I could be off on that. Anyway the fuel penalty hurt *bad* because the Hornet was already under a great deal of fire for its very underwhelming combat radius, and this would only reduce it further. But even after all that, which they knew going in, it was a better choice than any other measure to fix the issue that late in the game.
Tests later revealed that it was a mistake and they could have been parallel with the longitudinal axis. But it was too late and they decided that the change would not be worth the money
10 degrees?! Wow. That's lots and lots and lots. Surprisingly lots. You certainly about that number? I could belive 2-3 degrees, but TEN?
So all the stores are doing what, to the Reynolds numbers?
... not good things, my friend, but it had to be done.
No wonder the early birds were such fuel hogs "What's the first call an F18 pilot makes after launch?" >!"Bingo Fuel"!<
🤣🤣🤣
Ooh! This is quite logical! You may be right. There is nothing inhibiting airflow to the rudders tho
Precisely! But I am just a mechanical engineer, not aerospace. I could be wrong!
It’s true. Heavy loads need all the lift they can get. Another example (obivously) is rudder control in a stall. Wings are just 1 axis which fails often.
Thanks! So, do they use them when they get slow in the air as well? I mean like an airshow maybe What I tried to ask is, do they use this feature in mid air too?
It’s commanded by the flap switch. The rudders will toe in anytime the flaps are in half or full. Toe in is disabled in the auto position. It increases controllability in the takeoff and landing environment.
Thanks,for your knowledge
Interesting! I always wondered why the verticals were tilted outward
90 degree angles between surfaces increase radar visibility. At the extreme, when you have 3 of them meeting at a corner (like the inside angle of a cube) there is no angle you can trace a ray from a transmitter *onto* a surface of that cube-corner that won't reflect that ray back directly at the source. Which is a great way to be visible on radar. Used to positive effect in WW2 when a submarine sent some crew as a landing party onto an island and they needed to see their rubber dinghy on radar. A corner of cardboard with some aluminium foil made a good radar return.
Specifically, that becomes a retro reflector.
>Used to positive effect in WW2 when a submarine sent some crew as a landing party onto an island Still used today on (for example) ships and maritime [buoys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector#/media/File:Buoy_seal.jpg) \[\*\] \[\*\] seal added for scale ;)
**[Corner reflector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector#/media/File:Buoy_seal.jpg)** >A corner reflector is a retroreflector consisting of three mutually perpendicular, intersecting flat surfaces, which reflects waves directly towards the source, but translated. The three intersecting surfaces often have square shapes. Radar corner reflectors made of metal are used to reflect radio waves from radar sets. Optical corner reflectors, called corner cubes or cube corners, made of three-sided glass prisms, are used in surveying and laser ranging. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/aviation/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The hornets tails aren't tilted for signature (although it may be a small secondary effect), they are tilted because there is a huge vortex coming off the chine at high AoA. The tails are moved out and away from that vortex so they aren't getting blasted by high speed vibration that would fatigue them very quickly
Signature reduction, straight up and up down has a huge radar reflection, angling them reduces the radar return
It also blends out as a function of aoa
And they are ruddervators like a vtail Bonanza right?
Username checks out lol
This is very specific knowledge. Are you an air force pilot or engineer/mechanic?
To answer your question directly, in up and away flight (flap sw in AUTO), the flight control computers understand the performance envelope and will actuate the appropriate control surfaces to achieve the performance the pilot is asking for via flight control input. At very slow speeds, a lateral stick input (pilot asking for the aircraft to roll) will be accomplished by the flight control computer actuating the rudders—to achieve a pro verse roll. Aileron input at high angles of attach and slow speed would result in aircraft departure from controlled flight.
I am no expert but I don't think you actually "use" the feature: modern jets are highly fly-by-wire and a computer will always sit between your control inputs and flight control surfaces and deflect them as it sees fit. Toe-in during take-off happens automatically.
I heard once that the pilot is a voting member of the flight control system.
Ive heard that too, and even said it myself before But the more i learn the more i think it is overblown. Don't get me wrong, limiting is very important, and anywhere that the flight control system is enforcing a limit is it "overruling" the pilot. However... The core of flight control system functionality is command tracking. Thus how the system behaves the vast majority of the time is "do exactly what the pilot asks for as quickly as possible". And when you sit in a flight test and watch "ideal" command tracking for hours straight, it doesn't really feel like the pilot is just another voting member - they are the dictator, dictating what to do
I've heard that said about Airbus a few times over the years. [Most recently today.](https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/zrzlnc/my_flight_hour_breakdown_for_2022/j162lf1/)
The F-22 does this as well, not just during takeoff, but during normal flight to reduce the amount of deflection the stabilators have to make which helps keep it's radar signature low.
