F/A-18 Hornet (Legacy): History, Performance & Discussion

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

This! The F-18 when carrying the same amount of fuel as the F-16 will straight up dog on it.

Yeah, the F-18C is only 4,100lbs heavier with a terrible 0.96 thrust to weight compared to the 4,100lbs lighter F-16C with a 1.77 thrust to weight.

@Celestia

The aircraft may have a much higher TWR and ability to pull AOA but it is optimised for carrier operations, delivering the most power on and lift on takeoff.

Sorry, this is wish listing performance.

The F-18 is assisted by a catapult and aircraft that are much heavier with far weaker thrust to weight have zero issue taking off. That is another reason the engines remained weak, and the F-18 just kept getting heavier in all its newer variants.

Additionally, thrust to weight does not increase the slower a jet is flying. It decreases. These are airbreathing engines it does not matter.

[Ziggy1989]

@Celestia

The aircraft may have a much higher TWR and ability to pull AOA but it is optimised for carrier operations, delivering the most power on and lift on takeoff.

Shall we consider the Super Hornet?

F-18E Super Hornet is 31,500lbs empty and still under a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio.

@Acroute

• Thrust-to-weight (F/A-18E, fighter escort configuration):

• @ Sea level, static: 0.845
• @ 5,000 ft (1.5 km), Mach 0.9: 0.981
• @ 20,000 ft (6.1 km), Mach 0.9: 0.685
• @ 35,000 ft (10.6 km), Mach 0.9: 0.385

If the F-18E Super Hornet TTW drops at sea level… (remember we are talking about air breathing engines, they do not perform as good low and travelling at slow speeds).

What makes anyone think for a second that the F/A-18C will have a higher TTW at low and slow speed? Like @MiG_23M keeps trying to mislead the community & ultimately developers into believing?

@MiG_23M

When both the F-18C and the F-16C are carrying 1,536kg of fuel (a 20 minute load for the F-16C in-game)… it has a higher static thrust to weight and only loses this advantage as they approach the high subsonic regions.

This is a fantasy littered with intentional misleading.

[Celestia]

I was in agreemnt with you. :)

I was responding (but didnt quote) Mig-23M’s post who listed the thrust values of the engines before installation without chanel losses.

The engine is optimised for low speed, low altitude performance. regardless. The channel loss on the airframe is signficant because of these optimisations.

Most ground based fighters see the thrust increase by 50% from mach 0.4 to Mach 0.9+ my understanding of the F-18 is that the thrust doesnt increase with airspeed anywhere near as much compared to other aircraft.

http://www.alr-aerospace.ch/index.php?id=fighter-performance-mission-analysis

The charts show that engine thrust and TWR is a terrible metric for performance.

What it essentially comes down to is that the F-18 has far superior instantaneous turn capability at subsonic speeds compared to the F-16, while the F-16 rates much better above mach 0.5

The F16 will maintain its energy in all situations due to the higher TWR at all airspeeds and altitudes.

[MiG_23M]

@Celestia

while the F-16 rates much better above mach 0.5

The Tornado manual shows that the 7.5G limit is the cause of this issue. In-game it will not have these limits and will exceed 20 deg/s sustained turn in conditions where the F-16C holds 19 deg/s.

[Celestia]

The link i posted shows a chart from a swiss source. The swiss have de-regulated their F-18’s to be able to fly at 9g, and even then even then the F-18 cannot out rate the F-16

the 7.5g limit is artifically imposed by the US Navy to maintain airframe lifespan.

Even then I don’t believe the F-18 can sustain any turn rate at at 7.5g with a combat load? You would have to find a sustained rate chart for sea level to prove me otherwise.

[Ziggy1989]

@Celestia

The engine is optimised for low speed, low altitude performance. regardless.

I do agree to a certain extent.

But optimized implies it was intentional by design. I do not think so.

Let me ask you this, how was it anymore “optimized” for low speed and low altitude over the YF-16 as the engines were not significantly improved and no changes were made to its air intakes but remained tiny when the Navy took over the YF-17 that was only originally designed for the Airforce? How is this an engine optimized for low altitude when the Navy made it significantly heavier and degraded its dogfight performance ALL in an effort to make it carrier capable and extend its range & nothing more.

