lol I also wonder as I’ve had my reports blocked and taken down because of the same manual.
Hold up, that only clears chapters 1-4 as unclassified lol
Not sure what chapter the performance charts are on but I don’t think it’s before or 4
Good to know that it’s ok to use now.
I just compared the thrust at 0 km/h with the mass of the empty aircraft and came up with the following numbers:
Am I correct in understanding that you think that the even F-18A has a better thrust to weight rating than the F-16 block 50, F-15C and MiG-29A?
Then the question is, if the F-18A’s thrust-to-weight ratio was fine, then why did they make the 402 engine at all?
It seems to me that someone has absolutely no logical thinking.
Simply if you look up all the reference books, you will see that the thrust of the F-18A GE400 is indicated as 7260 kgf, and the RD-33 as 8300 kgf, and for example the F-16C GE129 as 13400 kgf. So you want to say that in all the literature for military aircrafts (like Jane’s All Worlds Aircrafts or Osprey Combat Aircraft series etc), the static thrust of the hornet’s engine installed on the aircraft is indicated, while for other aircraft (F-15, F-16, Mig-29 etc.) the thrust is indicated as the rig thrust? What did the Hornet do to deserve such uniqueness and privileges?
TF-30 should be 25% more powerful than GE400 (TF30 = 9071kgf) if we look at this document: https://forum-en-cdn.warthunder.com/original/4X/a/8/c/a8c8d664cebf5a3b2bd9c2620db4ce9294d78f3e.jpeg
But TF30 has only 7994 kgf (the figure differs from that given in the document) static thrust compared to 7260 kgf (the figure matches the document) of GE400 in the WT
Aircraft engines need to be modelled and compared under equal conditions based on the same approach, and not as it’s done here.
P.S. The Su-27 in the game also does not have such big static thrust losses as other planes. Incomprehensible thrust curves, because of this it flies more than 1500 km/h near the ground, although in reality this figure should be around 1400 km/h.
and M2000C seems to have a lossless thrust in the game too. Now I’m not surprised why this miracle can go 1500+ km/h at low afterburner (zone 1- zone 2) and break its wings. facepalm.
1 Like
The F-18 was not known for its TWR and anyone trying to say it was is funny. Good write up.
What is the point of this write up except to complain about something that is correctly implemented already?
You’re complaining that the F-18 has a high empty T/W ratio in spite of the fact that the thrust is based on primary source data and so is the MiG-29s? Why are you surprised a carrier fighter has better empty T/W than the MiG-29, who has a T/W in excess of 2:1 at speed?
Clearly y’all weren’t listening when I made these observations about how potent the F-18 is prior to its’ addition.
2 Likes
I will add that you are right, the Su-27 overperforms in thrust. HOWEVER, the problem is that they overdo it on the drag as well… so it actually underperforms significantly in the game.
1 Like
Potent? It’s currently probably the worst 14.0 aircraft in game.
I don’t think that retort warrants a response but you should know that I read it.
The question was about the fact that the documents indicate that the F-14A with TF-30 on afterburner should be 25% more powerful than the Hornet. This is not in the game.
And also, show this video to the F-15 or F-16 community on the F-16.net forum and watch how they laugh at you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ55zG6bSJY
The performance data directly from the manual (per flight tests, not calculation) is available with a quick Google search.
You’ll find the war thunder acceleration is actually about 1-2% slower than it says in the documentation.
So if they’re laughing, it would be at themselves.
Perhaps the F-14 is underperforming then if that is your claim? Maybe you should dig deeper and take a look into it ;)
Hey guys, can you support the report on the US F-18C missing BOL pods, as the Finnish one is getting them and I find it unfair that the US one isn’t (they tested their own LAU-138 on them).
We could also get the ANALE-58 Mongoose CM dispenser pod.
2 Likes
The suggestion thread on the F-18C has a lot of sources for the BOL pod testing, but I’ve only managed to find the cover pages of only a few of them (listed in the report), so additional help would be great.
2 Likes
Would love to see these on the premium / earlier hornets as well, especially the AN/ALE-58 as that seems like a very interesting.
Will also link this here for future use by folks suggesting / requesting equipment or ord to be added to vehicles as I think it can be very useful for any vehicle.
I think the 120C-5 is still a placeholder as it as the wrong 3d model and from what I can see it still has the exact same stats as when it was added to the files a few months back
They will probably completely change it’s stats in the following days
yep, but gaijin can just forget to do that