Your mouth says the opposite of what you do.
“It will smoke them” but actually you cannot even get past the first step; turn rate.
If it is so strong, where has it been since 1992? As you know, Falcons.
But it’s true in War Thunder
Lmk where you found the F-18C w/ GE-402 charts again lol (it was poorly calculated for a video game)
It is the DCS FF5 model, but instead of F-18C with 402 on title, it’s with the -400 engine. In case you try to avoid it, it matches the previous source closely. They may have validated it with; power adjusted to match -400 engines, for which more data was available to them at the time.
How is it valid if the sustained turns fail to meet real world datapoints
Indeed the FF5 model actually outperforms the dataset I posted.
Candidate control design for a modern fighter. Page 48.
You can extract real data points from there.
Feel free to share a link to the source you’re quoting, still underperforms against GAO report at a glance since the peak turn rate does not match what was stated.
So right now @Henge11220 Your argument boils down to this being a valid source?;
Last I checked, DCS quite often gets a lot of very important things wrong. They are absolutely NOT a credible source. They do not even link the sources used for the data in the computation.
They claim the information comes from the flight manual but that would not be permissible for sharing on the forum or use in reports because it is still restricted and newer than 30 years old. That - and I do not think it is available on the internet based on a quick google search for it.
Relying on the available data - the GAO report states 19.2 deg/s with 2x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-9 and loaded with 60% internal fuel. This would place it slightly lighter than what the aforementioned DCS source quotes since it has 2x AIM-7’s mentioned instead of 2x AIM-120… except the DCS source claims that the additional ~200kg would somehow reduce flight performance to ~17 deg/s from 19.2?
I do not see how that shows “overperformance” by any means.
F-18 cannot safely sustain high AOA due to having negative yaw stability at ~20 degrees.
The FF5 report has info from the manual. And for -400 which is available online in full.
There are 4. It is correct for -400 hornets. And can predict the performance of a -402.
Which apparently isn’t true because it’s off by as much as 2 degrees according to real world datapoints
Where in the document is this chart? Having a read it repeatedly discusses the ability of the control scheme to conduct nose pointing maneuvers in excess of 90° and at just 0.2 mach from 1g condition can pitch to 35° without issues.
I’m going to work but I’ll reply again later when I’ve had more time to read rather than skim.
In FF5 the dataset represents a legacy hornet built before 1992. As you may notice, it is dated to 1991.
The hornet in the FF5 model achieves ~16.7 dps at 355 knots, or mach 0.55. It then gradually climbs to 17.15 at 0.75.
In the document it has peaks at 16.8 at m0.6, and 17.2 at m0.8 (roughly).
Besides overperformance, it is a close match.
So why do you disregard the document?
Validate the model (as they did with FF5) using the thrust of a -400 hornet.
For a -402 you increase the power. At ~m0.8, it increases from 17.2 to 19.2.
“it is lower than the GAO report offers by 2 degrees, it is worthless!”
So you offer performance that contradicts basic arithmetic.
The FF5 model matches the NASA document therefore it’s correct, in spite of the fact that it contradicts real world data? Your argument isn’t solid. That’s all I’m saying.
You never said where this part could be found in the document. What page?
It is for 1991. The GAO report has the Hornet of 1996. EPE is 1992. What contradiction?
In post 1149 of this thread I said; Page 48.
Your statements are so convoluted I have no clue what you’re even trying to argue at this point. We are discussing the performance of the GE-402 equipped F-18C’s. They have a peak turn rate of 19.2 deg/s under known conditions. This is a datapoint. The FF5 model states for the GE-402 equipped hornets that the maximum peak turn rate is ~2 deg/s less. How is their model accurate if they cannot match real datapoints?
Quit playing dumb, where is this chart for the yaw instabilities from in the document? Page 48 is for the alleged sustained turn diagrams.
A model based on -400 Hornet with increased power will represent -402 Hornet.
AERODYNAMIC PARAMETERS OF HIGH-ANGLE-OF-ATTACK RESEARCH VEHICLE (HARV) ESTIMATED FROM FLIGHT DATA
Based on the sources;
An F-18 with -400 engine has STR of 3rd gen. This will “smoke” an Su, with 15% more power?
Even a 1st generation MiG-23 (23M, 16 DPS ASL) has STR within 5% of -400 Hornet.
I don’t know how much simpler I can make it for you.
Let’s do some comparisons then, since you want to make a claim;
In-game, the F-4E with 20 minutes fuel sustains between 3.1G (12.67 deg/s)@ 250 knots and 7.2G (15.48 deg/s)@ 500 knots sustained turn rates. (Source)
This is a fuel mass quantity of 3,822kg, clean.
The F-18A with 60% internal fuel and two AIM-7 and two AIM-9 (total stores mass load of 2,958kg fuel and 635 kg of ordnance (3,593kg) sustains between (~14 deg/s) and (~17.5 deg/s) at the same speeds with higher peak G forces in both conditions.
One could argue the F-18 is behind the best examples of fourth generation fighters but equally ahead of any average third generation fighters. The absolute best third generation fighters can match it, the lower end of fourth generation fighters are outclassed by it. So to make such a comment is just to embellish your argument.
Moving on
The F-18C with GE-402 engines, 60% internal fuel, 2x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-9 has a peak sustained turn rate of 19.2 deg/s. This is not up for debate. This is not something that is disputable, it is real data obtained for the GAO report. The datapoint is there, if the model fails to meet it with a few hundred extra pounds (2x AIM-7 instead of 2x AIM-120), it is clearly an inherently incorrect model. This is expected as we are not discussing a highly funded simulation but rather the video game DCS’ first attempts at correctly modeling a fighter without all the necessary data.
The MiG-23 series in particular with wings swept forward (not done IRL) is not going to keep up with the Hornet after a tighten-down. Try rate fighting a Mirage 2000 in-game to see how that would turn out. The turn radius is going to be considerably smaller for the Hornet, he would sit on the MiG-23’s tail all day in this kind of dogfight. The F-18’s ability to cut the circle and maintain his performance in the process will be considerably better than the Su-27 or the MiG-29’s. It will be considerably better than the F-15’s as well.
So the Mirage 2000 craps all over the Su-27 and MiG-29 currently with a mediocre 15 deg/s turn rate, you don’t think the F-18 (better suited for this kind of dogfight) is going to perform better? Especially when it can match or exceed their turn rate as well as maintain the speed better during high G instant turn rates and cornering?
Let me also remind you of the in-game Gripen which has ~17 deg/s peak sustained turn rates and holds its’ speed incredibly well during instant turn rates. The F-18 will hold speed slightly worse but will have considerably better AoA performance. A mix between the M2K and Gripen in terms of how it would fly but beats both in AoA / instant turn as well.
I find it rather comical that pretty much any time I see new activity in this thread, it is in some way related to the Hornet’s flight performance (whether it be arguments, new info being posted, very in-depth analyses, etc)
Truly goes to show how powerful enthusiasm can be lol
