it does not have a 15% lower wing loading than the f18 , also su27 has a higher twr, lower wing loading than the F2 but its no where near the F2 in terms of flight performance.
- It literally does, roughly 386kg/m^2 versus 441kg/m^2
- The flanker’s large wing area, combined with its center of balance, actually harms it by bleeding excess speed from high AoA turns. Also it barely has a better TWR
- The F-2’s flight computer helps it immensely with energy retention.
8 Likes
Here is also need to note about ME flight modes which is missing for F/A-18C and increase turning capabilities but I think you can talk about it much better than me
4 Likes
Mhm, uhh, quick explanation of the F-2’s FBW for those who don’t know about it, and what separates it from other planes.
Both the F/A-18 and the Mitsubishi F-2 have modes of flaperon deployment for pitch. On the F/A-18 this is MLC (Maneuver load control) and DLC (Direct lift control), on the F-2 this is MLC and ME (Maneuver enhancement). MLC is a function where flaperons automatically deploy depending on AoA and airspeed. The F-16 also technically has this, however is barely noticeable as it’s only active past 26 degrees of AoA.
Direct lift Control is a system of using flaperon deployment for a pitch response. As used by the F/A-18, it works to change the direction of flight, while minimizing pitch angle responses. ME is a kind of DLC employed by the F-2, in which the flaperons deploy in conjunction with the elevators to cause a pitch response impulse, both rotating the plane as well as changing its direction of flight upwards.
Basically, ME primarily optimizes energy state, while secondarily aiding in alignment, while DLC primarily optimized alignment, while secondarily aiding in energy state. So ME is better for dogfighting, while DLC is better for air to ground, particularly with very heavy loads.
The F/A-18 in warthunder lacks proper DLC, although it does have MLC. The F-2 meanwhile has both MLC and ME, giving it an advantage over the raw physical figures of the plane. (Although its implemented imperfectly, thus leading to excess compression at high speeds then should be expected, due to the linear scaling of the flaperon pitch response).
Diagram comparing DLC to ME
10 Likes
compare empty weights at empty weight its a 2% difference , f18 is not similar to f2 (when both have 0% fuel in statshark). F2 has 2% lower wing loading while f18 has higher twr.
when are you flying without fuel?
bc i dont
5 Likes
F2 with 10% internal fuel outperforms f18c with 5% internal fuel in every way.
As it should? I feel like you’re ignoring all the details being given to you for arbitrary reasons.
F-2 is performing as it should, being one of the best dogfighters, with appropriate pros and cons
6 Likes
compare wing surfaces
take into account shape, area, control surfaces and size of the plane and wings aswell as plane to wing ratio
6 Likes
In warthunder, the F-2A has an oswalds number of 0.67 to 0.63 depending on flaperon deployment. This is roughly average for delta wings, with the F-16 having 0.65, and the Mirage IIIs having 0.67.
The F/A-18s have 0.58 to 0.5 depending on flaperon deployment.
Its natural the F-2 will sustain energy better then it.
6 Likes
F16 but… big.
Who would have thonked
Anyways, here’s the F-2’s stability at an extreme scenario. You can see it actually almost entirely lacks the super stability the F-16s (and gripens) in game have.
F-16 superstability for Comparison
5 Likes
Does anyone have problems with F2a’s radar? I find the Tws mode quite difficult to use.(Sometimes locks on to air, or hard to scan the enemy 20-30km)
ur forgetting it looks cool cause its blue :)
3 Likes
no issues like that for me, but sometimes when i go from TWS to visual range ACM, it just randomly locks onto something
3 Likes
F-18C has superior instantaneous, and the TWR of both aircraft is similar.
So yeah, prove that the F-2A and/or F-18C are overperforming.
The wing design of both aircraft were specifically designed for dogfighting and general subsonic performance.
Su-27SM out-dogfights F-2A at higher speeds and gets beaten at lower speeds because Su-27s wing design is optimized for supersonic flight.
good luck not blacking out at 900kph
the plane that was designed to be supermanouverable so it can do low speed high AoA stuff?
you surely have a source for that claim
3 Likes
What elevators are designed to do, and the position of the wings =/= what the wing shape is designed to accomplish.
If you combined the elevator limits and wing position of an Su-27 with the wing shape of an F-2 or F-18, while making the aircraft lighter as well, it’d be a more hypothetical “super maneuverable” aircraft.
The source for wing shape, wing position, lifting bodies, etc is many many aero-physicists in the world by the way, you can look them up for yourself.
Edited with numerous clarifications to be more specific.
That sounds like a fever dream I’d like to experience.
2 Likes