Talk:McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet

Move to CF-188

This page shoud be moved to "cf-118" because that is the official name. There should be a redirect to cf-188 from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.80.185 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent move to CF-188 Hornet per the consensus at WT:AIR#Continued undiscussed moves. Even the CF routinely calls it the CF-18, per its CF-18 page. Compare this with the CF CH-147D page]. Also, please not that the user who made the move changed ALL mentions in the article of "CF-18" to "CF-188". The problem is that this included the interwili links, and thus the bots removed the links entirely - not a good thing, as this removed the links to the articles on the WPs in other languages, whose article titles the user did not change (thanksfully!). - BilCat (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies to the title, so I am not seeking a title change. However, I would like to edit CF-18 in the article to CF-188 where applicable. Any opposition? Ng.j (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine as long as it does not cause confusion from back and forth switching. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with user Fnlayson.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out on you talk page commenting on six-year old discussions is not constructive. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

CF-18 design changes revert

Hi User:BilCat, I can see that you reverted my changes to the McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet#CF-18_design_changes section. The inclusion criteria for Wikipedia is not usefulness but if the information is verifiable. Since the paragraph in question is unsourced it could just as well be WP:OR. The heavy tailhook and folding wings etc could be retained for any number of reasons, such that changing the landing gear and making structural changes could not be afforded by the Canadian Air Force. Let's have a discussion here rather than edit warring. Have a good day! AadaamS (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There's really two issues here. First, that it has a heavy tailhook and folding wings, which should be obvious, especially the folding wings, so there's really no reason to remove that part. But the second part is why, and that does need to be sourced, which is why I didn't remove the citation needed tag. The reason isn't that far out, as Canada has always had budget issues. As such, it's not an extraordinary claim, so doesn't need to be removed outright. - BilCat (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Replacement cost of the alernatives to F-35 not shown?? Some prices (most actually) could make us think:

Eurofighter Typhoon US$130 million Lockheed Martin F-35A US$85 million (production) Saab JAS 39 Gripen US$69 million (2006) Dassault Rafale US$94 million Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet US$61 million Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle US$100 million (planned)

During 2013-2014, the CF-18 fleet escorted at least 24 Tupolev Tu-95 Russian Bombers, at least 1 Ilyushin Il-20 surveillance aircraft, 2 MiG-31s and 9 MiG-29s out of Canadian Arctic Airspace, Baltic Airspace and American Arctic Airspace.

Disagree with removal of crash of CF188737 (Ejection on take-off in Cold Lake in 1985) from crash history

