As it should.
F-18C out-accelerates F-16 IRL.
Oh lol, I thought the FM was over performing just like in DCS still
no…
no it shouldnt. The F-16 has speeds upwards of Mach 2 with a twr of around 1.095.
the 18 has about 0.96.
There are multiple reports of it over performing
That’s a drag related thing.
F-18 has a draggier wing design for post-transonic speeds, but top speed isn’t related to acceleration.
TWR, subsonic drag matters more for acceleration than supersonic drag.
At which point the F-16 beats the F-18 anyways. Falcons can go over mach 2, the hornet can hit 1.8
And F-16s beat F-18 to mach 1.5 in-game, thus it’s not overperforming.
Thanks for admitting your posts were wrong.
213 is slower than 165.
the F-18 beats the F-16 to mach 1 in game, which it shouldnt
2 Likes
F-18C has a superior TWR than F-16C IRL when same-AB fuel is provided, of course it should beat F-16 to mach 1.
No, it doesnt.
The F-16 beats the 18 there as well
1 Like
f16 got shat on in dogfights by tomcat pilots in mock fights
1 Like
Even so. Up to how much?
9 minutes of AB fuel:
F-18C: 11340 + 1056 + 150 + 4684kg = 17230
18,000kgf / 17230 = 1.05:1 TWR.
F-16C: 9031 + 5300 + 1088 + 150kg = 15569kg
16,000kgf / 15569 = 1.028:1 TWR.
And as you saw, same full internal fuel F-18 is marginally slower in acceleration. [Cause F-18C FIF is 9 minutes vs <6 minutes for F-16.]
where’d you get the numbers for the F-18? That should only be about 8k per engine, getting up to only 16k ish, based on the X-ray data for the F404-GE-404 (402?)
the F-16 has only 11480 kgf spaded on the F110-GE-129
the A-18 shouldn’t out accelerate any top tier
8k per engine is at 0kph, which is not where I nor anyone should measure thrust.
I measure thrust at 1050kph, which is 9000kgf per engine as it should be.
And the GE-129 produces 16000kgf at 1050kph.
The empty mass is from the game for F-16C, stated by manufacturer for F-18.
The weapons mass is from the game’s secondary weapons screens [F-16 requires 2 wing tanks to match the fuel time of F-18C].
And 150kg is an estimate of misc masses.
@Pvt_Wade
Then you have to argue that against Einstein’s ghost and other physicists.
I see, i was basing it off of the static thrust, but i don’t see why you wouldn’t base it off of that, its right there.
Cause static thrust only matters for takeoff speed, which Yak-141 will always beat everyone in.
After takeoff, the ramp-up speed, and initial high-speed thrust matters for climb and energy retentions, so I see the at-speed thrust as more valuable.
Fair point
Thanks for making me laugh lol.
2 Likes