The F-18, initially known as McDonnell Douglas Model 267, was drastically modified from the YF-17. For carrier operations, the airframe, undercarriage, and tailhook were strengthened, folding wings and catapult attachments were added, and the landing gear was widened. Another wheel was added to the front landing gear as well.
To meet Navy range and reserves requirements, McDonnell increased fuel capacity by 4,460 pounds (2,020 kg), by enlarging the dorsal spine and adding a 96-gallon fuel tank to each wing. A “snag” was added to the wing’s leading edge and stabilators to prevent an aeroelastic flutter discovered in the F-15 stabilator. The wings and stabilators were enlarged, the aft fuselage widened by 4 inches (102 mm), and the engines canted outward at the front.
These changes added 10,000 lb (4,540 kg) to the gross weight, bringing it to 37,000 lb (16,800 kg).

The YF-17’s control system was replaced with a fully digital fly-by-wire system with quadruple redundancy, the first to be installed in a production fighter.

Quadruple redundant fly-by wire because they needed it to be safe to land and take off from a ship and guard pilots from screwing themselves with its weak thrust to weight.
Why would the Navy allow a pilot to have free unrestricted alpha in a notoriously weak TTW aircraft like this @MiG_23M is also trying to peddle in his misinformation if they had quadruple redundant fly-by-wire systems?

This aircraft is insanely restricted by the Navy.

The F-18E/F is more optimized for lower altitudes with the enhanced engines and intake design that not only increased air induction for better intake in the lower thick atmosphere, but also lower frontal RCS.

The F-18E Super Hornet still suffers tremendously and lower altitudes in thrust, like most fighters. Again, proven here.

@Acroute

• Thrust-to-weight (F/A-18E, fighter escort configuration):

• @ Sea level, static: 0.845
• @ 5,000 ft (1.5 km), Mach 0.9: 0.981
• @ 20,000 ft (6.1 km), Mach 0.9: 0.685
• @ 35,000 ft (10.6 km), Mach 0.9: 0.385

Can the F-18 fly more efficiently at low altitude? Perhaps.
Can it deliver what little available thrust it has more efficiently than the F-16C? Yes.

But the F-16C thrust is 1.77 and it does not need to be optimized to still blow the F-18C out of the water at any altitude and speed.

The F-16C is also 4,100 pounds lighter than the F-18C

The F-16C is also 12,600 pounds lighter than the F-18E…

[Celestia]

Should also note from the chart I posted previously that the F-18E has significantly more internal fuel load from its predecessor.

The F18C must have 3 drop tanks to achieve the same combat radius as an F-18E with a single fuel tank, but the F-18E performs ever so slightly better in an equal configuration.

The F-16C block 25-40 is the perfect aircraft for dogfights when there nothing weighing it down or holding it back, only thrust vectoring aircraft like the F22 are able to out do it in pure performance, Almost no other aircraft produced in the last 50 years have even tried to one-up the F-16 and for very good reasons.

It has limited limited armament, capabilities and range. The aircraft is too small to add features beyond software which means it is severely limited in how effective the aircraft is on the wider battlefield. There is a good reason why very few aircraft manufacturers and airforces have strived to improve beyond what the F16 excellent in and instead focus on range, and mission capability than pure dogfight performance.

[MiG_23M]

@Celestia

The link i posted shows a chart from a swiss source. The swiss have de-regulated their F-18’s to be able to fly at 9g, and even then even then the F-18 cannot out rate the F-16

The primary source from US documentation shows 19.2 deg/s sustained turn at sea level with 60% load and air to air load out. That is just short of an F-16C on 30 minutes fuel load in War Thunders 19.X deg/s turn rate.

If the fuel loads were equal, and the F-18 was clean… the F-18 would outrate the F-16C. This is confirmed by the Tornado manual which shows the aircraft to be capable of in excess of 20 deg/s sustained turns.

@Celestia

Even then I don’t believe the F-18 can sustain any turn rate at at 7.5g with a combat load?

It’s doing 19.2 deg/s with the combat loads and much higher fuel percentage than an air RB match will require… The G forces so long as they are less than 8.5G means it can do that nigh-indefinitely in war thunder… The turn radius and performance is superior to the F-16C.

