Hornet vs Viper

This is one of the more amusing threads I've read here in a while :music_whistling:

You've discovered my motive for starting it. :)

You've discovered my motive for starting it. :)

It was curiously specific. And a source of arguments long before DCS existed... :)

Flare to land = squat to pee.

Exorcet, all that you are wrоte is totally wrong.

 

And you forget one engine...BOOM.

 

F-18 Wins. Sorry mate.

Two engines are not there to provide redundancy, but to provide better endurance with smaller cost in size, weight and fuel economy, than going for one bigger engine to get same benefits.

If you want highest possible endurance for the size, weight and fuel, then you go for single engine. But you will either restrict yourself to extremely tiny fuselage or very huge engine for larger fuselage.

And getting shot does no good if you have two engines close together, you likely bust both of them. That is one reason why F-14 and Su-27 has engines separated wider, regardless that there is big penalty if other is turned Off for the flight characteristics. Yes, you can survive back to home, but really only if you are not anymore in danger to be engaged or shot at.

I do not believe there is a better dogfighter in DCS than the Viper. Which isn't making a grandiose statement of superiority or anything. It merely means that if you're flying the Viper and get your butt kicked in 1v1 BFM, you have no excuses.

If you end up to WVR with Viper, you have no excuses.

If you lose to Viper in turning fight, you have no excuses.

XLzfUADizFs

Two engines are not there to provide redundancy, but to provide better endurance with smaller cost in size, weight and fuel economy, than going for one bigger engine to get same benefits.

 

If you want highest possible endurance for the size, weight and fuel, then you go for single engine. But you will either restrict yourself to extremely tiny fuselage or very huge engine for larger fuselage.

 

And getting shot does no good if you have two engines close together, you likely bust both of them. That is one reason why F-14 and Su-27 has engines separated wider, regardless that there is big penalty if other is turned Off for the flight characteristics. Yes, you can survive back to home, but really only if you are not anymore in danger to be engaged or shot at.

Are you sure about that? My understanding is the Navy wanted the safety of two engines since they're over water most of the time. That's why they picked the Hornet over the winner of the trials, the Viper.

If you end up to WVR with Viper, you have no excuses.

If you lose to Viper in turning fight, you have no excuses.

 

I don't agree. The Viper can win easily in WVR but it can't get in a slow one turn fight with a Hornet.

Are you sure about that? My understanding is the Navy wanted the safety of two engines since they're over water most of the time. That's why they picked the Hornet over the winner of the trials, the Viper.

Some truth. At this point, engines are so reliable that if one malfunctions, it’s usually a catastrophic malfunction which would also damage an adjacent engine. I’d read this years ago...I think it’s called a class A malfunction or something. So yeah, in a way, havihg 2 engines doubles your chance of a class A malfunction taking out both. But I’m not sure of all the percentages. Now, I don’t think that is WHY the F-15 and SU-27 have 2 engines spread. The F-14 did because they wanted the space in between to carry the large Phoenix missiles.

The wider body also provides additional life at the expense of less drag. But it wasn’t to prevent one engine damaging the other....the rate at which that occurs (while maybe more than a class B effecting one engine) would be too low to design an aircraft around it.

In the end, how many hornets have lost one engine and made it back? A few, sure. How many F-16Cs have lost their engine in flight? Not many. So at this point, engines are so reliable that a single engine aircraft isn’t really significantly less safe Than a dual engine. I don’t foresee F-35Cs augering into the ocean with engine failures

Remember, at the time the decisions were being made the F-14A was in early service ... how many of those did they lose to engine issues?

Some truth. At this point, engines are so reliable that if one malfunctions, it’s usually a catastrophic malfunction which would also damage an adjacent engine. I’d read this years ago...I think it’s called a class A malfunction or something. So yeah, in a way, havihg 2 engines doubles your chance of a class A malfunction taking out both. But I’m not sure of all the percentages. Now, I don’t think that is WHY the F-15 and SU-27 have 2 engines spread. The F-14 did because they wanted the space in between to carry the large Phoenix missiles.

The wider body also provides additional life at the expense of less drag. But it wasn’t to prevent one engine damaging the other....the rate at which that occurs (while maybe more than a class B effecting one engine) would be too low to design an aircraft around it.

 

In the end, how many hornets have lost one engine and made it back? A few, sure. How many F-16Cs have lost their engine in flight? Not many. So at this point, engines are so reliable that a single engine aircraft isn’t really significantly less safe Than a dual engine. I don’t foresee F-35Cs augering into the ocean with engine failures

First of all, the F-15 motors are pretty much inline. In fact, if an F-15 pilot goes and flies in the civil world he/she would be able to translate that mil rating to a multi-engine but with a centerline thrust restriction. Having a motor out on an F-15, 18, etc is no big deal as far as handling. Wide spread motors like the F-14 are a whole other animal.

2nd, its absolutely not true that a catastrophic failure of one motor would result in losing both. I'm sure it's happened but it is definitely not the norm. Lots of Eagles, Phantoms, Hornets etc have come home on one motor. Certainly if you take an Archer up the nozzle of one motor, its likely to take out both. But there are many many many reasons a motor can fail (bird strike, mech failure, AAA damage from one side, etc) that would not take out both motors. Conversely, there are a lot of Vipers put down in the dirt for precisely the reason that they did not have a 2nd motor. They were not called "Lawndarts" for nothing.