User Fnlayson reverted (i.e. removed) content discussing a crash on take-off from Cold Lake of 188737. He cited the reason being that it did not meet the criteria established for inclusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents). I disagree. The crash actually resulted in two things that are cited by the Wikipedia standard, which I have repeated partially here: "The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." After this crash, the training unit (410 Squadron in Cold Lake) emphasized proper trim setting to all students. Fighter squadrons changed the required trim setting. Finally, the flight control software function was changed, so that the "FCS Trim" button would set 12 degrees nose up, instead of 4 degrees nose up as per the original design. Clearly, this crash resulted in both "significant changes to the aircraft design" and "national or company procedures." Background and justification: I flew the CF-18 from 1987 to 1996, where I accumulated 1,200 hours of flight time, and acted as a training pilot in simulators as well. I also supervised the delivery of training to CF-18 pilots from 2005 to 2011 in the simulators installed in Bagotville, Quebec. I have worked as a supervisor at CAE, where my group modified CF-18 operational software. I know personal experience is not a criterion for inclusion, but unfortunately many of the applicable references are not available to the general public, nor are they releasable in an open forum. I can, however, paste small segments of text into this. For example, see the changes to design for what the AOI (Aircraft Operating Instructions) describes about the take-off trim button. My first issue is with the content of the reverted information. The trim was set (erroneously) to 10 degrees nose down by the accident pilot, not 7 as cited in the removed text. I would need to edit the removed content before it is reinstated. At the time, post-start flight control checks included steps to 1. press the Take-off Trim button, and observe the control deflections on the FCS page displayed. It should show a take-off trim advisory at the bottom, as well as certain control deflections including stabilators set to 4 degrees nose up. 2. There were deflections of the control stick and changes to the flap settings, with verification of control surface indications on the FCS display at each change. 3. Finally, IF the aircraft gross weight was above a certain minimum (as was the case in the accident), the pilot was to manually trim to 10 degrees nose up. If take-off was to be performed below that gross weight, the 4 degrees nose up setting was sufficient. Because the accident pilot trimmed to 10 degrees nose down instead of nose up, the fly-by-wire system limited the deflection of the stabilators to 4 degrees nose up (negative 10 plus the 14 degrees the pilot could achieve with full aft stick). This was insufficient to lift the nose of the aircraft at the speeds and centre of gravity present that day. CHANGES TO PROCEDURES AFTER THE ACCIDENT: 1. Instead of selecting 10 degrees nose up for high gross weights after completing the FCS check, we selected 12 degrees nose up. The reason was that 10 degrees nose down was the maximum achievable, so it was impossible to misread -10 for +10 on the display. Even a faulty indicator would only show -11 at -10; -12 was impossible. Therefore, any indication of 12 degrees HAD to be nose up. 2. Lines were painted on the fuselage sides in front of the stabilators, to indicate 4 degrees nose up and 12 degrees nose up. Technicians were required to add a check to their pre-taxi routine; they would visually confirm that the stabilator trim was either 4 or 12 up, and signal to the pilot that it was OK. DESIGN CHANGE TO AIRCRAFT: Years later, because it was relatively high cost and not an essential war-fighting capability, the FCS software was modified. Today, the CF-18's Take-off Trim button sets the stabilators to 12 degrees nose up, and pre-flight FCS indications to look for upon selecting stick positions and flap positions have been modified accordingly. Here is an excerpt of the text from C12188NFMMB001_ch5.pdf (the Aircraft operating instructions from 2004, version Change 5). It is RESTRICTED, so I cannot post the whole document on Wikipedia. "If takeoff trim is not set, full NU stabilator movement may not be available and takeoff distance will increase. T/O button sets 4o NU for PROM 8.3.3 and 12o NU for PROM 10.5.1 and up. 7 FCS CAS system (PROM 8.3.3/ 10.5.1) - CHECK" The PROM reference is Programmable Read-Only Memory version of FCS software. 10.5.1 was a version with many changes, in which Boeing added the take-off trim setting change from 4 to 12 degrees nose up.

You can see how this accident had a significant impact on CF-18 operations and aircraft design, so I would like to see the removed text reinstated, after having been edited for accuracy. I can provide that edit if you wish. Danmcw (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Dan McWilliams (danmcw18@gmail.com)

Although it is unlikely anybody is going to read your wall of text, it doesnt appear to be a significant accident, do you have a reliable source that states that it is noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi I see that you disagreed with my comment on the above subject. You seemed to object without having actually read and analyzed my comment. Let me make it short and sweet for you: 1. The standard for significant military accident includes whether or not it lead to any of (among other things): change in procedures, or change in aircraft design. 2. The CF-18 crash in question led to: a. Significant change in procedures (takeoff trim setting changed, lines painted on aircraft for groundcrew to verify, and changes to challenge/response between pilot and groundcrew during starts). b. Change to the software in the FCS; takeoff trim is now (since 2004) set to 12 instead of 4 degrees nose up.

In my opinion, that is what justifies the entry of this accident. I felt attacked when you said nobody would read my "wall of text." I ALMOST made a snarky reply to you about not wanting to write it in crayon. I thought Wikipedia was a place where serious, informed people exchanged factual information. If that is so, then a 2-line "tweetable" response is not often going to cut it on complex topics. I have proof of this aircraft design change, and images showing the new lines painted on the fuselage. What more do you need? Danmcw (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Danmcw [1] Danmcw (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)danmcw

We have all manner of people on here, some experts and some not and reading a long wall of text doesnt always allow comprehension of the issues, also patronising other editors will not endear you to others. My original question still stands that we are looking for a reliable source that states that the accident is noteworthy, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I AM that reliable source. By Wikipedia's own rules, it fits the criteria. I fail to understand your objection to this. Procedures were changed. Aircraft software was changed, to avoid the root cause of this crash. I have provided an excerpt from the Aircraft Operating Instructions describing that PROM change. What more is required? Danmcw (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

For Wikipedia there are specific polices and guidelines involved; see WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)