@Celestia

The F-16C block 25-40 is the perfect aircraft for dogfights when there nothing weighing it down or holding it back, only thrust vectoring aircraft like the F22 are able to out do it in pure performance, Almost no other aircraft produced in the last 50 years have even tried to one-up the F-16 and for very good reasons.

That’s quite off topic at this point, as far as I’m concerned the block 50/52 with improved motors are superior to those models and still outperformed by most other modern gen4s with the exception of pure turn rate… and the F-16C certainly isn’t king there either being beaten by the EF2000 and others.

You can’t disagree with the numbers. The F-18 performs on par with the F-16C and superior to the F-16ADF in sustained turn rate at sea level when loaded with significantly more fuel and ordnance.

[Celestia]

And the F-16A does 23 deg/s sustained at 24,000lbs

That’s the equivelant to 30 minuites of fuel with no weapons.

[MiG_23M]

@Celestia

And the F-16A does 23 deg/s sustained at 24,000lbs

30 minutes of fuel with no weapons?
Do you have the source for that information? So far I find nothing to support that claim at all. Nothing.

Firstly,
Above is the in-game data for the F-16’s. The F-16A does approximately 20.78 deg/s at 500 knots but this is not a sustainable turn for the pilot. The optimal turn speed is 350-400 knots (as is the case IRL)… and it sustains approximately 20 - 20.2 deg/s.

I could not immediately find a chart for the F-16A, rather only the F-16ADF (block 15). This chart shows the turn rate of the aircraft to be no more than ~18.5 deg/s or so if I am reading this chart correctly. It’s also at slightly less than 24,000 pounds weight limit…

So let us use the real data. The F-18 with 60% fuel load and 2x AIM-9, 2x AIM-120 would have how much weight on it? What of the F-16? Let’s delve into it a little bit.

The F-16A ADF (in-game) has a max internal fuel loaded weight of 11,210kg. Subtract this from the empty weight (in-game) of 7,970 kg and you have a loaded weight of 3,240kg.

The F-18C with 60% internal fuel and 2x AIM-9, 2x AIM-120 has how much ordnance? Let’s start with the fuel. According to wikipedia it carries a higher internal load of fuel at 4,930kg. 60% of this is 2,958kg… The empty weight is 10,433kg (this is only relevant later when I reference wing loading again)…

Now, the ordnance…
According to NAVAIR, the AIM-9X weights approximately 84kg, and it carries 2. That is 168kg of SRAAMs. Also according to NAVAIR the AIM-120 weights approximately 348 pounds or 157kg. Two of these total 314 kg. (84x2) + (157x2) + 2,958 = 3,440kg.

So, the F-16A ADF and the F-18C both loaded with 3,240 and 3,440kg of ordnance respectively can be compared. If you guys would like different comparisons I am sure we can evaluate there as well so don’t let this be a cherry picked from the tree so to say.

What we find is that the F-18C in these conditions according to the GAO Report sustains 19.2 deg/s turn rate. The F-16A ADF in these conditions per the standard aircraft characteristics chart sustains less than 19 deg/s turn rate. Even in-game, the F-16A ADF in these conditions performs only ever so slightly better at around 19.4 - 19.7 deg/s (CLEAN).

Everyone is welcome to question the sources and the data. If any testing was thought to be tampered with in-game you are free to do your own sustained turn tests. @RideR2 's testing is used in this case as he is a third party not partaking in the argument. His stuff is logged publicly and the information is plain / easy to read. If you think it is not accurate I challenge you to prove it by doing your own testing, recording it, uploading it. etc.

In short; the F-16 does not perform anywhere NEAR 23 deg/s SUSTAINED turn rates. That is the PEAK instantaneous turn rate of the F-16, and the F-18 has it beat pretty handily in that regard.

[MiG_23M]

@Celestia

Most ground based fighters see the thrust increase by 50% from mach 0.4 to Mach 0.9+ my understanding of the F-18 is that the thrust doesnt increase with airspeed anywhere near as much compared to other aircraft.

Should also mention your own source above shows the superiority in sustained and instant turn rate for the F-18 as I have mentioned.

