As Joe Baugher put’s it: “A land-based version of the Hornet known as the F-18L was also planned. Since it did not have to carry any equipment for carrier-based operations, the F-18L was expected to be significantly lighter and better-performing than the carrier-based version. Although no orders had actually been received, it was anticipated that the F-18L would be an attractive proposition for those foreign air forces who wanted and could afford an aircraft with greater capabilities than those of the F-5.” Go to his page for more info.
As I understand it, the F-18L was the evolved YF-17 that Northrop had said the USAF would get if they selected the YF-17 over the YF-16.
On the other hand, the F/A-18L was a de-navalized F/A-18A with more advanced features than the Northrop offering; but, It was also some 5,000 lbs heavier.
Click here to view the info
3 comments:
It's hard to understand why countries that had no aircraft carriers did not prefer Northrup's F-18L. Lighter by several thousand pounds and, consequently, faster, more agile, and less expensive it should have been a sales success.
That is simple to deduct. The A-18 was an existing and funded available product. On the other hand the F-18L was just a concept on paper. Whoever opted for it would have to bear the risk ant the (substancial) cost of developing a brand new aircraft type. No foreign country though this was a better deal than living with the original naval Hornets Inefficiencies in land...
I'm sorry Felipe, but that risk you state isn't as extensive as you infer, as the Northrop F-18L would have retained 71% commonality with the F/A-18A/B by part weight and 90% commonality in terms of avionics, radar, ECM, etc....
Just as importantly, the F-18L would have had a superior flight performance, including a superior TWR, equating to better manoeuvrability.
Regards
Post a Comment