The F/A-18 engines experience zero/inverted channel losses and are already severly overperforming. No.
In response to the statement saying that the max speed of mach 1.06 is incorrect.
Imagine my shock, yeah thats a thing, however.
There is a very notable difference between the F/A-18A and the Swiss F/A-18C premium, that being the premium has superior engines.
It’s performance is not indicative of the US F/A-18A or C Early.
Finally a actual piece of information in this thread that directly addresses the issue.
Not necessarily, if the sustained thrust of the EPE is as it is, the F/A-18E could in theory almost super cruise and carry a even heavier payload, which are two things the navy would be quite interested in.
More thrust =/= more fuel burn, the EPE is already claimed to have superior fuel efficiency to the existing F414s.
Thats outright what the EPE is doing, its got a redesigned core, compressor and fan assembly, providing more efficient flow.
I’m going to doubt that is an actual hard limit as the F414 exists on the gripen, which exceeds mach 1.2 on the deck and it’s F414, which is nearly identical to the base F414-GE-400.
It makes 0 sense for the same exact engine bar some external gubbins, being able to exceed mach 1.2 on one airframe and not the other if such is a engine design limitation, a different inlet would not solve said issue.
God I wish people would stop propping up the myth of “channel loss”. “Channel loss” does not exist and is a term made up by gaijin, it is just installed loss and primarily comes from engine driven components and not the actual inlets / flow into said engines.
My favorite recent example is gaijin reducing the motor power of the recently added SLAM, only for me to find a literal study done on the inlet design of said missile for them to say the inlet design has no impact on motor operation.
To that same end, the F/A-18E does have installed loss, each engine is missing around 2000 LBF of thrust, while the legacy hornets are around like only 90 ish LBF of loss per engine.
Sadly it does not say exactly what it does
It could also increase the pressure ratio or something else
Or just pull a palavia tornado
Which is one of the most inefficient planes while afterburning 70.9 g/kn/s
But is one of the most efficient dry 16.9 g/kn/s
Almost same has the b1b
Compared to the gripen a engine which sits at
50 vs 24
Lower is better
Ron presented more reasonable line of thought and evidence.
provide source proving him wrong, otherwise youre making yourself to look like fool.
1 Like
Big sad the f18e will feel even more like a top tier su25 once its fixed
Ravioli food
surprised how close the f404 is compared to the tf30 in regards to efficiency despite being a completely different engine
both wet and dry
THRUST, MAX. A/B 16000 20000 (+25%)
" MAX. NON-A/B 10600 10750 (+1%)
SFC, MAX. A/B, LB/HR/LB. 1.84 1.80 (-2%)
MAX. NON-A/B " 0.78 0.80 (+2%)
first number f404 and second number tf30
I’m not the one making a claim, and thus the burden of proof does not fall on me.
Because you know that your claim is false to begin with, you cant cherry pick apart pieces of a existing statement.
He provided proof to his claim. Burden of proof to prove him wrong thus went over to you.
To only part of a statement that was made, he never provided any information proving mach 1.06 was an accurate on deck speed for the F/A-18 airframe.
Part of the statement was a specific claim that was made.
He proved that wrong.
Ron even said at multiple times he was responding to part of the statement.
You absolutely can make statement with several claims and people can respond only to one of them.
Im fact i find it juvenile you go “THAT DOESNT COUNT BECAUSE YOU DIDNT PROVE THE OTHER THING LALALALA” about something ron never claimed in this convo in the first place lol
To prove that the maximum ASL speed of mach 1.06 was incorrect. At no point did the prior statement try to prove that mach 1.2 was the correct on deck mach, only that 1.06 was incorrect, the 1.2 statement was made as a quantifier for 1.06 being incorrect.
And then provided documentation that failed to disprove the actual statement being made. None of the documents provided prove that mach 1.06 is the accurate maximum ASL mach of the F/A-18 airframe.
And such does not matter as its still not the argument being made.
Yet the original argument was still not found to be incorrect, the argument still remains that mach 1.06 is a inaccurate physical maximum mach of the F/A-18 which was the actual argument being made.
Oh there we go, we’ve gotten to the ad hominem, I was waiting for such.
I’m sorry but no, we call picking apart singular specific parts of a argument to prove the entire argument wrong a tactic quite popular on this forum, a strawman.
1 Like
“Sky is red and grass is blue”
“No wtf grass is green”
“Uh wel akschually you didnt prove sky isnt red so you didnt prove anything”
Hey man, good luck. Your posts are here for everyone to see and judge for themselves.
2 Likes
The original argument heavily implied that Mach 1.06 was incorrect for being too low. The graph @kizvy posted shows that if anything Mach 1.06 appears to be too high for the F/A-18E, and about right for the F/A-18C.
So the original argument has essentially been proven incorrect, I don’t see what continuing to argue because it was proven by the wrong person stands to achieve.
2 Likes
And you, like many of the people on this forum, need to stop making strawman arguments when they run out of ideas.
A hypothetical that both misses the point and misconstrues my statements.
I don’t eat breakfast, I take medication that makes such largely impossible.
Hey look there, you are doing it again, misconstruing a statement to further your own argument again, nice.
Outright stated such, it was not implied. and yes the graph that kizvy posted is indeed the best document provided so far on the matter, I’ve already stated such.
Both design / NATOPS limits end right in-between mach 1.0 and 1.2 on the chart, if not a hair past it for both aircraft, and such is what WT model’s aircraft max speed off of.
I do not know where you are getting that it was proven incorrect from, WT does not abide by listed 1g flight envelopes for maximum airframe performance. As stated above, aircraft are balanced to their design limits, and said design limits per this document are right around mach 1.1 for both airframes.
Such is also corroborated by the F/A-18A manual posted earlier.
That’s where you are mistaken. The design limits are used in game (with a 1.05x multiplier) for the wing rip speed. The 1g flight envelope is used as the maximum speed that the aircraft can achieve in level flight.
In the case of the F-18 the engines are just not powerful enough to accelerate the aircraft to its design limit.
3 Likes
sure lolcow345
Then we have a almost every aircraft in the game needing a re-work as next none of them follow this philosophy.
EG the F-15E’s 1G limit with 50% fuel, CFTs, 2 9Ms and 2 120s is mach 1.2 indicated, it can easily reach mach 1.25 on the deck in game with full fuel and the same loadout as that is the NATOPS limit.
that isnt even ad hominem
if anything you are the one trying to strawmen
the issue is that i said that the hornet cant reach mach 1.2 as was said by someone at the start of the thread and only disproven that claim
and a certain someone cant accept that i only disproven something that i actually had sources for