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.
No way is the aircraft that sensitive to 100kg change in mass
I did not quote the manual - it is an exaggeration. The F-16A certainly was far more prone to departure at angles of attack beyond 20 degrees when loaded with Sparrows vs AMRAAM though. The addition of the IAHT solved this somewhat.
Regardless, it is more pertinent to the F-18 as it can go beyond these FBW limits.
it puts the f-18c closer to 58s for the 35000ft condition and 2 minutes 15 seconds for the second condition at 35000ft and as it says, the data is taken from the manual for plotting correlation with their computed data.
Why does the F/A-18E accelerate so slowly compared to the F/A-18C?
I thought Super Hornet had superior engines to legacy ones.
inferior drag characteristics and mass
Fair enough… didn’t think it was this bad.
If I was the navy I’d want my F-14 back
Top speed and acceleration is not their concern - the payload capacity… time on station… electronic warfare and other considerations is. The Super Hornet has a very low radar cross section for a conventional type fighter of its’ size. It is something like 1m2 or less and the newest models have a claimed “LO” status.
The Super Hornet fits the Navy’s needs quite well and will serve alongside the F-35 for quite some time.
1 Like
Sadly I doubt most of these features will translate to WT well
This is true, the F-18E/F will still have a low radar cross section, powerful radar, and high number of equip-able munitions both for air to air or air to ground. It will be one of the best multi-roles for GRB or SIM.
As long as theres enough of a budget to keep the F-ing things flying.
Theres also not enough crew chief sanity for that
1 Like
If you were the navy, you wouldn’t want the maintenance pig that came along with that back
7 Likes
When you’re the US military there’s always “enough budget”, as long as it aligns with your priorities.
I understand that “peace dividend” and downscaling of the military was a thing, but in the end of the day, you won’t get the unique capability of the F-14 without paying for it.
In an alternate universe where the USSR never fell I could see Tomcats flying to this day. It’s not an anachronism, after all the F-15 is basically just as old.
I have another question regarding flight performance in Warthunder in General. I’m watching C.W. Lemoine’s video on his preference regarding F-16 or FA18. He states that the F16 and its AOA limiter will not allow you to exit certain flight regimes. But it WOULD let you pull 9G no matter the weight or stores onboard. It didnt care it could and would pull to 9G. Regarding the AOA limiter on Vipers I was watching an interview with Mike “Nasty” Manazir where he states that when fighting against a viper you could see when the Viper pilot hit that AOA limiter because you could see the nose come around, and then come around more, then more and then suddenly it “stopped pulling and started Arcing through the sky”.
I remember that, when F16 was introduced into the game that people kept going on and on about the AOA limiter there.
Anyway thats part of the question. Lemoine also states that the F18 is a 7.5G Jet.
So is literally EVERY plane in this game overperforming MASSIVELY? I pull 12 G in Phantoms. I’ve seen up to 10 in freaking F104’s. 12 in Mig29s and stuff.
Not about a question of Old or not. the F14 was absolutely horrible to maintain.
I also have the budget to go and sell my old Citroen C4 and buy a much more capable car. But the Citroen does the job I need it to do for a cheaper price and easier to maintain.
2 Likes
The thing is that capability isn’t necessary anymore. It was a product of its time when it took a missile the size of the Pheonix to exist. Now you get even more capability in a much smaller form factor, thus negating the need for an aircraft that becomes a deck queen. Combine that with the maintenance tax that comes with a massive swing wing design and you get an aircraft that just doesnt make sense anymore.
1 Like