@Henge11220 Still waiting on that one
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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)
2 Likes
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
2 Likes
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.
The drag index of it is 83.2.
2xaim9+2xaim120+CL has an extra drag index of 13.5, and at 40k ft, just that increases the time to reach M1.2 by 30s.
2 Likes
Gaijin doesn’t model the drag from such loadouts per plane.
1 Like
Isnt it a system that adds the drag of the pylon to the drag of the weapon? So that if youbedpend or jettison the weapon the pylon adds no drag?
1 Like
No, for example… the F-14 would be limited to subsonic speed with six phoenix missiles at sea level but in-game it can still easily go mach 1.1+ at sea level. This is because pylon mounted ordnance has little drag and they do not tune them per aircraft.
2 Likes
There is, but not as much as it was irl. Like for example, I’m pretty sure the gripen has its top speed lowered to Mach 1.4 when carrying missiles irl, but in game it can still go 2000km+ with missiles on
1 Like