At this point refuting this claim is absurd. You can try to refute what I say about it being the dominant force in 1v1’s but you absolutely CANNOT refute the fact that it outperforms the F-16’s in sustained turn rate. It’s just like the F-15, I told everyone it would be a side grade to the F-14B without an improvement in ordnance and that is exactly what happened.

[Celestia]

MB I mixed up sustained and instantaneous lines on the chart.

I can’t find a comparable chart for sea level for the F18, but we do have them for 15kft

For reference, the EM loadout (2aim9, 2aim7, 60%internal fuel) the f18c rates at 12 deg/sec at 15,000 feet.

The F16A with 2 missiles and 50% internal fuel rates at 16deg/sec at 15,000 feet.

That’s the best chart to chart comparison you can get, but as you say, the weight on the F18 is significantly more while the f16 is a light load.

I never claimed that the f16 was superior below 500kph/350 knots. The F18 clearly wins in that department for sustained and instantaneous turns, but above those speeds the F16 wins in the sustained rate fights at 400kts but also maintains its energy much better when manuvering at higher speeds.

The end result will be that the F18 will play very similarly to the M2K. Most players will turn as hard as they can and either snap their wings or become a sitting duck from bleeding too much airspeed, while the F16 is much more rookie friendly.

None of it matters anyway because at top tier, aircraft battle rating and performance is entirely dependant on its weapons and ability to deliver them.

[Ziggy1989]

@Celestia

I never claimed that the f16 was superior below 500kph/350 knots. The F18 clearly wins in that department for sustained and instantaneous turns, but above those speeds the F16 wins in the sustained rate fights at 400kts but also maintains its energy much better when manuvering at higher speeds.

The end result will be that the F18 will play very similarly to the M2K. Most players will turn as hard as they can and either snap their wings or become a sitting duck from bleeding too much airspeed, while the F16 is much more rookie friendly.

Absolutely.

Since it’s not a delta (delta wing are stronger structurally.) The F/A-18C will snap when players pull too hard at high speed.

TBH Its going to perform very similar to the F8E. Just a bit more acceleration and slightly worse top speed. Of course much better alpha at really slow speed.

It will be highly regulated until it makes its under 800km and if you try to pull to much pitch/alpha it will rip its wings immediately.

Only when its dead slow at 500kph/350 knots will it have any relevant nose authority against 4th generation fighters. But will immediately die out because it has no thrust to weight to maintain a sustained turn that tight. Especially in any sort of climb.

[MiG_23M]

@Celestia

I can’t find a comparable chart for sea level for the F18, but we do have them for 15kft

If I recall, the F-16 beats the F-18 at 15,000 feet pretty much across the board unless there is a massive difference in fuel or ordnance carried. This is a downside to the F404 engine is the higher altitude performances.

@Celestia

but above those speeds the F16 wins in the sustained rate fights at 400kts but also maintains its energy much better when manuvering at higher speeds.

I don’t think the F-16 wins until closer to 0.75+ mach, but even then it would only be very marginal improvement. To sustain a rate fight on the deck at that speed would mean constant passing out and burning fuel while the F-18 can sit inside your circle rating at a lower speed and popping shots off at you.

@Celestia

None of it matters anyway because at top tier, aircraft battle rating and performance is entirely dependant on its weapons and ability to deliver them.

The F-18 is superior to the F-16 in pretty much all regards here.

[ZVO_12_INCH]

I will write an answer later in the MiG-23 topic…there are nuances that you don’t know about or haven’t noticed… The second link below is to the memoirs of A.A.Shcherbakov-he conducted 95 percent of the flights during the tests of the MiG-23 for a corkscrew…

[Gunjob]

Removed the link to the F-18 NATOPS. Please don’t post or share that on the forum.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@MiG_23M

This engine produces 19,062 lb-f thrust at mach 1. This is the optimal airspeed for the F-16C’s engine to produce peak thrust according to Gaijin’s wiki site (1,200 km/h sea level).

