I don’t know why, but the F/A-18E Super Hornet currently has the best sustained turn of any 4th-generation aircraft in the game. For example, at 700 km/h (377 knots IAS at sea level) and 5.5 minutes of full afterburner fuel remaining, it produces 7.3 G at ground level, while the Eurofighter produces 7.2 G and the Rafale/Finnish F-18C produces 7.0 G.
In reality, F-18C pilots switching to the F-18E mentioned that the Super Hornet is clearly inferior to the Legacy in the out-turn, which in turn is inferior to the F-16, which in turn is inferior to the Eurofighter.
Two things. First off, always be careful about these random interviews if you don’t know the background of a pilot. You can end up with growler guys saying the Super Hornet can’t dogfight anything, but it’s just because not only do they fly the family wagon version but they’re quite simply, not good at these types of fights.
Secondly, The F-18 can outdogfight the F-16 as long as the fight is slow. The F-16 will win it out or at least make it neutral if it can keep its speed up and force the fight fast. That’s because the F-16 has his AoA limiter while the F-18 can pull some crazy AoA at low speed. It’s always a matter of playing into the strength of your plane.
CW Lemoine who flew both the Legacy Hornet and F-16 for years and with countless dogfight behind him says that.
For any given AOA (limiter on even) the F-16 in game will pull about .6 more G then it should meaning it’s instantaneous turn rate is several degrees per second too fast.
The problem is that the Super Hornet has a more consistent turn than the Legacy Hornet, even though pilots say the Legacy is more maneuverable. The lightweight Finnish version F18C should be especially so. But that’s not the case in the game.
The Legacy is more maneuverable at slower speeds in War Thunder, with the F-18E only defeating it at higher speeds. Sustained turn rate at 700kmph is not what you should use to determine which is more maneuverable in a real combat situation. If you stay at this constant sustainable AoA like a lemon, the other guy is just going to cut into you with a sharper, unsustainable turn and gun you down.
This is the turn performance of the 3 planes at sea level using Statshark:
Stateshark isn’t an indicator; it’s a buggy and have wrong info. I tested it manually, and with the same fuel level ( same amount of afterburner time), the Super Hornet has a better sustained 700 km/h (430 mph) turn than the Legacy Hornet.
Sustained turn rate at 700kmph is not what you should use to determine which is more maneuverable in a real combat situation. If you stay at this constant sustainable AoA like a lemon, the other guy is just going to cut into you with a sharper, unsustainable turn and gun you down. A pilot talking about which plane is tighter in a turn is never going to use sustained turn at 700kmph.
As you can see above, in actual dogfight where both pilot are pulling on the stick as much as they can, the F-18C comes out very slightly ahead, and the EF-2000 has them both beaten.
Then explain how anything I said is wrong? I know I won’t be able to sustain my turn, but I don’t need to if I can just cut into your turn long enough to shoot you down. By doing this, I’m forcing you to either do the same or get shot down.
The moment you do this, because you have to, it’s down to whichever plane has the most relevant AoA, not sustained turn.
In fact, real Hornet pilots will do exactly that to get you slow where they can beat you. They’re not going to dance at high speed in large sustained turns.
You won’t be able to keep me in your sight for long. I just need to make sure you don’t hit me after the first turn, then your speed will drop, and with it, your turn speed. A plane that maintains a sust turn will simply outturn you out and shoot you down when you are left without speed. This is why planes that prefer two-circle fight (F-16, Eurofighter) win over planes that excel at single-circle fight.(F-18, M2000)
