Can y’all quit this, the Finnish hornets had a lot of useless stuff removed for their specific uses. It reduced weight. If one of you thinks this isn’t true please show me what research you’ve got that can be used for a bug report…
2 Likes
A2G avionics were removed due to their treaty with Russia. Finland wasn’t allowed to have A2G weapons on a fighter which is why they were removed. I believe him and i are at an understanding which is acceleration not the weight.
I might as well say the opposite. Show me what research you have to prove that Finnish Hornets are lighter than American models from the 90s?
The fact that they do not carry air-to-ground weapons is not an argument.
Firstly, there are photos with smart bombs. And secondly, if the Finns could not or did not want to use/buy air-to-ground weapons, this does not mean that they cut this capability for their Hornets.
I mean the website from the Finnish airforce literally states A2G computers were added to the Finnish F18s during MLU 2
Do you know what ballast is in aircraft? That is, by removing something that affects the center of gravity, you usually compensate for it with ballast.
Then prove that it was replaced? Again the consensus is they weigh less. you want gaijin to change their mind prove it to them. If you cant prove they weigh the same as the US then this argument continues to go in circles. Again and again, dont ping me unless its a different subject or if you have 100% proof they weigh the same as the US model.
can somebody provide ingame footage of F/A-18C Late sustain at 300-400 knots with 2xAMRAAM, 2xSidewinder, 60% fuel? with webmap
The devs have already implemented it as such, if you want to change it you need to prove them wrong. If you don’t have data that proves their implementation is incorrect… well, shove it.
tommorow
1 Like
I don’t have to prove anything to anyone. A game where the Hornet has better acceleration than the F-16 Block 50 makes me laugh and all aviation enthusiasts laugh.
In the DCS World acceleration 0-1mach = 42 sec for 402 engines, in Falcon BMS ~same time, but in WarThunder 36 sec in same condition. Its all.
This is done so that the community is interested in new aircrafts (Hornets now) and they are not too weak against the background of the aircraft that are already in the game. Hornet is about a year late to the game. It is quite possible that it will be fixed in a year, as happened with the Su-27. You’ll see. This is the usual behavior of developers.
1 Like
It was literally redesignated the F-18 isn tree as of F/A-18 because of this change. It can’t use any A2G weaponry at all. This was fixed on later F/A-18 versions once A2G capabilities were re-added.
Maybe. Honestly - I really don’t care. I do care that it (and its American analog) outperform both the MiG-29 and the F-15 in acceleration and dynamics.
If necessary, I can record a comparison video at the poligon. We’ll laugh together. Especially after this interview from pilot who flown on 402 engines too:
Acceleration
““Hornet was fair but outclassed by many other jets.””
Climb rate
“Once again the Hornet was OK, but outclassed by F-14Ds, F-15C, F-16. The F-16s out at Buckley ANGB in Denver would do an Immelmann at the end of the Runway on takeoff. They had to hit a certain altitude which I believe was above 11K MSL. I tried to do it in a Hornet once (F/A-18C with a centerline tank and two pylons)… nope, I did not make it. I was wallowing around at 10K ft and 100kts trying to comply with Departure’s new instructions. Good thing the Hornet was forgiving and was good at high alpha flight.”
2 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder
Here, make a bug report about this acceleration.
Right now, the engine is likely overperforming.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/REJPoqQzASra
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dXPwQHEFMERe
“Not a bug. There is an error in the GAO article, interviews with pilots are a 3rd party source and not considered a source for the report.”
I don’t want to prove anything. After such a response and closing my bug report all I want is to laugh at them.
If you are trying to prove elementary things, like that white is white, then let them walk around with the knowledge that white is black. Just laugh and don’t take their work seriously. That’s all that remains.
Well, the in-game 7,280 kgf matches the Navy’s claims for installed thrust… 16,050 pounds or so.
@GeneralLee2000 It was your report I believe
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/REJPoqQzASra
@Gunjob The in-game static thrust is actually 16,005 lb-f (7,260 kgf), which is less than shown by the Navy and should be raised approximately 40 lb-f tbqh
2 Likes
Can you provide the same graphs for General Electric F110-GE-129 ?
Nothing on short notice but I can FOIA request some documents. That process usually takes months, maybe more than a year.
1 Like
And at the end the snail is gonna tell you that the documents are wrong …
Why I ask? If we have 16,000 lb-force as an installed F404-GE400 engine, while all reference books state exactly 16,000 pounds-force, then maybe the GE129 engine with a thrust of 29,000 pounds-force for F16 block50, which is given in the same reference books about fighter aircrafts and the same literature, is also installed?
And 23800lbf for F-15C PW220 engines also installed ?