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

i cant even upload f18 secret documents bc it wont accept it uploading it

By any chance are any of those “secret documents” classified? Asking for a friend…

Hornet handbooks are commonly available, it’s nothing “secret”

Most are still restricted and not permissible for sharing on the forum.


So I personally think the possibility is high but what do you guys think. Will a F/A-18 Hornet be added this year?

Holding out on releasing it may lead to people sticking around with anticipation, I have a feeling that if it’s coming, it might be an the end of the year or next summer (doubt it’s this summer major update but it’s a possibility ig)

I imagine it will be the next new high tier airframe to be added. That or the J-10A.

“Commonly available” doesn’t always mean unrestricted. For the manuals and reports that are less than 30 years old, they must be labeled as “unclassified”, “declassified” or “approved for public release”.

Please keep in mind that a document that are perfectly fine elsewhere may be problematic here.


I could see the A coming in August/September, with the C being either the December patch or maybe a little before

Photos and illustrations showing the DDI stores page of F/A-18A/B.


82B: Mk 82 (BLU-111)
82X: Mk 82 Snakeye (BLU-111 + Mk 15)
83B: Mk 83 (BLU-110)

Here is what I’ve recreated based on those.

Clean / Air-to-Air / Air-to-Ground


A two things as hyper specific points of order;

The USN doesn’t carry the regular series Mk. 8x of warheads, but use a different one from the USAF due to stowage requirements; being the BLU-109(2000lb AP bomb) -110 (1000lb class), -111 (500lb class) & the reserved -112(250lb class).

These use the comparatively more insensitive PBXN-109, which is more resistant to shock and Flame in comparison to HBX H-6 (denoted by one yellow band). Which the USAF also has some use for as the warheads for some kit based penetrating munitions(allowing for the proper function of delay fusing), though the USAF variants tend to also forgo the additional insulative spray covering, and vented baseplates common to the Navy variants.


Due to how much newer the Hornet is I’m pretty certain that they were probably never loaded with ordnance fitted with the Snakeye series of retarding fins, but more likely the AIR (Air Inflatable Retarder) kit as the High-Drag kit of choice. Considering it was replaced in the late '70s in USAF service due to the 200kts added release window of the HD (500kts vs 700kts, ~0.75M vs ~1.1M) mode and improved accuracy.



Added clarification. Actually they are BLU-110/111, but the aviational ordnanceman’s manual usually refers to it simply as Mk 82/83. So my original intention was to write it down more simply.



1 Like

Because the source says the GE-402 engine improves static installed thrust by 10%. The static installed thrust of the GE-400 is 16,200 lb-f. This is after intake losses are already considered.

Thus, we add the 10% claimed (17,820) and it is slightly higher than the static uninstalled rating of the GE-402… to give it benefit of the doubt we simply tune it down to the 17,750 lb-f uninstalled static thrust rating.

Intake losses are irrelevant when installed thrust values are provided by documentation. All this means is that the engine is well fed and airflow is not restricted by the intake. Other source material confirms that the engine is not flow limited, but temperature limited.

1 Like

No it’s not? It produces 17,200lbf installed at M0.8 and its uninstalled thrust is always advertised at 16,000lbf

QNEP data states otherwise



You’re not listening

It was stated the GE-402 managed to increase static installed thrust by 10% and peak thrust by almost 20%. 16,200 lb-f multiplied by 1.1 is 17,820 lb-f.

I adjusted it down to just 17,750 for my T/W ratio estimates.

anything below M0.7 is calculated/estimated is it not?

“The comparison shows that errors are reasonably small in both supersonic and subsonic flight regimes”…

QNEP is the Navy’s method for producing installed thrust performance data without flight testing. It can be considered as accurate as a flight manuals ‘estimated data’. Likewise, it should be considered a primary source in regards to the -400 core installed thrust.

In regards to the -402, we only have the ballpark “10% improved static installed thrust” figure to go off. That’s again why I went with 17,750 vs the 17,820 figure. Even assuming it is slightly lower than this from intake losses it would still be higher than the Su-27’s thrust to weight with equal fuel weights. That was my point in the other thread - the F-18 is stated as having poor T/W but the reality is not the thrust. The drag causes poor acceleration in spite of a decent T/W.

The F18 has high TWR in a clean configuration with limited fuel.

It’s one of the reasons why it is a favoured aircraft for the blue angles.

However, once you put it into a combat load, especially by the navy’s standard which requires a high patrol time & large combat radius, your light and nimble airframe is now very heavy and very draggy.

You will burn through your fuel very quickly on full afterburner and be slower than most aircraft at most altitudes so you are going tk be forced to take extra fuel than most other aircraft.

On the Mirage 2000C you can easily take 50% fuel plus a drop tank (35 minuites total) and it will last the whole game with plenty to spare, all while being one of the fastest planes in level flight.

In the F18 most players will take 100% fuel and a drop tank and still probably struggle with fuel if they never turned off their afterburner.

Try and do the same in