Thanks to the kind search effort and generosity of a fine man and fellow modeler, I now have the F-18B I’ve always wanted, so I can model the very plane I flew in on my ride with the Blue Angels in Oct. 1988. But it’s confusing. This is one of Hasegawa’s “Limited Edition” kits, the one depicting a F/A-18B of the Naval Test Pilots School. It comes with a small, but nice PE fret and three absolutely flawless, elaborately cast landing gear legs. That has not been my experience with these kits in the past, and I found the WM parts to be an expensive nuisance because of the poor casting, big seams, etc. Not these.
Anyway, to the question. The main instruction booklet with this kit is for Hasegawa’s F/A-18D kit, with decals for the Pax River bird, a B model, as is depicted on the box. And a separate instruction sheet in the bag with the clear parts identifies this as a B, saying the difference between the two is primarily in the avionics. What I want to know is, is this true? I have a Black Box cockpit and seat set for the Hasegawa 1/48 F-18B, so if the differences are in the increased glass in the cockpit of a D model, I’ve got that covered. I remember the plane I flew in still had a lot of round instruments in it, and that surpised me.
And, does anyone know the basic differences in the Blue Angels’ birds compaired with one right off the ramp at any Naval Air Station? I’m modeling BA No. 7, and reference are very slim, I’m afraid. If anyone knows good ones, please let me know. I’m using the CAM decals for the No. 7 plane in the 1987 season, which is the same bird I flew in, and the markings are identical except for the pilot’s name on (or under) the canopy frame. Thanks much.
TOM
Tom,
I will try to answer your question off the top of my dirty old man’s bald head and then do some research in several Hornet books to verify the info. The A and B were the same vintage, pretty much identical except for the 2nd seat and the related avionics. The C and D were the same basic airframes with updated avionics. The C/D had two small ECM bulges behind the canopy that were intended for a certain system that was cancelled and therefore never installed. MacDonnell/Douglas was too far along in the production process to remove them, so they just stayed. There was also an extra ECM bump on the side of the fuselage below and forward of the canopy. The vertical fins of the A/B had two rear facing fairings above the rudder. One was ECM and one was a light. The C/D added another ECM fairing between the first two. There is a small, squarish looking fairing above the rudder on all Hornets. This is the fuel dump vent. There are several cooling vents under the forward fuselage that were covered with a mesh screen on the A/B and then with a slatted arrangement on the C/D. (That might be the other way around, I’ll have to look it up!) The cockpit instrument panels, especially the back seat had some different CRT screens. If you have access to one of the Academy 1/32 F/A-18s, they have all of these optional parts for the A or C and really did their homework, because they are exceptionally accurate.
The E / F Super Hornets look, at first glance, to be the same thing. They are actually a totally different aircraft. They are bigger, an extra hardpoint under each wing, bigger & better engines, (requiring the bigger, squared off air intakes), deleted the large dorsal air brake between the fins and replaced it with a small one on each LEX, more fuel, sturdier landing gear to handle the extra weight, and of course much updated avionics, which required considerable change to the cockpits. Once the pre-production prototypes were done, Boeing added the so called “Pizza Box” to the nose just in front of the canopy. I think this is to cover IFF antenna, but I am not sure. If you ever take a close look at the weapons pylons the Super Hornets, you will notice that they are angled out somewhat. The engineers goofed on the design and the prototype testing revealed a problem with weapons bumping into each other when released. 3.5 degrees of out board angle cured the problem at the obvious expense of extra drag, aka less range.
Time to go hit the file cabinet and check out the reference books for the ?? on those vents. [alien]
Many thanks. Some time ago, someone posted a question about the differences between the Blue Angels birds and the operational Hornets, and I wonder if anyone remembers the answers, or if the original person with the information is out there. I know the one I flew in had at least some of the weapons avionics on it (though they don’t have guns), because we crept up on some poor, unsuspecting guy flying a Kingair (we made wide S turns to keep from overrunning him) and the pilot put the pipper on him so I could here the IR missile growl, sort of like a rattlesnake in my headphones. I’ve often wondered what that private pilot would have thought if he’d looked over his shoulder and seen us creeping up on him as he poked along toward the pattern at a local airport. Then my driver pilot lit 'em up and vanished in a beautiful Immelman before the guy ever knew we had been behind him.