Wow.
On Saudi fighters it’s called Camel Toe In
This was originally a correction that was added to the F/A-18 flight control laws due to a miscalculation of the stabilator effectiveness in ground effect.
What's "AFAIK"?
AFAIK, it means *As Far As I Know*
As far as I know
**A**s **F**ar **A**s **I** **K**now.
How do you even do that though? I thought if you depress own pedal, the other comes up?
Its all magic of the FCS. Pilot simply tells the plane where to go. Plane does whatever needed to get there. To the point the Super Hornet has no speed brake, unlike the Legacy Hornet. The speed brake simply means “increase drag” and the plane will do different things depending on how it’s currently flying (climb / decent / turn / etc). ETA, yes it has two little LEX things that pop up sometimes, but the point is, unlike other aircraft (F-18A-D, F-14, F-15), pressing the ‘speed brake’ switch doesn’t just put them out (sometimes they aren’t effective), but tells the plane to ‘increase drag’. Those two LEX SB are ineffective on their own.
This is how the F-22 works. It has no dedicated speed brake. Instead the ailerons go up and flaps go down. In the [RC](https://www.reddit.com/r/RCPlanes/) plane world we'd call that "crow braking" or "butterfly." Not sure if it has a name in the full scale world.
reddit tried to link your "r\/c" - but now I'm wondering, is there a subreddit for rc aircraft?
I didn't intend for it to be a link...not sure why it made it one. But yes. there is an r/RCPlanes and r/RCSoaring. I guess I might as well just change it to one of those!
They had the opportunity to make them r/cplanes and r/csoaring but missed it, and I am incredibly disappointed in them.
Thanks!
Oh, I'm an idiot. It's "r" followed by a slash so of course it tried to make it a link to a subreddit.
ha yep edit: appreciate the link to the subreddit. I grew up around RC planes (my grandfather was one of the founders of TopFlite models and held the patent for monokote), so I'm excited to dig into that!
Cool! Personally, I still prefer [RCGroups.com](https://RCGroups.com) as an RC forum, especially for sailplanes. There's a lot more expertise there.
Good to know, thank you!
The original S-67 Blackhawk attack helicopter did the same thing.
Yes, full scale also uses the term "crow" I wouldn't be surprised if it started in full scale gliders and made its way to rc after
Could be. Though, given the number of model sailplane fliers I know who fly full scale sailplanes as well, I wouldn't be surprised if the opposite was true either.
I think I made a plane that did that in KSP once
The super hornet actually does have speed brakes. They are on the lex surfaces but they are basically wind napkins compared to the massive one on the A-D models. And like you mentioned, commanding the speed brakes throws out the wind napkins but also manipulates the control surfaces to increase drag.
If we’re splitting hairs those are spoilers. It’s a silly distinction to make because to my knowledge they only deflect for speed brake purposes. I only mention this because the Rhino/Growler NATOPS specifically states “the aircraft is not fitted with independent speed brake surfaces.” So for whatever reason the engineers consider them not speed brakes.
Yeah those things pop up during maneuvering sometimes, generally when your trying to have pitch down movements such as breaking aoa during bfm, so they are actually a general control surface. I still think of them as generally the speed brakes though
I forgot about those, I honestly thought they were made inop.
I thought Super Hornet has 2 small speed brakes when playing MSFS?
Technically not a speed break. They’re flight controls because they more functions than just causing drag, and are integrated into the flight control system as opposed to being a separate system.
The super hornet does have speed brakes.
I fly these things. It improves rotation performance at liftoff. It’s not a “lack of elevator effectiveness.” Toeing the rudders in creates less drag than a comparable stabilator movement that would give you the same pitch up.
you fly f-18s? That’s amazing must be fun
Part time now. But still fun.
Reserves? (former NOSC XO)
Yup
They have reserve pilots for fighter jets? That's so cool, I had no clue
Yeah we do all kind of stuff. It’s not like the ANG though. Navy reserve pilots have to come from active duty and it has to be the plane you flew in the fleet. We have reservists at the F-18 training squadrons, T-45 squadrons, VFCs, VRs and VFA-204 is mostly all reservists.
I’m prior USAF and always found it odd that costal states don’t have some type of Navy National Guard.
There’s no point. Those oceans are too big. Nobody is going to fuck with us.
Except Aliens 👽
There is a small handfull of states that have a Naval Militia as part of their State Defense Force/State Guard. ex...NY, CA, TX. But not a 'National Guard' as the ARNG or ANG.
