Jump to content

Figaro9

Members
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Figaro9

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    FSX
    DCS
    Falcon af
    Janes F-18
  • Location
    CH

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There is zero interpretation on my part regarding those numbers above for the F18 sep nor any chart reading. It is simply copy paste of numbers given by the dod in hearings 1999. That’s the level of precision those guys use to work. And it greatly shows that there is not a easy answer to the f14/f18 acceleration question since there are many variants and lots. And the numbers for the f14 are from the dod (1985 hearings) too. It is however a graph that compares the d with the a model. You can therefore compare different sep states at different mach numbers. Peak acceleration
  2. Specific excess power at 10kft , Mach 0.9, Standard day, 60% Fuel: F-14A TF 30: Ps= 500ft/s (4 winders, 4 Sparrows) F-14D F110 : Ps = 640 ft/s (4 /4 ) F-18A Lot1: Ps= 617ft/s (2/2) 400 engine F-18C Lot14: PS= 599ft/s (2/2) 400 engine F-18C Lot15: PS= 699ft/s (2/2) 402 engine F-18C Lot19: PS= 695ft/s (2/2) 402 engine F-18E : PS= 661ft/s (2/2)
  3. In dcs, she has kind of a itr plateau like the viper. Above ~20-22° Aoa she cuts the corner and is limited to ~28° Aoa between ~ m0.34 and ~m 0.42 at sea level (clean and with 2a9&2a120). Same picture at 15kft, but here she achieves ~30° aoa at ‘corner’. I think it should be more like 34° Aoa, that is at least what I have red...
  4. Hi FightsOn Thanks for your interesting comments. I agree on aoa. ITR seems too low and speed bleed at corner too. What lot did you fly? I ask since my test in dcs seems to show that sep is too low, so I would say she is rather under powered in dcs compared to the rw figures in the gao-report for 402 engine (all tests with 2 aim9, 2 aim120, 60% fuel, 33325lbs) Sep @ 10kft M0.9 Gao 699ft/s, dcs 613ft/s Sep @ 20kft M0.9 Gao 512 ft/s, dcs 420ft/s Sep @ 35kft M0.9 Gao 247 ft/s, dcs 213ft/s She accordingly does not accelerate like in the gao chart: Peak Acceleration : @ 10 kft
  5. Hard to tell about weight growth due the reinforced structure since every lot is different... https://www.vtg.admin.ch/en/einsatzmittel/luft/fa18-hornet.html According departure weight clean in above link she is even lighter than the dcs f-18... (Dcs: 36445lbs, linked specs for max to-weight clean: 35’500lbs). Great articles. Training rules do not allow dogfights below hard deck (5000ft, 10000ft...) in rw. In the typical dogfight piece of skies between 10kft and 20kft even the latest and probably heaviest usaf f16 block 50 seems to have a bstr advantage over the f18. Using the haf
  6. Yes, the structure is reinforced and there are changes in the software. Lifetime is shorter too. I agree with hb, it is probably 30kft. If you search that homepage, you will even find the figures on the axes. The above ALR chart, shows for Hornet epe, most probably in gao config (60% fuel, 2a9+2a120, 33325lbs) bstr= ~7.4dgs. My Dcs F18 str test in that config, 58%fuel, 33325lbs = 7.3dgs
  7. Hi sandman. There were 9g tests with the legacy hornet. And at least swiss hornets do have a 9g-limit. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/789771 https://www.milavia.net/airshows/display-teams/swiss-hornet-display/#img/4 And there are charts for the f-18c showing a 9g limit. http://www.alr-aerospace.ch/index.php?id=fighter-performance-mission-analysis Cheers
  8. Nice try. Thanks for your kind reply and sorry if I hurt you. But you were off by ~0.5g and that needs to be corrected, right? Reference page was wrong too, but shit happens. Not an ideal thread to post definitions, but since you asked here again: (This time transcripts from different reference books, you probably rather accept that source than in my own words.) Str (region 1 in the chart) „the region below the max t/w curve is one of sustained turn performance. This means that, in this region, the aircraft can maintain a turn rate without decelerating or loosing altitude... In a sus
  9. I did max speed-tests a while ago: I started at 50kft M1.6 and dove to the test altitude. Here is what I got: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4391704&postcount=28 Checked sep too in 1g acceleration tests (standard atm.), see attachments. Sep @ 10kft M0.9 Gao 699ft/s, dcs 613ft/s Sep @ 20kft M0.9 Gao 512 ft/s, dcs 420ft/s Sep @ 35kft M0.9 Gao 247 ft/s, dcs 213ft/s Ps. Based on those sep charts I managed to reach 49kft & M1.33 from brake release in 4min 15sec.
  10. FM is more accurate than your chart reading, try again.
  11. Here is probalbly a hint that the dcs-hornet is performing slightly below rw-data. At page 84 in gao there is an air speed envelope comparison between f18 c/d (402 engine) and e/f Here is the comparison between the gao report and my dcs test today (F18c (F404 GE402) 2aim9, 2 aim120, 33325lbs (60%fuel) ) 5kft gao m1.17, dcs m1.12 10kft gao m1.27 dcs m1.20 20kft gao m1.47 dcs m1.40 30kft gao m1.65 dcs m1.60 38kft gao m1.76 dcs m1.70 40kft gao m1.75 dcs m1.69 50kft gao m1.64 dcs m1.58
  12. mach 2.04 can be sustained at 38'000ft. Initially 25000lbs, clean, 50kft. then dive and accelerate to 38'000ft m2.04. that's according block 50 charts f16 m2 38000ft.trk
  13. SAF did the following (rutowski) profile for evaluating f16 vs f18epe. F-16 profile (4*aim9L) from break release to 49’000ft and M1.4 : 1) TO, accelerate to peak acceleration (~m0.9). 2) Gently pull and climb while holding M0.9 to M0.95 . 3) Level off @ 28’000ft and accelerate thru sound barrier (hold -0.5g) to mach ~ 1.2. -0.5g phase lasted ~ 45s... 4) climb to 49’000ft and M 1.4. The profile took 3min. and 7 sec. for the F16 in rw and 4min 9sec. For the f18 epe with 2*aim9 & 2 a120. I tried this profile with dcs block 50( 26000lbs, 4*aim9. 15deg C ) 40kft took 2min 2
  14. Also bei uns war keine Erlaubnis vom Tower nötig für den Triebwerkstart. Über den Flugplan wussten die eh Bescheid wann welcher Flieger übernommen und gestartet werden würde. Der Triebwerkstart wurde nur mit dem Flugzeugwart und per Handzeichen ˋkoordiniertˋ . Erster Funkkontakt war mit dem Leader /Wingman (oder Sohn wie wir ihn nannten), sobald der start up beendet und man ready for taxi war... Die Funfgeräte (sowie alle weiteren elektrischen Geräte) wurdeN immer erst nach Triebwerkstart in Betrieb genommen.
  15. Probably you should. I am not saying that it isn’t a bug for sure, just saying that by diving one can get 9 g at M0.69 and that you can achieve the rates according the chart. If you do the very same test with the hornet, you neither achieve max g (7.5) during the hole maneuver… one can not climb the hill up do corner speed on the g-limit line neither.
×
×
  • Create New...