I know the demonstration teams always like to publicize that their aircraft are “combat ready” and taken straight out of the inventory, but I also know they have particular modifications beyond the smoke system that are not on the regular line birds, and that considerable work would need to be done to put them in combat ready condition. I just can’t remember what those specific things are, or were when I got my ride way back in '88.
Tom
Tom,
The Blue Angels fly F/A-18As, without guns or combat flight profile software loaded. The flight software is tailored just for aerobatics, and, supposedly (I know I’ve read this somewhere), the planes can’t be made combat-ready because of this.
By the way, how’s the Moskito coming along? Did you use the props & spinners that I sent you? Hope it’s coming along well for you.
It’s been so long since my flight in the two-seat B model Hornet, the Blues had no choice but to fly the A, because that’s all the Navy had in 1988, I think. And, of course, the B. I have not seen them in a while, and wasn’t sure if they were flying the C model now.
What I don’t understand, and this is a gap in my education, I guess, is how we got the IR lock on the other airplane? I have had pilots do this demonstration for me before, since it’s sort of standard for the “nickel tour” when flying civilians, but it was done in, say, F-4’s carrying a dummy AIM-9 with a seeker head on it. I thought the AIM-9 was an active missile, and that the missile itself (or the inert training round with just the head on it) provided the “hot” signal, and not an internal IR seeker, like on the old-fashioned airplanes like the F-104 and F-101B, which had those built-in IR seekers slaved to the missile. I know this is off the original topic, but now I’m curious.
As for the avionics, that makes sense too. And I know the Blues (and I assume the Thunderbirds) carry ballast instead of the gun. And does the F/A-18B or D model even have a gun normally? I definitely need to go back to school on my modern naval aircraft.
Anyway, I still think there is some kind of exterior difference in the demo birds, or two or three differences, that I’m overlooking, because I distinctly remember a similar string to this a few months ago when such was mentioned by a former techie on Hornets.
Tom
(Oh, and the Moskito has been on hold, though it’s calling me now that you sent me that prop I lost and never found, although I hate getting the parts as a result of your Ta-154’s unfortunate crash. As I’ve said before, I never had the fit problems I heard so many complaints about with this ProModeler (ex-Dragon?) kit, and so far it has been an enjoyable build. Thanksagain, because they are nicely painted too.)
All 6 models of the Hornet, A though F have the M61, 20mm cannon in the top of the nose. The Blues planes had them removed along with all the fire control equipment. Their Hornets were never intended to be returned to “combat” status. This is especially true now that the Navy & Marines are using C,D,E & F models. The Blues elected to remain with the A/B models so as to not remove almost a squadron’s worth of planes from the active combat inventory. I am not sure about the Hornets, but the F-16s of the T-Birds had a smoke oil tank put in place of the gun/ammo equipment. Both groups have a special suite of radios installed for the type of communications they do. The engines and fuel systems are modified for prolonged inverted flight.
I am pretty sure that your comments about the IR signal originating in the missile guidance head is correct. There might possibly be something that synthetically generates the buzzing sound in the earphones for training purposes. The training missiles have a complete, operational seeker head, but no warhead or propulsion system. They don’t want a repeat of that incident in the late 1950s where an F-100 accidently launched an AIM-9 Sidewinder and shot down a B-52.
The T-Bird propaganda they hand out says the Falcons can be returned to “combat status” in one day. I guess if they put enough people on the project, it could be done. The stripping and repainting alone would take that long. [alien]
yardbird78;
As for the “T” birds their plane are able to restored to full combat status within 24 Hours, that was the requirement for the “T” birds to get the Falcons, most of the avionics is the same as their combat brothers but the gun & drum are removed for the smoke generators, also there is the “tube” for the smoke generators that runs from the drum bay to the Turkey Feathers and that is an easy fix most of the tubing runs close to the bleed air ducting on the left side of the plane/engine
actually the Thunderbirds do not need to have the paint stripped they just have to paint over the red white and blue paint scheme even though I have to admit it would be hilarious if they went into combat with that scheme though.
Shoot, I would LOVE to see them go to combat painted in airshow colors. That would be the best morale-booster of all!!!
I agree. When I built the kit, it went together very well, with hardly any fit problems. The only complaint that I have with it is there is hardly any room for nose weight. I put the weight behind the engine cowlings and just a little in the tight confines of the nose. Otherwise, a very enjoyable kit. I just picked another one up for $18 a few weeks ago. I highly recommend this kit. How’s that for off-topic?