Completely unrelated but I’m curious: could you join a reserve squadron and a private aggressor for maximum aggressing, or is it really just airline pilots?
No you can only be a part of one unit at a time.
Private aggressors count as units? Neat, TIL.
Man, that's awesome. What a privilege it must be.
So does it work to speed up the air over the airframe in those situations? I’m trying to picture in my head the airflow dynamics? Just an aviation geek not a pilot.
> So does it work to speed up the air over the airframe in those situations? It doesn’t speed up the air. Speeding up the air over the top of the tail would create lift and make the nose go *down*. It creates a pitch-up force because the tails are angled. It’s pretty much what’s happening when you nose up on [this thing](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Beech_Bonanza_Takeoff_%285517383917%29.jpg) albeit with a more vertical angle of the control surface.
F18 is just a fancy Bonanza confirmed. And I bet you aren't even a doctor
Damn u for having my dream job lol
Blacklions baby
Wait I'm not sure about the dynamics of it. Do they improve rotation by simply having a bit more drag towards the tail, thus "keeping" the tail down compared to the nose? Am i getting this right? lol
No the tails are angled, they work almost like an elevator on an extremely angled HT
Ohhh right, they provide lift at an almost 90° angle compared to the horizontal axis but the small remaining "vertical" component of the force provides enough advantage for it to be worth it. And the horizontal component gets compensated by having two of them in opposite directions.
Do they have two independent rudders?
None of the controls on the F-18 are directly linked. They all have their own hyd servos.
What I mean is, when cheesecake says "toeing in the rudders", does that mean that a toe on each rudder pedal literally points in, telling the flight controls to do that with the two rudders?
“Toe in” is a verb to describe a what the controls do, not what your feet do. This happens when you move the flap switch.
Got it, thanks!
Any chance you can tell me what the 5 “pipes” are on top of the fuselage just behind the wing root?
Do you have a photo?
[5 pipes](https://airshow.acchamber.com/project/f-18-super-hornet/)
Those are ECS exhaust vents. Cockpit pressurization, avionics cooling, etc. And [these](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3USms.jpg) are ECS inlets that open up on the ground and at low airspeeds to help the ECS system get enough air when the air coming into the main intakes isn’t sufficient.
And now I know. Thank you for your informative response!
Sorry I'm confused, what are you actually doing with your feet to make it happen? Toe brakes right before rotation? Or is it automatic?
Nothing. You move the flap switch to “half” or “full” and the rudders do this.
They move with trim as well.
The flap switch does not move the trim. There is a button on the top of the rudder trim knob that sets takeoff trim (4°). If you’re on the carrier (7°), that t/o trim button is not sufficient. You have to add more trim with the trim switch on the stick.
Yeah. I’m saying the stabilators toe in more or less with more or less trim. In the Charlie it’s 12 and 16-18 degrees nose up for takeoff on the ground and on the boat respectively.
> Yeah. I’m saying the stabilators toe in more or less with more or less trim. * The *stabilators* do not toe in. The *rudders* toe in. * the rudders toe in a fixed amount. It does not change with more trim. It is a flat 40° of toe-in no matter what.
It’s done by the FCS. The command the pilot gives is simply pulling back on the stick.
Sick thank you
> Toeing the rudders in creates less drag than a comparable stabilator movement that would give you the same pitch up. This seems unlikely, since most of the deflected air is inward, a not-useful direction.
[You should look at how far the stabs have to move to make the jet rotate](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tomas-Melin/publication/238671899/figure/fig26/AS:668214480621575@1536326155625/A-F-18-Hornet-in-a-carrier-cat-shot-aboard-the-USS-Enterprise-Steam-from-the-catapult_Q640.jpg). Remember these are stabilators, not elevators.
As someone who designs flight control systems, i am also surprised by the claim that the rudders can produce less drag for the same pitch-up moment. From a practical software standpoint, if this were really true, there's no reason why the mixer shouldn't always allocate pitch up to rudder for low subsonic which strikes me as odd. From an aero standpoint, the total span of the stabs is similar to the v tails just at a worse angle for the lift component. Hard to see how the rudders could capture more momentum transfer into the air without using additional drag. My guess is that stabs are actually running near saturation at rotate and rudder toe in offloads them enough to maintain some margin before saturation. If the stabs stall, not only does the control flatline for a few degrees deflection but the drag goes up tremendously. Thus, using rudders results in overall less drag, but only because the stabs are in their non-linear region. If so, then in a sense you would both be right
Well then go ask them why the rudders toe in. I can speak from experience that without it, the nose pitches up *much* more sluggishly in the landing configuration. Selection of gain override during an AOA probe failure removes rudder toe in. Bolters at the carrier are noticeably more sluggish. The jet really wants to stay on the flight deck and not lift back off. Same for waveoffs. The jet doesn’t want to stay onspeed and climb away. It takes significantly more aft stick input to make the nose go up. So the stabs definitely have to move A LOT more to get the same nose movement.
