The FbW Mirage was more advanced than the F-16 at the same time.
1 Like
The tests took place on the F-18C/D in 2002…but the first 37 production kits were received starting in November 2023 F-18E/F…
So F-18 is the first one in that case?
Yes.
2 Likes
Gentlemen, It seems we’re getting off topic.
We’ll have to wait for Hornet at least three months, or possibly as long as a year. I don’t think it’s too late to have a heated debate about its performance at that point.
1 Like
What’s wrong with debating it now?
I think we will see the hornet before the end of this year, it just isn’t coming in the first major patch. It will probably come in the second major patch with AMRAAMs.
I’m curious to see which nations get them. I’d be very surprised if Sweden receives it as well as the Gripen C. I think there is a reasonable chance the Canadian hornet goes to the UK with AMRAAMs, and the south African Gripen remains as it is without AMRAAMs.
how many pounds of fuel is 30 minutes anyway?
it was they were going to integrate it onto the F14D
1 Like
Actually, no… the Mirage 2000 still has better wing loading and T/W at static conditions than the Gripen. The maneuvering T/W of the Mirage 2000 is higher… the reason the Gripen out-rates the Mirage 2000 has solely to do with a higher aspect ratio wing design which @Necronomica had shown me is a lower sweep angle than the answer we found on google of around 50 degrees… it’s actually closer to 40-41 degrees or so. Yeah, but go ahead and try to slander my name like I’m not right about this. Perhaps it is better for you to stop insulting people and instead provide something to counter the argument they are making (if it isn’t already valid).
Mirage 2000
JAS 39A
Of course, this is the F-18 thread so we should compare the even higher aspect ratio wing and superb performance numbers of that aircraft again… shall we…
Let’s use wiki, if any numbers are wrong please inform me so we can gather a more accurate analysis… this is just the brief assessment since I am limited on time today.
The empty weight of the F-18C is around 10,433kg with a fuel capacity (internal) of 4,930kg… total loaded weight approximately 15,363kg but we will round up to 15,500kg for other factors such as ammo and pilot.
The wing area (again, according to wiki) is 38m²
15,500 / 38 = 407 kg/m²… this is approximately equal wing loading to the F-16ADF in-game in the same conditions… but the F-18 carries a lot more fuel as we know.
Now, there is the discussion about thrust to weight of these aircraft… I’ll leave it alone but the numbers are actually quite close to the F-16ADF static… just not at optimal speeds. That is where the discrepancy comes from. The F-18 will perform better than the Gripen at low and medium subsonic speeds (What will matter when ditching a dogfight)…
Again, if anyone thinks I’m wrong here or wants to assert a different opinion please do so with discussion-worthy information and not some emotionally charged response / insults.
I didn’t use the WT wiki - was looking at advertised data from Dassault and Saab, but I must have used the wrong number for the combat weight of the Mirage 2000. The number I used was probably for full fuel.
Mirage 2000 is probably underperforming in game if the wing loading and TWR are that good, even without canards/fully relaxed stability.
I don’t know why you keep looking at optimal speed thrust. The Mirage 2000 wing rip speed is also 1,512 km/h so that figure is not really representative of the flight envelope. Meanwhile the Gripen achieves optimal thrust well below mach, similar to the F-16.
2 Likes
GJ you sent a video that’s commonly circulated as the F-22 losing the dogfight, when in reality the Rafale never got the nose on target and never won the engagement (pilot never confirms “kill”). Classic regurgitation of false information. That’s also precisely the exercise I was referring to when saying the F-22 had newbie pilots (with 100 hours flight experience) versus extremely experienced pilots in other aircraft (3000+ hours).
The F-22 was undefeated in the Al Dhafra exercise when facing the Rafale, the Rafale also flew without any kind of ordinance, maximizing its flight performance…F-22 pilots also very rarely use the plane’s full capabilities in these exercises, like thrust vectoring, if at all.
