I mean the website from the Finnish airforce literally states A2G computers were added to the Finnish F18s during MLU 2
Do you know what ballast is in aircraft? That is, by removing something that affects the center of gravity, you usually compensate for it with ballast.
Then prove that it was replaced? Again the consensus is they weigh less. you want gaijin to change their mind prove it to them. If you cant prove they weigh the same as the US then this argument continues to go in circles. Again and again, dont ping me unless its a different subject or if you have 100% proof they weigh the same as the US model.
can somebody provide ingame footage of F/A-18C Late sustain at 300-400 knots with 2xAMRAAM, 2xSidewinder, 60% fuel? with webmap
The devs have already implemented it as such, if you want to change it you need to prove them wrong. If you don’t have data that proves their implementation is incorrect… well, shove it.
tommorow
1 Like
I don’t have to prove anything to anyone. A game where the Hornet has better acceleration than the F-16 Block 50 makes me laugh and all aviation enthusiasts laugh.
In the DCS World acceleration 0-1mach = 42 sec for 402 engines, in Falcon BMS ~same time, but in WarThunder 36 sec in same condition. Its all.
This is done so that the community is interested in new aircrafts (Hornets now) and they are not too weak against the background of the aircraft that are already in the game. Hornet is about a year late to the game. It is quite possible that it will be fixed in a year, as happened with the Su-27. You’ll see. This is the usual behavior of developers.
1 Like
It was literally redesignated the F-18 isn tree as of F/A-18 because of this change. It can’t use any A2G weaponry at all. This was fixed on later F/A-18 versions once A2G capabilities were re-added.
Maybe. Honestly - I really don’t care. I do care that it (and its American analog) outperform both the MiG-29 and the F-15 in acceleration and dynamics.
If necessary, I can record a comparison video at the poligon. We’ll laugh together. Especially after this interview from pilot who flown on 402 engines too:
Acceleration
““Hornet was fair but outclassed by many other jets.””
Climb rate
“Once again the Hornet was OK, but outclassed by F-14Ds, F-15C, F-16. The F-16s out at Buckley ANGB in Denver would do an Immelmann at the end of the Runway on takeoff. They had to hit a certain altitude which I believe was above 11K MSL. I tried to do it in a Hornet once (F/A-18C with a centerline tank and two pylons)… nope, I did not make it. I was wallowing around at 10K ft and 100kts trying to comply with Departure’s new instructions. Good thing the Hornet was forgiving and was good at high alpha flight.”
2 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder
Here, make a bug report about this acceleration.
Right now, the engine is likely overperforming.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/REJPoqQzASra
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dXPwQHEFMERe
“Not a bug. There is an error in the GAO article, interviews with pilots are a 3rd party source and not considered a source for the report.”
I don’t want to prove anything. After such a response and closing my bug report all I want is to laugh at them.
If you are trying to prove elementary things, like that white is white, then let them walk around with the knowledge that white is black. Just laugh and don’t take their work seriously. That’s all that remains.
Well, the in-game 7,280 kgf matches the Navy’s claims for installed thrust… 16,050 pounds or so.
@GeneralLee2000 It was your report I believe
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/REJPoqQzASra
@Gunjob The in-game static thrust is actually 16,005 lb-f (7,260 kgf), which is less than shown by the Navy and should be raised approximately 40 lb-f tbqh
1 Like
Can you provide the same graphs for General Electric F110-GE-129 ?
Nothing on short notice but I can FOIA request some documents. That process usually takes months, maybe more than a year.
1 Like
And at the end the snail is gonna tell you that the documents are wrong …
Why I ask? If we have 16,000 lb-force as an installed F404-GE400 engine, while all reference books state exactly 16,000 pounds-force, then maybe the GE129 engine with a thrust of 29,000 pounds-force for F16 block50, which is given in the same reference books about fighter aircrafts and the same literature, is also installed?
And 23800lbf for F-15C PW220 engines also installed ?
Pratt & Whitney is not General Electric, General Electric may state the installed static thrust rating for their engines but I am not sure. I’d need more confirmation for specific cases. In the meantime I can test the acceleration of the F-15E with F110-GE-129 to see if it matches known data.
For example, at 30k feet it should reach 1.06 mach in mil thrust after 280s accelerating from 0.4 mach.
At 40k feet, it should accelerate on maximum thrust from 0.8 mach to 2 mach in just 96 seconds.
I’m not reporting anything atm, I was just saying that I could try to obtain documentation relevant to his question.
In regards to the F-18A we can look at the acceleration charts in the manual.
360 knots IAS to 550 knots IAS (0.54 to 0.82 mach) should take approximately 10s at sea level with a gross weight of 26,000 pounds when clean. That would be with ~3,000 lbs of fuel. Min fuel for the aircraft in-game gives it about 3,100 lbs of fuel.
TL;DR the F-18A in-game has the correct acceleration for sea level 0.54 to 0.82 mach. It seems Gaijin matched the thrust and the acceleration quite well to the real world performance.
I don’t know why the video looks so grey / bland. Some issue with my monitor and the HDR settings for recordings I guess.
There is also no loss of thrust at angles of attack in the game.
I swear to go i wonder if people claiming the aim120 is that good even play the game. Its good but its main strenght really only works againdt bad players. Top tier isnt bvr for the most part