Just look at the aoa it and a bunch of other fighters can pull, it’s always stable and never shows any sign of departure. Most top tier planes fly like they have thrust vectoring and have infinite control, it’s nonsense
Again I’m not saying the f-2 should be modeled different, it’s just that gaijin modeled all planes as stable which I think is dumb
The F-16 family airframes do have an issue of super stability in warthunder, yes. But it’s not noticeable until well above 40 degrees AoA. Which is not something they hit from normal flight conditions in game (It requires full real, and even then you need to push it all the way). Also this superstability affect is actually much less on the F-2 then the proper F-16s, for some reason.
Under normal instructor limits, however, they are retained to a realistic AoA. Using WTRTI, we can see the F-2 only reaches up to 25.3 degrees AoA, at a whopping 13Gs. For instance, IRL its reaching 9Gs at 22 degrees of AoA. This lines up very reasonably.
The only unrealistic part is there being no G-limiter, but:
- This applies to every plane, the F/A-18s would especially be harmed by it.
- The F-2, with G-limiter override, is in some terms the most maneuverable plane period IRL, as it’s override allows up to 12Gs. Other pitch overrides IRL, contrary to what you may think, are not intended for exceeding airframe maximum G-tolerances, but instead allowing extra authority at low speeds.
- The F-2 is one of the few planes that could realistically be expected to actually survive pulling the Gs it does in warthunder. IRL it’s capable of pulling 9Gs with a full load of suspended armaments. Basically every other plane has to reduce their max G-load depending on load factors.
18 Likes
Yeah well I play mostly sim so it’s always abused there. In rb yeah it doesn’t really matter due to instructor
It’s not abused per say, just because how G overload effect on pilot modeled we essentially play with limits of airframe, not physical limits of a pilot inside. Plus you don’t need to worry about maintanance crew and base command killing you after flight in which you stayed in 12G for 5 minutes straight and basically rendered plane unrepairable due to structural damage.
1 Like
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
9 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
5 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