Yeah, I agree it has insane pitch, but I am not too sure it can pull too much alpha at high speed and its entire envelope. I think its limited by the FBW greatly. There really is no US Navy doctrinal reason for it other than carrier operations. Especially if it was limited for the F-16 having a much better TTW.
I do not see why they would allow more for the F-18 knowing it has much weaker engines because that would mean it will drain energy at a much faster rate.
Energy Maneuverability was both these aircrafts primary design philosophies remember. Not supermaneuvrability as the Soviet Union/Russia, Sukhoi and Mikoyan.
I believe that is why when you see the F-18 doing anything interesting at airshows etc. it’s very slow speed.
I am totally open to anyone’s research the F-18 was different and the FCS allowed as much alpha/pitch than needed for the task/role it was designed.
Yes, it is correct to know that the Hornet does not have a great thrust to weight ratio. But it has an unlimited alpha angle and I think better lateral control. Plus compared to the Su 27 Flanker B it has very good digital FbW which was further than the original SDU-10.
So for me, if we are talking about handling and maneuverability at speeds below about 350-300 knots, the Hornet is better in those areas.
The F-15, like the Su 27, has a better power to weight ratio than the Hornet, and can beat the Hornet at low speeds because of it, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Hornet is very maneuverable and good here. The result is then up to the pilots, can they take advantage of the better thrust to weight ratio in heavier fighters, or can the Hornet pilot take advantage of the better agility and stability at high AoA.
The Su 27 is limited to 24 AoA and above say 28 AoA is laterally uncontrollable. I know, a pilot can turn off the restriction and do a Cobra, but only if the pilot is good and the Su 27 is not laterally controllable above 28 AoA. The Hornet has no such limits in a clean configuration and above 30 AoA should still have lateral controllability.
Its digital FbW is much safer for the pilot. So the pilot can make more use of the crazy AoA at low speeds relatively safely.
Oh absolutely. it’s designed to land and take off from a boat. it needs to be better at slow speeds. Why the Russians gave canards to their naval Flankers.
I was speaking in regard to combat. Some guy thinks its supermaneuverable capable, based on its amazing landing speed performance and fake cobras’ videos he finds on the internet (mig23). Though he says it’s useless at the same time.
You are 100% correct.
My only thing is I suspect its greatly limited on the FBW at higher speeds because it needs to offset the weak thrust to weight. Since the jet has less energy to cash out in a dogfight, it needs to use it sparingly/conservatively. Reason being as you know it too was designed under the same program as the LFX with the F-16. Its primary and sole design philosophy was Energy Maneuverability Theory.
Therefore, if the F-16 is very restricted in the alpha it can pull transonic/supersonic regimes, having much stronger engines and more fine-tuned for speed retention (EMT doctrine) the F-18 must be further limited in same speed regimes.
The F-18 will simply cash out all its energy and not have the thrust to back it up. Blowing all energy is completely contrary to Naval & Airforce doctrine.
The F-15 does not have FBW and has insane thrust to throw it around as it pleases and can make up the energy quickly. Same with the Flanker, it can switch off FBW and make up the energy rather easily. The F-16 can too but it is still limited by the FCS.
I do not see the F-18 being able to be on par with these aircraft in the fast-paced dogfighting seen in wt. It should not. I think it will likely be a type of aim-120 boat and is good at getting a few great turns in a dogfight at slow speed but it’s not going to run around with the big dogs, chase them up and down the map etc. The F-16 can barely do that at the moment.
If I recall correctly, it is actually superior to the Gripen (for example) and better suited for both sustained turn rate and high alpha. The Su-27 has no advantages when fighting the Gripen in-game currently with the exception of the hail-mary Cobra + R-73 shot.
Gripen is not like Mirage 2000. It has a delta wing, but the cannard near the wing causes better energy retention (the biggest weakness of the delta wing is poor energy retention, the computer controlled cannard optimizes the airflow over the wing to make the Gripen hold energy better) so the Hornet is much weaker in sustained maneuvering.
In dogfight configuration Gripen has missiles on the wingtips, it does not affect the performance of the aircraft.
any weapon affects flight performance.And also the “duck” circuit like Grippen’s has a large inductive resistance, but less than the delta wing.However, it is inferior to the classical scheme. Grippen should be worse than the Su-27 in the established turn
I don’t know. The Gripen’s problem is a weak engine. In a dogfight configuration, it’s not noticeable. But if the fuel tanks are suspended under the wings, the drag is great and the Gripen becomes very limited. He’s happy to give about 1.3M. Therefore, with a comparable configuration, maybe 2* fuel tank and armament will be weaker than say F-16 or F-15 or Su 27.
But if it is in a “dogfight” configuration, it will beat almost anything it encounters. ( with an equally capable pilot) It has superior aerodynamics, but engine power is engine power.
Everything has it’s pros and cons, the weaker engine gives it good range for a Gripen with small size. It is also cheaper to operate than say the F-100 engine
