Would you mind sharing data rather than conjuring numbers from the air?
Why use 0.6 mach for comparison, what aircraft is being discussed (F-18A?), is there armament on the aircraft? What is the fuel loading?
For example, here is the thrust as calculated by the Navy for the GE-400 and the thrust from 0.8+ mach as quoted from the GAO report;
If you say so, I never made any absurd comparison like this. This conversation has been had at least twice now. People said the same things about the Gripen (ironically, uses a similar engine)… turns out peak sustained turn rate numbers don’t matter for the F-16 & MiG-29 when they are at such high speeds that the pilot cannot sustain them without passing out.
As an example, the F-16C with 30 minutes fuel (70% fuel load) can’t sustain peak turn rate without passing out beyond 400 knots. (7.5+ G is unsustainable in War Thunder). At 500 knots, the F-16C is not sustaining the turn for more than ~10-15 seconds at best and this is still below peak sustained turn rate iirc. The F-18 will turn tighter, compress less, and have considerably better nose authority & control than anything in-game BUT the F-16 series which still heavily overperform in this regard by incredulous amounts.
Anyhow, if you’d like to quote the F-16 data for AoA capacity and compare to in-game I’m sure you’ll show us all how that went perfectly according to the docs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
