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
Yeah you get excited over some new activity on this topic and then once it loads it’s just 2 people arguing
What were you hoping for exactly? This argument is the type that shapes how the aircraft comes to the game.
I get excited and remain excited, because it’s an in-depth discussion by two (or more parties) who are enthusiastic about the topic at hand. The fact that we can even have these discussions on the forum in the first place is exciting to me, since we can get multiple perspectives
Like Gaijin reads this. Reports shape how the aircraft comes to the game.
AERODYNAMIC PARAMETERS OF HIGH-ANGLE-OF-ATTACK RESEARCH VEHICLE (HARV) ESTIMATED FROM FLIGHT DATA
I provided the source for the yaw stability chart previously.
I will restate my points for readers. My assertions are:
-400 Hornet is ~17.2 DPS at m0.8, ~16.8 DPS at m0.6.
-402 Hornet is ~19.2 DPS at m~0.8, ~18.5 DPS at m0.6.
Sources 1991 and FF5 study, both addressing -400 (FF5 probably used -400 thrust) hornet at combat load are the basis for my assessment.
And the manual for -400 Hornets. (3 sources)
-402 is from 4th, NSIAD 96-98
And then;
You can develop a flight model for F-18 on -400 data; just change engines it afterwards. (FF5 did this)
I’ve said this from the first post. I’m tired of repeating myself in every post for it to be ignored.
Due to 23M’s behavior I will recuse myself from this thread.
Thank you.
I make reports, yes, hence my comment.
I could not find it in the source you mentioned. What page, as I asked thirty trillion times now?
If that is the case, why does their -402 hornet underperform in sustained turns according to their charts?
If you’re gonna use a graph from some unknown document, cut to avoid showing which “figure” it is from and then play stupid instead of just stating the page it’s from and the actual source of course you’re going to excuse yourself. You’re excused.
It’s probably not permissible for sharing on the forum at worst and at best not related to the F-18.
Would be fun to recreate that photo one day in WT assuming A-4M gets gray camo with low vis markings
(F-4S will stand in for RF-4B)
Agreed
I’d love to see the original AV-8B get added as well
it amazes me they still haven’t even added the f/a-18A with the aim-7’s and 9l’s
I know this is for the Super Hornets, so is tangentially relevant to this topic
The following budget request
https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY20/RDTE/N/0604329N_121.pdf#page=3
lists the station compatibility for the SDB / BRU-61/A and the F/A-18E & -F as the “Midboard and Inboard” wing stations.
So I am hearing and reading that the Hornets are “slow” when compared to the Tomcats they replaced.
But top speed, in my eyes, isnt the end all be all of it. Do we know of its acceleration performance? A good energy recovery potential is better than higher outright speed IMO.
It is not special in any metric. It has decent thrust to weight but design of the aircraft limits it’s high speed capability. That’s the reason why it’s slow. This also means lesser performance in BVR fox-3 duel against other 4th gen fighters. Real problem will be not being able to run down enemy fighters and when roles switched not being able to make seperation to get on offensive in my opinion. Other than that it will perform decently as it has great AoA capability and decent sustained turn rates.
Good up to mach 1. Beyond that it’s bad, especially at altitude.
F404-400s
10k ft. (32k pounds- roughly 60% fuel) 2aim9 on wingtips + 2aim7 on fuselage. 8 drag index
0s - Mach 0.41
9s - Mach 0.60
24s - Mach 0.90
32s - Mach 1.00
39s - Mach 1.05
54s - Mach 1.10
84s - Mach 1.16(max)
40k ft
0s - Mach 0.8
60s - Mach 1.1
84s - Mach 1.2
108s - Mach 1.3
126s - Mach 1.35
141s - Mach 1.40
156s - Mach 1.45
225s - Mach 1.60
And to compare against the big boy, pw220 F15C at 40k ft at 44k gross weight with 4x aim7 + 4x aim9 + Centerline pylon(draggy on) ≈ 84% fuel
Second column is clean at 77% fuel, 40k pounds
0s - M0.85 - M0.85
60s - Mach 1.2 - Mach 1.3
90s - Mach 1.32 - Mach 1.52
130s - Mach 1.5 - Mach 1.80
174s - Mach 1.66 - Mach 2.10
195s - Mach 1.74 - Mach 2.22
216s - Mach 1.80 - Mach 2.33
240s - Mach 1.88 - Mach 2.38(max structural limit)
300s - Mach 2.00
10k ft
0s - Mach 0.45 - Mach 0.45
8s - Mach 0.60 - Mach 0.66
17s - Mach 0.80 - Mach 0.86
28s - Mach 1.00 - Mach 1.08
39s - Mach 1.10 - Mach 1.20
68s - Mach 1.2 - Mach 1.34
It’s bad for the F-18, and especially while using underwing stores. When using an underwing sparrow, the drag of it increase 50%. From 4 drag index units(fuselage) to 6 units. + 4 units for the pylon. Total 10 drag units compared to 4 in fuselage.
And the F18E (414s 400s) is even slower in acceleration and top speed.
10k ft 60% fuel 42k pounds 2aim9 2aim120
0s M 0.422
33s M 1.00
62s M 1.1
132s Mach 1.129
40kft
0s - Mach 0.8
72s - Mach 1.1
102s - Mach 1.2
135s - Mach 1.3
156s - Mach 1.35
180s - Mach 1.40
207s - Mach 1.45
240s - Mach 1.50
Good luck getting past(or even reaching) Mach above 20-25kft with this loadout.
Gaijin doesn’t model the drag from such loadouts per plane.
