mmm, i think it’s slightly higher than that, at 22klb its 21.7 degrees/s this is about 25% fuel clean
Then again the FF5 study puts the F-18C at 17.15 degrees at 60% + 4
One issue with the BOL (LAU-138) is that as far as I can find, they aren’t rated for use with the LAU-115 Dual Rail adapter, so would limit the station to a single missile which cuts into magazine depth, and that forces the use of a Sidewinder (or later AMRAAM with the LAU-127), which would cause issues for the F-/A-18A, since it would have to rely on Sparrows as its MRM.
Though there is the ALE-37A/A (as found in game on the CL station of the AV-8A), which could add 2 x 120 countermeasures per mid wing station (F/A-18 has four in total), and can accommodate both 1 x 2" sized Chaff and Flares.
But similar to the above issue its carriage reduces magazine depth significantly in exchange, though it uses “regular” sized flares instead of “small” as with the BOL rails so is slightly more effective (and further has a variety of potential improved performance payload options if CMs are ever revised in the future).
The what?
GAO report is using primary data references.
FF5, they had access to the manual data with 402 equipped. Proof being the included 402 sep curve
https://www.scribd.com/doc/258597673/F-18C-FM
They had access to data with the GE-400, not GE-402. The enhanced performance is extrapolated on their end and not accurate. Additionally, you are looking at an 8G maximum. They did not extrapolate beyond this in their chart.
mate they attached the sep graph from the 402 manual, not sure how they would get that any other way
The SEP graph does not match data from the GAO report - itself REQUIRING BY LAW that accurate performance numbers be presented due to the audit. It is likely an edit on their part.
Doesnt seem to matter because the graphing shows the decrease in rate just above that speed.
How so? because it definetly does match this graph:
If 2 are matching then i would start to question GAO…
This isn’t even for the same conditions - and the numbers are not included. Are you going by shape?
The charts used in the FF report are clearly copies made by the developers to appear more formal. They are not pulled from documentation as evidenced by the fact that you can search “A1-F18AC-NFM-210” and pull up the first result. It isn’t usable for sharing here on the forum - but shows that they are poorly extrapolating the data for the -402.
Yes it is?
2 AIM-9 and 2 AIM-120 or 2 AIM-9 and 2 AIM-7? How is that the same?
M1.05 at SL at 60% fuel + 4
Top speed has literally nothing to do with the sustained turn rate?
I know? my point was the graph they used is 100% from the manual, and therefore proof that the climb rate and acceleration as a minimum are also likely to be accurate.
Climb rate, acceleration, and top speed were not related to the discussion. I was talking about sustained turn rate.
We know the peak sustained turn rate given the conditions from the GAO report and their extrapolation of the turn rate is clearly wrong in the FF study as it does not align with the primary source material - contradicting their claim.