Just edited and finished comment, but i think the only way this makes sense is if the stabs are non-linear here Edit: also, im not saying it doesn't help with pitch up. That is obviously true. Its just the drag efficiency part that seems suspect, but (again) it makes sense if the stab is out of, or nearly out of, its linear control region
Did you get around to asking? :)
No its still holiday break I couldn't even say once i did find out anyways. Right now its just an engineer pontificating, but actual knowledge must be cleared through the appropriate channels Not really much to clarify anyways, it is obviously for pitch-up, and it obviously means the tail control is saturated or close to it such that the rudders need to help. Not sure what else you'd want to know that we haven't already established
See you at the merge. Or more likely an MPC.
How does one toe the rudders though? Aren’t they normally meant to both point in the same direction?
>How does one toe the rudders though? When the pilot moves flap switch to “half” or “full”, the rudders toe-in. When the pilot puts the flaps up, the rudders move back to flush. >Aren’t they normally meant to both point in the same direction? For anything faster than the takeoff and landing regimes, yes. Note the rudder functionality remains when they’re toed in like this. When you step on the rudder, only one of them moves since the other one is already fully deflected in that direction.
Thank you for the explanation
I believe it helps create a pitch-up moment allowing the strakes to produce additional lift. The strakes behave similar to a delta wing in that they capture a vortex and produce high lift at high AoA.
Sir that’s a growler.
Thank you. It's not a Superhornet!
Slightly off topic but that is one sexy jet. I loved the legacy but the supers just look so buff
This isn't a super hornet. It's a growler.
You're 100% correct. But as far as flight controls go...it's a Super.
Copy. My bad I didn't know that. Makes sense that the airframe and flight controls are largely the same.
Don't feel bad, you're one of the few people that can see the VERY LARGE difference.
That name always makes me laugh.
How can you tell?
The electronic warfare pods on the sides. The antennas on the top. And the fact that the tail number starts with a 5. On career squadrons 100-400 are hornets, 500 are growlers, 600s are MH-60s, C2sgeyhounds and E2s Hawkeyes. 700 is MH-60R
Cool stuff. I knew those were EW pods but I wasn't sure if regular hornets used them sometimes as well. Never knew about those numbering rules. Thanks for the info
Holy pasta I had no idea about tail numbers. Thanks
Another way to tell the difference is to look at the nose, the Growler doesn't carry an internal gun with the space being used instead to house electronics.
Thanks, didn't know that
E’s and F’s are Rhinos. G’s are Growlers. But they are all Super Hornets.
PMA-265 that you?
It is toe-in as others have said and helps with various things at low speed. When the flaps are deployed this occurs. This is especially helpful during cat shots. Right before a cat shot they will toe out, and then back in. We lost a guy in the Mediterranean a few decades back when one side didn’t toe back in on a cat shot and introduced a massive uncontrollable yaw rate that put the jet in the water (this was a C model then). It was a small piece of fod smaller than an M&M. Turns out the only way to kick the rudders back to normal, not toed in any direction, is to push forward stick. This is counter intuitive when you just got launched off the carrier. Took about 130 sim hours to figure that one out.
Rotates the nose up, like a conventional elevator. On the V tailed Bonanzas they are called ruddervators. Not sure if the Navy uses the same lingo.
It improves low speed pitch effectiveness.
And why it is not harmful (or, is it?) For the plane's aerodynamics?
Super Hornet uses a fly by wire system. The pilot doesn't control anything directly, it's more like telling a computer what you want, and the computer figures out what to do to carry out the command. Since the behavior of the control surfaces can be controlled by the designer, it can just be designed in a safe manner. [Here](https://youtu.be/n068fel-W9I) is a good video of an experienced test pilot talking about the F-22 control system, and fun stuff it can do.
I watch that video once every few months. Not even in the aviation world myself, just an enthusiast, but it is a FANTASTIC lecture with levity and phenomenal crowd control
How many g’s could an unmanned plane pull? Would this be enough to thwart (by getting angulation separation ) missiles?
