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
especially the super hornet it has an even lower TWR
3 Likes
The Super Hornet has better operational thrust to weight at certain payloads, but it is not much further behind the F-18C at empty, like 1.37:1 or so.
There is no flight manual (performance section) for the Hornet with the 402 engine. It is classified.
But in this doc we see 21 sec
vs 17.5 sec in the game
14% difference. 21 vs 17.5 in the game. I just checked this acceleration. It hasn’t changed for the F/A-18 Late.
So your arguments are again far-fetched. You can’t go against the numbers.
It’s exactly 14% difference whether we’ll overtake F-15C and F-16C/MiG-29A or lag behind them.
what is the top speed for F-18C with 4 missiles and 60% fuel, we have that data
What does maximum speed have to do with it? We’re talking about acceleration and climb rate.
Indeed, but if the maximum speed is incorrect, that can be fixed, and it nearly always effects acceleration and climb rate too, if its overperforming in speed like rafale is, its likely overperforming elsewhere.
Tell this video your nonsense. Because in that case this full loaded Su-33 (9 tons of fuel + 12 AA missles) should fly 3 mach at sea level with such thrust and acceleration if it can accelerate to takeoff speed up a hill over a distance of 20 meters…
Boo hoo lmao
its not 1.37 lmao its likely less than 1
According to…?
Last I checked it weighed around ~32,000 pounds empty and made ~44,000 lb-f thrust static
Devs have already stated the GAO report has some inaccuracies, besides, acceleration and top speed performance is not adjusted based on payloads in-game.
Acceleration of the F-18A and C/early is correct per the manual, the increase in thrust is extrapolated from real world installed thrust data from the GE-400 model. If you think it is erroneous feel free to make a report.
Interestingly, the F-5 series IS considerably overperforming according to the NATOPS and they have determined it is not in their best interest to fix it anyway.
So the Su-27 was fixed only a year later, when there were planes for the blue that could out-turn it, such as the Eurofighter and Rafale. In short, everything is clear. The developer reads the documents only as it is convenient for him. And it doesn’t matter that the Su-33 takes off with a full load from a distance of 20 meters. And it doesn’t matter what the GAO documents say or the F-5’s Natops. What’s the argument about then? It will still be done as it is convenient for the developer and not as in reality.
So I’m going to leave and leave this forum to stew in your own juice.
But I still stand by my opinion, the opinion that the acceleration chart in DCS is made for the Hornet with the 402 engine much more correctly.
1 Like