It is possible the Blue had the system still active. If you heard a tone then all of the associated hardware had to be installed. That would include the cage/un cage switch, sidewinder relay, aural tone generator, launch switch ( trigger or pickle button ), and launcher hardware.
The missile has a cage/un cage mode. When caged, it relies on the radar to locate the target. The aircraft feeds information to the missile for launch. In the un cage mode the seaker head is scanning or looking for a heat source. In this mode, in continious operation, it can burn out the seaker head scanning motor. All older AIM-9 missiles had the caged seaker heads and required the missile pointing directly at the heat source for a lock on. They were not slaved to the radar. Later versions had switchable seakers, but still required pointing directly at the heat source. These too were not slaved to the radar. The last generation of Sidewinders are considered as “Dog Fight” missiles. In the radar mode the missile doesn’t have to be looking or pointing at the target. After launch it is a dumb un guided missile untill it locates the heat source and then guides toward the target.
When the missile locks on to a target, it sends a signal ( growling ) to the pilot. The louder the growl, the better the heat source is.
You can’t hang an AIM-9 on any aircraft and go shoot something down. The aircraft has to be wired in order for the missile to work. It would require the above mentioned items as a mininum.
So what you’re saying is that pretty much all tactical aircraft have some sort of IR seeker built into them, and it can be operated regardless of whether there is a missile on the rail or not? I guess what had me confused is how those old Century Series a/c like the F-101B had those large, conspicuous IR seekers mounted just forward of the windscreen (I think the F-104 A and C had them too, only not as big. I’m guessing those great big ones on the 101 had something to do with the IR version of the Falcon numissile that was their primary weapon, along with the radar vesion of the same missile.
Tom
Tom
Modern tactical aircraft do not have the built in IR seaker. The missile contains the seaker head. With no missile ( live or training ), you can not get a missile tone. There is nothing there to generate a tone.
Aircraft like the F-101B, F-102A and F-106A had IR seakers as part of the AIM-4 system. It enabled the aircraft to detect a strong heat source so it could get in position to launch the IR AIM-4. The AIM-4 had a fixed seaker head ( and a very weak one at that ) and required the shooter to have a precise heat source prior to launch. The first aircraft to carrry the IR version of the AIM-4 was the F-102A. It was then they realized they had a problem with the missile guiding. A modification was done adding the IR seaker ( Gum Ball Machine ) to make sure they had a good heat source for the missile to detect and follow. The F-89 was the first to carry the AIM-4, but used only the radar guided version.
The F-104 did not have the IR system installed. It did not carry the AIM-4. What you see is the rain clear system in front of the wind shield.
The F-4A and very early F-4B (as well as the F-110A ) had the IR seaker installed under the nose. It was soon deleted and a fiberglass cover installed over it. The Navy decided to go with the AIM-9 instead of the AIM-4. Air Force F-4D’s and F-4E’s did carry the AIM-4’s , but they were the second generation missiles and were much better at detecting a heat source.
Just to add another note regrading the missile seeker heads, the new AIM-9X Sidewinders can be pointed using a helmet mounted display, similar to those used on the Apache helicopter or some of the modern Russian fighters. Sharksin, you sounded just a little confused about the IR sensors built into the aircraft. Most modern US aircraft don’t have the integrated IR sensors, so the IR guided missiles either locate the target themselves using their own sensors, or they are told where to look by the aircraft’s radar or in the case of the AIM-9X, where ever the pilot looks. The thing that makes the AIM-9X different from other versions of the missile is its ability to track targets very far off the nose (boresight) of the missile. I don’t know exaxtly how far back it can see (I’m sure the actual numbers are classified) but it can probably follow a target up to 120 degs off the boresight of the missile. That is a lot better than the 30-40 degs of pervious versions.
Of course, the Russians have been using IR sensors mounted on the nose of their fighters for decades and they have helmet mounted sights for most of their MiG-29 and Su-27 aircraft. Those planes have IR cameras mounted just in front of the cockpit and are used as passive sensors to reduce the need for operating their radars. The helmet mounted displays for the Russian aircraft are used to support the AA-11 Archer missiles. The US fighter fleet is only just getting it’s first “off boresight” missile systems (AIM-9X), a capability that has been in the Russian inventory for years.
dont forget the F-8 crusader had the IR bulge in front of the cockpit