Which apparently isn’t true because it’s off by as much as 2 degrees according to real world datapoints
Where in the document is this chart? Having a read it repeatedly discusses the ability of the control scheme to conduct nose pointing maneuvers in excess of 90° and at just 0.2 mach from 1g condition can pitch to 35° without issues.
I’m going to work but I’ll reply again later when I’ve had more time to read rather than skim.
In FF5 the dataset represents a legacy hornet built before 1992. As you may notice, it is dated to 1991.
The hornet in the FF5 model achieves ~16.7 dps at 355 knots, or mach 0.55. It then gradually climbs to 17.15 at 0.75.
In the document it has peaks at 16.8 at m0.6, and 17.2 at m0.8 (roughly).
Besides overperformance, it is a close match.
So why do you disregard the document?
Validate the model (as they did with FF5) using the thrust of a -400 hornet.
For a -402 you increase the power. At ~m0.8, it increases from 17.2 to 19.2.
“it is lower than the GAO report offers by 2 degrees, it is worthless!”
So you offer performance that contradicts basic arithmetic.
1 Like
The FF5 model matches the NASA document therefore it’s correct, in spite of the fact that it contradicts real world data? Your argument isn’t solid. That’s all I’m saying.
You never said where this part could be found in the document. What page?
It is for 1991. The GAO report has the Hornet of 1996. EPE is 1992. What contradiction?
In post 1149 of this thread I said; Page 48.
Your statements are so convoluted I have no clue what you’re even trying to argue at this point. We are discussing the performance of the GE-402 equipped F-18C’s. They have a peak turn rate of 19.2 deg/s under known conditions. This is a datapoint. The FF5 model states for the GE-402 equipped hornets that the maximum peak turn rate is ~2 deg/s less. How is their model accurate if they cannot match real datapoints?
Quit playing dumb, where is this chart for the yaw instabilities from in the document? Page 48 is for the alleged sustained turn diagrams.
A model based on -400 Hornet with increased power will represent -402 Hornet.
AERODYNAMIC PARAMETERS OF HIGH-ANGLE-OF-ATTACK RESEARCH VEHICLE (HARV) ESTIMATED FROM FLIGHT DATA
Based on the sources;
An F-18 with -400 engine has STR of 3rd gen. This will “smoke” an Su, with 15% more power?
Even a 1st generation MiG-23 (23M, 16 DPS ASL) has STR within 5% of -400 Hornet.
I don’t know how much simpler I can make it for you.
Let’s do some comparisons then, since you want to make a claim;
In-game, the F-4E with 20 minutes fuel sustains between 3.1G (12.67 deg/s)@ 250 knots and 7.2G (15.48 deg/s)@ 500 knots sustained turn rates. (Source)
This is a fuel mass quantity of 3,822kg, clean.
The F-18A with 60% internal fuel and two AIM-7 and two AIM-9 (total stores mass load of 2,958kg fuel and 635 kg of ordnance (3,593kg) sustains between (~14 deg/s) and (~17.5 deg/s) at the same speeds with higher peak G forces in both conditions.
One could argue the F-18 is behind the best examples of fourth generation fighters but equally ahead of any average third generation fighters. The absolute best third generation fighters can match it, the lower end of fourth generation fighters are outclassed by it. So to make such a comment is just to embellish your argument.
Moving on
The F-18C with GE-402 engines, 60% internal fuel, 2x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-9 has a peak sustained turn rate of 19.2 deg/s. This is not up for debate. This is not something that is disputable, it is real data obtained for the GAO report. The datapoint is there, if the model fails to meet it with a few hundred extra pounds (2x AIM-7 instead of 2x AIM-120), it is clearly an inherently incorrect model. This is expected as we are not discussing a highly funded simulation but rather the video game DCS’ first attempts at correctly modeling a fighter without all the necessary data.
The MiG-23 series in particular with wings swept forward (not done IRL) is not going to keep up with the Hornet after a tighten-down. Try rate fighting a Mirage 2000 in-game to see how that would turn out. The turn radius is going to be considerably smaller for the Hornet, he would sit on the MiG-23’s tail all day in this kind of dogfight. The F-18’s ability to cut the circle and maintain his performance in the process will be considerably better than the Su-27 or the MiG-29’s. It will be considerably better than the F-15’s as well.
So the Mirage 2000 craps all over the Su-27 and MiG-29 currently with a mediocre 15 deg/s turn rate, you don’t think the F-18 (better suited for this kind of dogfight) is going to perform better? Especially when it can match or exceed their turn rate as well as maintain the speed better during high G instant turn rates and cornering?
Let me also remind you of the in-game Gripen which has ~17 deg/s peak sustained turn rates and holds its’ speed incredibly well during instant turn rates. The F-18 will hold speed slightly worse but will have considerably better AoA performance. A mix between the M2K and Gripen in terms of how it would fly but beats both in AoA / instant turn as well.
1 Like
I find it rather comical that pretty much any time I see new activity in this thread, it is in some way related to the Hornet’s flight performance (whether it be arguments, new info being posted, very in-depth analyses, etc)
Truly goes to show how powerful enthusiasm can be lol
Yeah you get excited over some new activity on this topic and then once it loads it’s just 2 people arguing
What were you hoping for exactly? This argument is the type that shapes how the aircraft comes to the game.
I get excited and remain excited, because it’s an in-depth discussion by two (or more parties) who are enthusiastic about the topic at hand. The fact that we can even have these discussions on the forum in the first place is exciting to me, since we can get multiple perspectives
Like Gaijin reads this. Reports shape how the aircraft comes to the game.
1 Like
AERODYNAMIC PARAMETERS OF HIGH-ANGLE-OF-ATTACK RESEARCH VEHICLE (HARV) ESTIMATED FROM FLIGHT DATA
I provided the source for the yaw stability chart previously.
I will restate my points for readers. My assertions are:
-400 Hornet is ~17.2 DPS at m0.8, ~16.8 DPS at m0.6.
-402 Hornet is ~19.2 DPS at m~0.8, ~18.5 DPS at m0.6.
Sources 1991 and FF5 study, both addressing -400 (FF5 probably used -400 thrust) hornet at combat load are the basis for my assessment.
And the manual for -400 Hornets. (3 sources)
-402 is from 4th, NSIAD 96-98
And then;
You can develop a flight model for F-18 on -400 data; just change engines it afterwards. (FF5 did this)
I’ve said this from the first post. I’m tired of repeating myself in every post for it to be ignored.
Due to 23M’s behavior I will recuse myself from this thread.
Thank you.
2 Likes
I make reports, yes, hence my comment.
I could not find it in the source you mentioned. What page, as I asked thirty trillion times now?
If that is the case, why does their -402 hornet underperform in sustained turns according to their charts?
If you’re gonna use a graph from some unknown document, cut to avoid showing which “figure” it is from and then play stupid instead of just stating the page it’s from and the actual source of course you’re going to excuse yourself. You’re excused.
It’s probably not permissible for sharing on the forum at worst and at best not related to the F-18.
3 Likes
Would be fun to recreate that photo one day in WT assuming A-4M gets gray camo with low vis markings
(F-4S will stand in for RF-4B)
2 Likes