M1.05 at SL at 60% fuel + 4
Top speed has literally nothing to do with the sustained turn rate?
I know? my point was the graph they used is 100% from the manual, and therefore proof that the climb rate and acceleration as a minimum are also likely to be accurate.
Climb rate, acceleration, and top speed were not related to the discussion. I was talking about sustained turn rate.
We know the peak sustained turn rate given the conditions from the GAO report and their extrapolation of the turn rate is clearly wrong in the FF study as it does not align with the primary source material - contradicting their claim.
Indeed, but they can be related
They certainly can be related, but in this case the GAO report takes precedence over the FF sim extrapolated data. They couldn’t even proofread all their graphs.
the difference in drag between aim-120 and aim-7 will be tiny… the effect within ±-0.01M and that is shown in both graphs being visually identical
Weight, wing loading, CG change all affect turn rate greatly… especially instant turn rate. The difference in AIM-7 and AIM-120 on F-16 is the difference between 7 and 9G below 20 degrees AoA due to CG considerations.
No way is the aircraft that sensitive to 100kg change in mass
I did not quote the manual - it is an exaggeration. The F-16A certainly was far more prone to departure at angles of attack beyond 20 degrees when loaded with Sparrows vs AMRAAM though. The addition of the IAHT solved this somewhat.
Regardless, it is more pertinent to the F-18 as it can go beyond these FBW limits.
it puts the f-18c closer to 58s for the 35000ft condition and 2 minutes 15 seconds for the second condition at 35000ft and as it says, the data is taken from the manual for plotting correlation with their computed data.
Why does the F/A-18E accelerate so slowly compared to the F/A-18C?
I thought Super Hornet had superior engines to legacy ones.
inferior drag characteristics and mass
Fair enough… didn’t think it was this bad.
If I was the navy I’d want my F-14 back
Top speed and acceleration is not their concern - the payload capacity… time on station… electronic warfare and other considerations is. The Super Hornet has a very low radar cross section for a conventional type fighter of its’ size. It is something like 1m2 or less and the newest models have a claimed “LO” status.
The Super Hornet fits the Navy’s needs quite well and will serve alongside the F-35 for quite some time.
1 Like
Sadly I doubt most of these features will translate to WT well
This is true, the F-18E/F will still have a low radar cross section, powerful radar, and high number of equip-able munitions both for air to air or air to ground. It will be one of the best multi-roles for GRB or SIM.
As long as theres enough of a budget to keep the F-ing things flying.
Theres also not enough crew chief sanity for that
1 Like
If you were the navy, you wouldn’t want the maintenance pig that came along with that back
8 Likes