At Mach 1 the F-16C (with the GE-129 we have in-game) pushes out about 36 000lbf. How is this in any way comparable to either the F404-GE-402 or F414 shown?
If it were the perfect staple dogfight, with both pilots doing everything correctly, we’d have either aircraft shooting for ~M0.6. That puts the F110 around ~33.5K lbf, while your chart doesn’t have information on speeds that low.

M0.8 is even somewhat extreme if we’re talking a guns-only dogfight for performance. Let alone any heater fight.

@MiG_23M

When both the F-18C and the F-16C are carrying 1,536kg of fuel (a 20 minute load for the F-16C in-game)… it has a higher static thrust to weight and only loses this advantage as they approach the high subsonic regions. The moment a merge occurs, the F-16 loses his thrust to weight advantage on equal fuel loadings. Thoughts on this?

The F-16 has a higher thrust output in almost every speed there is, and the only drawback is the P/W. Even then, the F-18 takes a much harder hit to its thrust at any typical dogfight speed while the F-16 drops down to the 1st quarter of the 30k lbf range.

@MiG_23M

Let’s not forget the F-18 should have a lower wing loading at 314 kg/m2 with this fuel loading. The F-16C’s with 20 minutes fuel loading is 378 kg/m2. The F-18 has a higher aspect ratio wing, superior thrust to weight, and better one circle performance across the board as well. It will be an absolute monster.

What are you basing this thrust to weight off of? At sea level I’m not seeing any figure corroborating with what you used to achieve the thrust to weight figures for either plane,

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@MiG_23M

According to the Tornado manual discussing other aircraft (clean) the F-18 can easily do 20 deg/s

Your own sources put the maximum rate speed of the F414 powered hornets at ~18-19dg/s…? How does this compare to the F-16, which is capable of 23-25dg/s?

Hell, one of my main problems in the F-16 is the pure thrust output… Not to push anecdotes, but I also have to deal with the unbelievable output on the 100/229. You have to be very careful as not to get too fast, or you simply cannot lose that speed.

Where does the hornet have that issue? If you’re in a sustained rate fight, will it ever need to worry about its speed going out of control in AB?

Let’s just ignore the general energy retention and thrust of the F-16, though, and point out the ~33% superior rate speed.

@MiG_23M

And these show superiority to the F-16C in practically all regards for maneuvering combat.

So why are you so keen on saying the F-18 is on-par with the F-16C?

@MiG_23M

This! The F-18 when carrying the same amount of fuel as the F-16 will straight up dog on it.

Huh…

@MiG_23M

When both the F-18C and the F-16C are carrying 1,536kg of fuel (a 20 minute load for the F-16C in-game)… it has a higher static thrust to weight and only loses this advantage as they approach the high subsonic regions. The moment a merge occurs, the F-16 loses his thrust to weight advantage on equal fuel loadings. Thoughts on this? @wasa850 @TheArcticFoxxo

Let’s not forget the F-18 should have a lower wing loading at 314 kg/m2 with this fuel loading. The F-16C’s with 20 minutes fuel loading is 378 kg/m2. The F-18 has a higher aspect ratio wing, superior thrust to weight, and better one circle performance across the board as well. It will be an absolute monster.

@MiG_23M

@Celestia

None of it matters anyway because at top tier, aircraft battle rating and performance is entirely dependant on its weapons and ability to deliver them.

The F-18 is superior to the F-16 in pretty much all regards here.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

@MiG_23M

I don’t think the F-16 wins until closer to 0.75+ mach, but even then it would only be very marginal improvement. To sustain a rate fight on the deck at that speed would mean constant passing out and burning fuel while the F-18 can sit inside your circle rating at a lower speed and popping shots off at you.

The F-16C is capable of ruining any F-18 at any speed above M0.45. The F-18 lacks the capability to readily pull speed in almost any attitude, as well as lacking in the ability to stay committed to energy-dependent fights.

As for an F-18’s ability to “sit inside your circle rating at a lower speed”… Its maximum rate is at the same speed as the F-16C’s maximum rate. It’s maximum rate is 2/3 that of the F-16C’s maximum rate. There’s no way in hell the F-18 will get a solution once, as long as the F-16 doesn’t fuck up, let alone more than once.

[Fireball_2020]

@Celestia

Channel losses on the F18 are likely signficiant, as will be the drag.

That data is for installed.