The debate itself is fine, as long as it’s calm and rational. I just thought the atmosphere seemed bit aggressive.
Besides that, there were some conversations that had nothing to do with F/A-18.
The numbers used by wiki for wing loading are for full fuel.
It is performing according to all known data charts, including that from the Tornado manual for comparison… it is performing accurately. There is more reliable information for the Mirage 2000’s FM than there is for the Gripen.
The peak thrust for both is at above mach speeds, but for more context I did some testing. The Mirage 2000 does seem to have approximately 5-2% worse thrust to weight ratio at 20 minutes fuel loading from speeds of 400 & 450 knots.
Mirage 2000 @ 400 knots = 9,605 kgf thrust (100m alt, test flight)
Mirage 2000 @ 450 knots = 9,990 kgf thrust (same conditions)
That is a thrust to weight at 20 minutes fuel of 1:1 and 1.05:1 respectively.
Gripen @ 400 knots = 8,747 kgf thrust (same conditions)
Gripen @ 450 knots = 8,870 kgf thrust (same conditions)
That is a thrust to weight at 20 minutes fuel of 1.05:1 and 1.07:1 respectively.
Of course this is quite off-topic, I’m sure we can move to either the Mirage 2000 or Gripen topics if you’d like to discuss further the intricacies of the designs and why the Mirage 2000 has significantly lower performance in sustained turns and specific excess power to the Gripen. (or other gen4s). The dynamic numbers on the wikipedia don’t account for the thrust drop at low to moderate speeds in flight and only the peak thrust when the aircraft is stationary on the ground.
I do not know since they do not sell fuel by the minutes, only weight.
We would have to know how many pounds of fuel first, calculate its gross weight, burn rate based on throttle setting and only then we can attempt to get a fix how much time the jet has in the air. Altitude is even factor in drag and engine burn rate since these are airbreathing engines.
I knew he was making stuff up again the moment he said 30-minute clean F-16, that he was comparing the F-18 E/F sources to the F-16 in game in which he oddly still thinks is a UFO anyway…
He just made-up numbers as usual. Straight up. like he is doing still above ^^
This guy is using WTRTI to conduct his test flights and argues his results on the forum. which is not permitted in bug reports and developers told him direct that anyone can easily manipulate values to achieve any desired outcome. He pretends like the developers never told him and does not know why its not permitted.
There is no “I guess” because developers told him directly here:
No, its not because it’s a third-party software. Once again, he intentionally obscures the truth and twist the words of the developers to fit his narrative.
So now he still uses inappropriate testing tools exclusively to argue his points on the forum and peddle misinformation. He is now using some dude’s “WT Turn Chart Sheet” as his primary table to calculate and come to his conclusions. Hoping to get him to invertedly cosign & agree as well as others.
He intentionally will refer to other people’s research and official sources to get them to cosign and agree with his position while cherry picking random numbers out of it and smashing it all together with his flawed testing in hopes none of you evaluate it but quietly just agree.
1 Like
He has already demonstrated a lack of integrity in regard to how his test procedures are done and twisting the word of the developers and conveniently leaving out their direct statements in regard to inappropriate testing tools.
He will never give you the exact step by step formula how he comes up with his grand conclusions. All his personal testing should be disregarded as nothing more than intentionally overcomplicated chaff to obscure truth and push a personal desire on how any given model should or should not perform.
Weak TWR?
Weight: 23000 pounds + up to 10,860lb fuel.
Mach 1 thrust: ~18000kgf or 39600lbf.
Low speed thrust: ~16000kgf or 35200lbf.
My apologies, weak thrust compared to air superiority fighters of the 4th Generation.
It has amazing thrust by the 3rd generation standard absolutely though!
Sadly, the F-18C is still not as fast as an F8E crusader even if it flew higher, definitely not as fast as the F4E and FGR.
Not as fast cause they chose a different wing design.
Accelerates faster though.
1 Like