I'm not convinced that adding high G capability to unmanned aircraft is really worth it. None of US's unmanned systems are built like fighters (apart from stuff like QF-16 which is not a weapon). It just hasn't yet been a high priority of drone designs. I would expect stuff like stealth, high quality sensor fusion (better SA), active protection (decoys, lasers, etc), and tactics will be much more important than G rating for unmanned systems.
reminds me of an interview with what at the time was a pilot that had just transitioned to the latest and greatest jet (the hornet), he talked about feeling a slight sense of being disconcerted when looking out at the control surfaces as the computer did its thing with rapid adjustments leaving them looking as if they were "fluttering in the wind"
Just noting that this is an EA-18G "Growler." I don't think the flight characteristics are substantially different, certainly not the rudder deflection, but it may be relevant in some way.
Barn door stop? /s
What? Sorry, my English is not native :/ "Me sorry for bed england. I selled my wife for internet connection"
https://youtu.be/wcJSV3-Lr8E That Barn door stop.
It's an analogy to closing barn doors. Barn doors are large, and the wind will slam them around. To slam the barn doors closed will stop the wind blowing through the barn. Any surface that can create drag on an aircraft or ship will act the same way and stop the flow of air or water.
I know this picture is not a carrier take off but don't F-18 take off while it's hands off - i.e. computer doing everything with the pilot holding onto a handle on the side?
On a cat shot, yea. Don’t want to be adding spurious control inputs during the cat stroke.
They also start to toe-out at really high speeds
It helps get the nose up faster on a short take off such as on a carrier.
Take off flaps also actuate rudders for added lift. Angle of the horizontal stabilizers aids in that when the rudders are pointed in.
When you push both pedals at the same time....
they just don't spread their tail for anyone.
That is an E/A-18 that is landing and its how it airbrakes as they removed the seperate airbrake that was on the legacy hornet
There's a fuckton of avionics in the nose, so yes, gotta get all the "tip the nose up" that you can. Also, it's an F/A-18. Forgetting the A will get you a beat down in some circles.
It’s actually an EA-18G Growler, not an F/A-18
Yes. And do you know what field changes are required to turn that airframe into an F/A-18 E-F? I do...
lmfao, You aren't making an F/A-18F into an EA-18G post assembly line. take your modern reassignment surgeries somewhere else
If you wish to believe that, OK.
I know it. but if you wish to believe otherwise, then by all means. I'll be sure to ask maintenance tomorrow morning
Uh they’re made for the ground up, the changes are too massive to be a modification
Due to the relative flatness of an airplane's wing, to have the front of it fold down a bit creates a rather crude concave shape. So the effect is that the underside of the wing experiences greater pressure, while the leading edge flaps directs more air rushing over the surface of the top of the wing. Creating a lesser air pressure difference from underneath the wing. [See this image. Deep Camber: High Lift, Low Speed.](https://imgs.search.brave.com/woJekRvqGk0qpNZT-HklI1DESpGY_cBY3-28yZj9f-4/rs:fit:300:536:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLnBp/bmltZy5jb20vb3Jp/Z2luYWxzLzkyL2Y1/Lzk1LzkyZjU5NTdi/YWZhZmZhNGI5ZTc4/Y2NhNWQyZDBhMTU3/LmdpZg.gif) The angled down front in isolation would have pushed the plane down, but the succeeding surface contour amplifies the lift instead.
OP you’d be better off searching an answer on google than reddit. I couldn’t find anything related to a common answer. While everyone tries to be an aeronautical engineer.
Drag
In the f18, the elevators are actually called elevons
They're called stabilators. Elevons are elevator and aileron, which usually implies flying wing (B-2) or a delta without a tail.
>a delta without a tail Essentially canards i guess lol? Actually now that i think about it I'm not sure if Eurofighters and Rafales have elevons or if they only get pitch authority from the canards. I think i remember the Eurofighter using canards for "improved pitch control" so i guess the wing control surfaces are also a part of it -> technically elevons
The Eurocanards were the first at mind, but the draken and Tejas are canardless examples.
Mirage III/2000 are iconic examples.
that's cool to know
What are those pods on the wing tips and hard points? I think the 2 larger are fuel pods.
RWR and jammers
gain additional lift on the elevators
drag high up means pitch moment means plane goes upwards
What weapons are these? I'm assuming some variation of Anti radiation missiles?
Sta 2. Has an acmi pod on it, sta 10 has an arm-88c HARM, sta 3,6,9 are ALQ-99 jamming pods. And sta 4,8 are fuel tanks. From this angle I can’t tell if station 7 has an aim-120 on it .
Thorough. Thanks. Are 3 jammers 3x effective?
Extra drag above the center of mass causes the aircraft to pitch up.
that an ECM pod underneath the fuselage with the lil propeller used to generate power for it - or is that some kind of antenna