Just like how the F-15E’s manual omits the G dentent override being present still or the fact that the aircraft can sustain supercruise, and the manual only states that pilots should avoid accidentally doing so. Or the F-14A’s manual providing an extremely restrictive AOA curve when the aircraft was capable of vastly more in actual testing and actual combat.
US flight manuals have always undersold the abilities of the aircraft regiments of flight for two specific reasons, elongating the airframe’s lifespan, and the safety of the pilots. Neither are tantamount nor indicative of the actual maximum performance of the airframe which is what WT represents. This is why all airframes are capable of 1.5 times their max G loading in game, or would you be fine with functionally every plane in game being forcibly limited to sub 6 Gs?
Wow, its almost like the service life of the airframe is completely irrelevant in WT like every other form of mechanical failure that is not caused by the ground or an enemy round.
And what differences would that be for the phase 1 HARV, hmmmm “During this phase, there were no external modifications to the aircraft, but technicians equipped it with extensive instrumentation. NASA research pilot Einar Enevoldson made the first (functional check) flight on April 2, 1987, and three succeeding flights before turning the piloting duties over to NASA research pilots Bill Dana and Ed Schneider. The purpose of this phase was to obtain experience with aerodynamic measurements at high angles of attack and to develop the flight research techniques needed for this measurement.”
You would know that the only change made was the paddle detent being engaged at all times and the instrumentation if you read my sources, but you did not, I’m not surprised though, most people making such claims seldom ever read the sources of the people they are arguing with.
And notice how it totally ignores that the paddle detent exists, which provides 33% more overload, so even if you had an FCS limit of 5.5Gs you would still be exceeding this chart. Its almost like this is an expected flight regiment for the pilots to follow and not the actual physical limitations of the aircraft.
I do also find it quite funny that you fully ignored both video examples of F/A-18Cs exceeding your stated AOA limit, I guess both of these pilots were accomplishing the impossible?
iam saying that there isnt any offical primary sources that would weigh more than the offical flight manual
gaijin dosent accept flight footage because you dont know the conditons of the flight
e.g.:
Weather
Winds
Atmospheric pressure
fuel load
which all affect flight performance in some way
And indecently the manual does not either, only stating that with or without AIM-7s / AIM-9s, not specifying which loading would have this the total effect in place as any added load on the F/A-18 series modifies the FCS’s capabilities, regardless how light the weapons are. Even taking cannon rounds and countermeasures modify the FCS’s programming.
This is the same feeble rational that was fruitlessly brought against the F-16’s FCS and the F-15 series as whole as well, in a vain attempt to nerf said aircraft to service restrictions, which is, once again, not the airframe’s actual maximum performance.
Also quite funny that a number of Russian aircraft use flight footage and in cockpit footage for bug reports … curious.
do you have an actual research paper yes or no,
if yes just stop arguing with me and make a bug report or something if you are unhappy with the f-18 performance
Huh, thats odd, I distinctly see these SU-30s flying.
Ok so you once again prove that you did not look at any of my sources.
I expected nothing but bad faith, but please, keep pandering to the biases that I’ve already had longstanding about people here.
Quite the opposite, I’m very happy with the current performance for the franken lots of the 18s we have, bar the Finnish one, but thats because it came gimped equipment wise, not performance wise.
and in the video you sent i see at most 45 to 50° of AOA so still no 70°
ontop of that your source is the histroy of the HARV project and its major milestones and not really any specifics of the actual aerodynamics or how it behaves at those high angles of attack
Yes yes please keep projecting, they all always do.
Most curious then that other examples of such were not accepted at completely different times, some with actual first party sources backed up by the videos. I know the folks who love the JA 37 have been trying for almost 2 years to get that HUD fixed.
Flight logs compiled by Joe Wilson and Karen Richards, available in the Dryden Historical Reference Collection.
Kenneth W. Iliff and Kon-Sheng Charles Wang, “Flight-Determined Subsonic Longitudinal Stability and Control Derivatives of the F-18 High Angle of Attack Research Vehicle (HARV) With Thrust Vectoring,” (Edwards, CA: NASA TP-97-206539, 1997).
Albion H. Bowers, et al., “An Overview of the NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle,” (Edwards, CA: NASA TM-4772, 1996).
David F. Fisher with Daniel G. Murri, “Forebody Flow Visualization on the F-18 HARV With Actuated Forebody Strakes,” (Edwards, CA: NASA TM-1998-206556, 1998).
Victoria Regenie, Donald Gatlin, and Robert Kempel, “The F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle: The High-Angle-of-Attack Testbed Aircraft,” paper delivered at the AIAA Biennial Flight Test Conference, August 24-26, Hilton Head Island, SC (AIAA-92-4121).
David F. Fisher, John H. Del Frate, and David M. Richwine, “In-Flight Flow Visualization Characteristics of the NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle at High Angles of Attack,” (Edwards, CA: NASA TM 4193, 1990).
Inconel is a trade name belonging to Huntington Alloy Products Division, International Nickel Company, Huntington, WV.
How cute that you are actually opening these things up now, it only took 4 hours.
So this F/A-18 should be departing correct? By the standards of your manual that is.
Except that it is proof that higher than 35 degree AOA maneuvers are possible with the F/A-18’s airframe. 35 degrees AOA is not a hard limit unlike the manual claim’s.
because gaijin will more likely than deney those specific sources because the HARV isnt any of the F-18s we have ingame
During this phase, there were no external modifications to the aircraft, but technicians equipped it with extensive instrumentation
we dont know how it changed the weight of the f-18 (heavier or lighter dosent matter)
and iam also not sure if they mention what f-18 model they use / engines
and iam also not sure if they ever specified the exact test conditons e.g. fuel load, weather etc.
You know what, I’ll give you a reprieve this time since this is obviously taxing you greatly.
"The aircraft had a wing span of 37 feet 5 inches. The fuselage was 56 feet long and 10 feet 6 inches high at the canopy.
The HARV was powered by two General Electric F404-GE-400 turbofan engines, each producing 16,000 lb of thrust in afterburner.
The weight of the HARV was 31,980 lb, with 6,480 lb of internal fuel, in the Phase One configuration. It was 36,099 pounds with the same amount of fuel, configured for Phases Two and Three, including the thrust vectoring and spin recovery parachute systems"
The HARV stock, incedently is slightly heaver than a baseline F/A-18C, which came in at an empty weight of 23000 lb, while the HARV sits at 25500 lbs, 29480 and 31980 lbs respectively if both aircraft had the same fuel load.
I would chalk up the extra girth to the instrumentation installed onboard the HARV, but, I cannot see it giving the HARV any noticeable flight performance increase over a C or A, in practice, all that would need to be done to mimic the HARV’s performance directly with a base A or C would be to simply add in the extra weight as added fuel.
yeah bc interest / playercounts for sweden isnt as high as other nations
as every other bug report that got accepted and never acted on, we can only hope/ cope that gaijin is going to fix it sometime in the future after they dont have anymore new planes to add
Well tbf theres only like 10 people who actually played the swedish airtree that didn’t just buy a premium and swap to a different nation immediately because sweden air has nothing to offer unlike literally every other nation lol.
Its literally the one nation i never see at 14.0 or 13.x aside from Di F21 players. And they are few and far between tbf. With how many of them you do see its weird there aren’t more top tier players but i guess if you want a good gripen 3 other nations offer it and more but im going off topic.
