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.
It wasn’t fixed, it is still underperforming due to the high drag and high thrust situation.
Yeah, you’re mad about nothing.
Please don’t stew in my juice that sounds rather gross.
The F-18 in War Thunder has better installed thrust figures than DCS apparently, the DCS data is quite outdated anyway as it was extrapolated loosely from data that itself was extrapolated from their calculated model.
I did tests of the F-18 competitor, the MiG-29 9-12.
So, more likely this is not a dynamic Hornet, this is a not dynamic MiG-29 9-12.
If you open the “practical aerodynamics of the MiG-29 aircraft”, you can see that the 9-12 weighing 14,200 kg should accelerate from 660 to 1020 km/h (350-550 knots) at an altitude of 1 km in 10 seconds, but in the game it does this exercise in 12 seconds.
Further, at the very beginning, on page 12, acceleration with 80% remaining fuel (fuel consumption 20%) is indicated, acceleration from 600 to 1100 km/h in 13.5 seconds, in the game it does this exercise in 16 seconds.
So, most likely, both the F16c Block 50 and the F-15с also suffer from insufficient dynamics compared to the Hornet.
Here you have 2-3 seconds of difference where the hornet is superior to the opponents. The opponents are simply not tuned in.
So possible dumb thing to ask, but would anyone here be willing to assist in identifying this F/A-18 Hornet? I’m trying to find more references for this camo scheme, but have had zero luck. The one or two places this image is posted label it as an F/A-18C, but it looks more like a later A-model.
Problem is the antennas don’t match up. The tiger stripe one has only three per tailfin, and none of the additional fuselage bumps (especially the ones behind the cockpit)
I actually just found this (NJ301, VFA-125) which is an F/A-18A. I’ll have to look a little more
It’s something I’ve talked about before, but it’s unfortunate that it still seems to be overlooked that the Hornets are very different now than they were in the early 1980s.
