I’m saying the F-18 can outperform the F-16 , it’s happening too, no need to think about it. The pilot is the alpha and omega, not the aircraft. I have a picture of the F-15, it is definitely more powerful than the Phantom, it is more powerful in almost everything. But that picture is of an F-4 with a gunsight and the F-15 is in it. Bad decision by an F-15 pilot ? Maybe. Maybe it was a rookie F-15 pilot and an experienced Vietnamese pilot in the F-4, who knows. No need to look for less wing loading, reality is more colorful
1 Like
Of course this is the case, but war thunder isn’t real life. We know the F-18 has a higher sustained turn rate even when loaded with additional fuel weight over the F-16C according to the documentation above… But the usual talking points of “low T/W” and such keep being applied when in reality the acceleration being slower is a drag issue instead.
Of course, in-game the F-16 will be competitive in one circle flow as well since it’s overperforming so severely to the point it is also handling 40+° AoA.
1 Like
I’ve seen it happen before. I’ve lost spars and have been chewed out specifically because our opposition used the force on my brain.
1 Like
One thing the Hornet does have, is that because it has twin vertical tail stabilisers pointing out at an angle, they remain in airflow even when the aircraft is pulling high AoA. It’s one of the reasons it has such great nose authority and control at high AoA.
In terms of rate fighting it should be outclassed by the F-16 though.
3 Likes
Excellent point and true.
“The F/A-18C is not technically better, its magically better”.
Hell, it was against a last-gen NG unit as well
1 Like
Let’s do some basic math with the known data.
Here we can see the thrust of the F-18C’s GE-402 engine (the enhanced one we have been discussing, not the base model -400 engine on the F-18A).
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).
That means that at optimal speeds, the F-18 with the same amount of fuel as an F-16 on a 20 minute load (1,536kg… total weight of 11,969 kg)… or 26,387 lbs has a thrust to weight of approximately
19,062 x 2 = 38,124 lb-f / 26,387 = 1.44
A thrust to weight of 1.44 on 20 minutes fuel at optimal speeds… what about static?
The static thrust to weight of the F404-GE-402 is rated as 17,700 lb-f… this reduces the static power to weight to just…
17,700 x 2 = 35,400 lb-f / 26,387 = 1.34
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.
@Ziggy1989 (for some reason it didn’t reply to you)
And because I’m a whore for the F100s and the 42+/52+
(I’m not gonna post the screenshot to the techy because I have my doubts on its efficacy on the forums)
T.O GR1F-16CJ-1-1 | pA8-54 / Fig. A8-37
Man, this might be one of the few times I’m fully agreeing with you.
It doesn’t seem like he can get a set fuel load to compare them…
I can understand WTRTI as a data tool, though I’d only accept it with either a profile config or full recording.
1 Like
Channel losses on the F18 are likely signficiant, as will be the drag.
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.
There is a reason why the maximum speed is M1.8 only and the maximum rate is under 20deg/s.
The aircraft will follow the performance levels of the charts indicated.
4 Likes
Determining “minutes” of fuel in any given aircraft has is not easy as time is not fixed to a specific weight/amount of fuel. He is absolutely making it up.
For pilots to determine “time” an aircraft has in the air is based route calculation, throttle setting, burn setting for climb, cruise, decent. Air temperature, altitude & gross weight of the aircraft (including fuel)
To further complicate it, now add the dynamics of dogfighting.
He cannot determine what is the fuel state of the F-16 at 20 min fuel without first knowing the lbs of fuel first.
But is merely making up weights of fuel and penalizing the F-16C at the same time ignoring that the F/A-18C is always 4,100lbs heavier than the F-16C with far weaker thrust.
I understand we make mistakes and do not consider factors and accidentally leave them out of our conclusions on how aircraft should perform. But @MiG_23M will do this intentionally and go great lengths to cover it up.
Absolutely, agree.
Or I let my ltco do that… Way too much thinking, yk?
Being raised with metrics, I prefer those.
However… I never remember measuring fuel mass with the amount of flight time…
1 Like
I wish I, too, was bougie.
Eh, I’ve seen some gas stations do weird stuff. You never know!
Then again, I doubt they also advertise the racing capabilities of vehicles that take 5 minutes of fuel.
Good, I get 6mpg. If they sell 20 minutes of fuel, that shit’s lasting 5.
1 Like
No need for Luke Skywalker, how about Tug Wilson ? I think all it takes is one pilot to make it clear that the Hornet has a chance to beat anyone with the right tactics. It certainly belies being completely outclassed by the F-16, right ?
1 Like
Quite literally any 1-circle fighter can win any dogfight if given the right conditions. It’s a purely reactionary plane. The entire point of it is to be so obscenely aggressive that the enemy makes a mistake and grants you a kill.
That’s why I love the Mirage.
1 Like
Same…
Its great being able to pull insane, aggressive manuvers. It makes you an absolute sitting duck in a furball, but when your opponents only viable tactic is to maintain a superior rate on the deck at 700ias, 9 times out of 10 they try to match your aggression and get way too slow to manuver effectively.
The Mirage 2000 should have as much nose authority as the f18 while being marginally superior in a sustained rate fight and be able to accelerate much faster at all speeds.
The Mirage 2000 will be able to chase down an f18 with ease at all altitudes.
I think the F18 would come out on top if both planes end up getting slower than 500kph.
I still think the mirage 2000 would come out on top in a 1v1 but the f18 would be much superior in regular matchmaking due to having a much more competitive missile loadout and a superior radar.
2 Likes
Like the MiG 23, I think the F-18 will be a very good dogfighter in the game due to its AoA nose pointing, and 9G+ maneuvers. In pure configuration it will be an excellent machine. Why not think so? Because the F-16 is faster and has better SEP, but on the other hand when it is fixed it doesn’t have the AoA and handling like the Hornet ?
1 Like
Agreed.
Also, not only can the F-16C ditch the F-18C in a rate on the deck, the F-16C can do it in a climb with its lighter weight (4,100lbs lighter) and its superior thrust and immediately bleed an F-18C out of energy. Notice in any real videos or even in DCS the F-18 hates going vertical. The DCS F-18 is even overperforming and is stated as such by an actual F/A-18 pilot on YouTube.
It’s a fighter that already suffered from weak thrust in the LFX program as the YF-17 and was made even more heavier by the Navy to make it carrier capable and called it the F/A-18.
It cannot outrun any phantom in game.
The M2k is much more versatile more speed regimes and designed more in tune for high kinetic air to air engagements.
2 Likes
Not quite as much at low speeds, though around the ~300-500kn range it’s far superior.
I wouldn’t quite say superior radar, at least if we’re talking about the 18A.
1 Like
According to the Tornado manual discussing other aircraft (clean) the F-18 can easily do 20 deg/s. The primary American documents support this by showing 19.2 deg/s turn rate with 60% fuel and air to air armament.
And these show superiority to the F-16C in practically all regards for maneuvering combat.
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.
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.