okay lets skip weapons, f/a-18c can fly very fast clean at deck level, while it can barely go mach 1, and in perfect conditions mach 1.05, it can do way more than that in game
F-18 clean goes mach 1.06 on the deck in-game and IRL.
And it gets to that speed in-game almost identically to how fast it gets their IRL if not identically.
@Raged_Archmage1
This isn’t 1970 anymore.
NATO has been on maneuverability since F-14.
With F-18 being USA’s peak maneuverability, and the rest of NATO grabbing delta canards for extra speed.
Also funny you imply Su-30/27 a “boom and zoom” design.
USA’s post-Phantom designs see F-15 being the “worst” maneuverable, yet is as maneuverable as the Su-27s which were a response to the F-15.
F-18 cant sustain supersonic flight on deck, even in perfect conditions it just cant go mach 1.06 and in most conditions it wont even break mach 1, no it doesnt go 1.06 in-game, last time i checked it went above 1.1 and it got no flight performance changes since
F-18C can and does sustain supersonic flight on the deck IRL in clean config.
The issue is more that it can sustain and even exceed mach 1.3 with 12 missiles which it flat out cant do irl. this seems to be a missile drag issue though.
2 Likes
It does not go mach 1.3 on the deck, and I bet it does 1.3+ IRL at altitude.
Either way, that’d fall under pylon and weapons drag.
you can hit mach 1.5 at altitude. you hit about mach 1.1 on the deck with 12 missiles.
1 Like
I never implied the Su-30 and 27 were a boom and zoom design. I said the opposite of that actually. U.S literally has never been focused on maneuverability outside of maybe a few prototypes, now they are focused on stealth. Not maneuverability. The F14 was only decent at turning because of it’s giant wing span catching more air allowing it to pull harder, it’s design itself is meant for Speed and Altitude. Aka Boom and Zoom tactics. That is why it’s able to pull it’s wings in, it’s not just for show. And maybe the F18 is the most maneuverable jet but that’s because U.S as a whole never focused on it. which further reinforces my statement because the f18 for all intents and purposes, is not a good jet when strictly looking at maneuverability when compared to it’s Nato counterparts or the Su30sm with thrust vectoring. However in game that is a different story. It out turns the Su30sm which is the whole point of this post saying how the Su30sm nerf makes no sense and is unfair to the mechanical advantages it’s supposed to have.
It was 1.05 with minor dips into 1.06 during my testing with full weapons.
Either way post-mach drag is largely accurate when taking into account time to climb data.
It’d be over-performing to an identical amount as Su-27/30, F-16C, Rafale, etc.
Either way, people are quick to claim that Su-30SM can out-dogfight every jet imaginable, which is pure nonsense.
@Raged_Archmage1
By claiming F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, Rafale, and Typhoon are "boom and zoom designs, that claim is an implication that Su-27/30 are boom and zoom designs.
Your claims have more reach than just what you think you’re addressing.
F-14 was always designed for maneuverability, and the fact your post claims it wasn’t is your post claiming the Su-27s weren’t either.
Either way Su-30SM hasn’t been nerfed in flight performance. Near-stall thrust vectoring corrections did nothing to its flight performance other than make it more realistic.
USA always focused on maneuverability since the 1960s, this is well documented and saying otherwise is outright lying since you’ve already been corrected.
From my experience on dev, it depends on the map. I was regularly cruising at mach 1.08mach-1.10 on quite a few of the maps.
your opinions are not correcting me, your words do not weigh as much as you think they do. And the Rafale and Typhoon are not U.S designs. The F-14 all the way to F-18 are energy retention designs. The F-16 was the closest thing they had to a maneuverable design purely because it was a small aircraft that didn’t weigh as much as the things it was facing (Su27s). There are many well worded books on the Art of Aircraft and so on, The Mig29 was a counter to the F16, but in game yet again it has been nerfed to the ground and It’s FM (your main argument that they are not nerfed for balance reasons) is butchered. Denying that shows that you are biased towards Nato designs. I at least am bringing facts to this table. I appreciate your opinions on the matter but as far as I am aware, they are wrong. I will look for more books on the matter and hopefully one day I will see what you are seeing.
1 Like
Mig29 9.12a, 9.13 is actually pretty close to irl. Its everything else that overperforms fm wise.
3 Likes
only the germans get the 9.12a right? it’s been awhile since I looked at all of them
9.12a is german one and the 29g. 9.13 is the first russian one.
1 Like
@Raged_Archmage1
Maneuverability IS [involves heavily] energy retention.
Mig-29’s flight models were entirely fixed last year.
Same with Sukhoi flight models.
I’m already more of a fan of Sukhoi than your posts are portraying you as; I am not lying about them or their competitors to pretend that Sukhoi are gods.
F-14 was quite literally designed because of the Vietnam lessons.
F-15 was quite literally designed because of the Vietnam lessons and Mig-25 propaganda.
And everything after because of Vietnam lessons.
There’s a reason ALL American fighters can maneuver well, with F-18 being the most maneuverable because that was one of the requirements for replacing F-14 in the fighter role.
Aircraft design is far, far more deep than what you’ve been led to believe.
I do apologize if my posts are harsh.
BTW, Su-27 was designed as a response to F-14 and F-15. Two maneuverable fighters, more maneuverable than Soviets ever had prior.
And Mig-29 was designed as a cheap interceptor, which is why its engines are fuel hungry and its range limited.
Mig29 has never seen “fixes” since the nerfs shortly after apex predators. They did fix the Sukoi, but not the mig.
4 Likes
your opinions are getting very focused and directed at me, I would suggest you take a break and come back with a fresh mindset before it becomes targeting and someone shuts down this post
@Raged_Archmage1
That’s a critique of your posts, not you.
Apologies for the poor wording initially.
I would love to see the mig29’s be fixed, unfortunately I think we are well beyond that point, I would like to believe the Mig29K is coming soon-ish? at least I am hopeful haha so maybe that will fix all the woes and problems with the SMT version
1 Like
Maybe 3D but 2D (up down) is very effective. The F-22 proves this.