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.
Indeed, but they can be related
They certainly can be related, but in this case the GAO report takes precedence over the FF sim extrapolated data. They couldn’t even proofread all their graphs.
the difference in drag between aim-120 and aim-7 will be tiny… the effect within ±-0.01M and that is shown in both graphs being visually identical
Weight, wing loading, CG change all affect turn rate greatly… especially instant turn rate. The difference in AIM-7 and AIM-120 on F-16 is the difference between 7 and 9G below 20 degrees AoA due to CG considerations.