I may be wrong on this, but my long understanding was the Navy specifically always leaned toward twin engine jets precisely for the safety redundancy, especially during Blue water ops. Going to the single engine F-35 caused a lot of gnashing of teeth and rending of cloth within the the Navy halls of the Pentagon as I recall.....

Ok....I didn’t say that a catastrophic failure in one would destroy the other. I said that the studies showed that class A catastrophic engine failures were more common that classB. Class A catastrophic failures were such that they were likely to destroy both. Meaning fan blades shred everything.

The F-14a had TF-30s which failed often in COMPRESSOR stalls...not because the engine mechanically failed.

Yeah, the F-18 and 18 are close together. I’m saying that the f-14s are apart to allow space for Phoenix missiles in the undercarriage and NOT because they don’t want one engine to blow the other. The catastrophic failure effecting both engines was a reason why the navy felt safe going to a single engine F-35....not why they spaced engines in the F-1

Either way, considering the annual flight hours of modern jets, the rate of engine failure is so low that I’m not sure it’s worth it to have a second engine unless you need the thrust.

Ok....I didn’t say that a catastrophic failure in one would destroy the other. I said that the studies showed that class A catastrophic engine failures were more common that classB. Class A catastrophic failures were such that they were likely to destroy both. Meaning fan blades shred everything.

 

The F-14a had TF-30s which failed often in COMPRESSOR stalls...not because the engine mechanically failed.

 

Yeah, the F-18 and 18 are close together. I’m saying that the f-14s are apart to allow space for Phoenix missiles in the undercarriage and NOT because they don’t want one engine to blow the other. The catastrophic failure effecting both engines was a reason why the navy felt safe going to a single engine F-35....not why they spaced engines in the F-1

 

Either way, considering the annual flight hours of modern jets, the rate of engine failure is so low that I’m not sure it’s worth it to have a second engine unless you need the thrust.

A "Class A" mishap is simply that there was more than $1M in damage to the aircraft, loss of the aircraft, or loss of life/severe injury. I think the new number these days is $2M. But in any event, you can almost scratch a fan blade of a modern jet fighter engine and incur $2M in damage. So just because it's a class A does not necessarily mean catastrophic.

Check these links out for stats on USAF single engine vs Twin engine Class A's

https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Engine%20Statistics/USAF%20Single%20Engine.pdf?ver=2019-12-05-121311-920

https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Engine%20Statistics/USAF%20Twin%20Engine.pdf?ver=2019-12-05-121310-513

It looks like the design of the A-10 really works. Amazing when you consider how much it's shot at.

Hmm. Fury, Panther, Cougar, Demon, Crusader, Skyhawk, Skyray, Corsair (both of them), Lightning. All have at least two things in common: Navy jets and one engine.

As far as the F-15's engine being so close together as to not cause any asymmetrical issues; mostly true - except at high speeds (>m1.3 I think); an engine failure at those speeds can result in so much yaw as to result in loss of the jet. Check the Dash-1; the -229s have a feature to help prevent it (called ATDPS, i believe). Has to be checked after engine start, if fails it grounds the jet.

Vulture

Are you sure about that? My understanding is the Navy wanted the safety of two engines since they're over water most of the time. That's why they picked the Hornet over the winner of the trials, the Viper.

That is the design reason for the aircrafts why they are made either single or two engine versions. You don't decide to make an aircraft for two engines because safety reasons but for aerodynamic reasons.

What navy selected for Hornet is their own decision between those that has been offered.

And reason is as well that when you fly above the water, it is completely different risk than flying above land when it comes to pilot surviving. Beign located 150 nmi from the boat in water is not same as 150 nmi from the airbase.

I never mentioned why the Hornet was designed as it is. I just mentioned why the Navy picked it.

I don't agree. The Viper can win easily in WVR but it can't get in a slow one turn fight with a Hornet.

yea basically this. the F16 and Viper are close matches in a dissimilar way.

TBH when flying the Hornet i wish had the T/W ratio and speed of the Viper, When flying the viper id love it even more if it has the high alpha ability of the hornet, whilst retaining viper streghts . IF such an aircraft existed it would dominate both 1 circle and two circle fights.

I prefer the Hornet mostly due to "soft" stats. Aspects that arent going to directly impact combat performance, such as having a more advanced navigation suite ( moving map) and additional Multipurpose display to work with, and having overall a more digitally integrated cockpit ( less physical panels , and instead MFD pages.) IE having RWR contacts being able to be displayed via MFD's , the SA page page, or via HUD.

Although i do wish the Hornet had a F16 or A10C type Hotas, to keep hands on HOTAS more often.

Truth be told i would say say there is no perfect plane, at least not in DCS . At least not until the Eurofighter comes along and starts spanking them both ;)

Question: This performance that the F-16 has shown on the servers, flying at mach 1.5 to 45,000, firing its 120C at 50, 60 miles, killing everything (it seems like it never misses), all this is like in real life or the module of the F-16 is deregulated? I have seen a massacre of any aircraft that tries to face an F-16 and its 120C at high altitudes.

Its hard to win against Viper on head to head scenario in Hornet unless you're really light on payload or have another wingman as a bait. 1 vs 1 given equal pilot skill is really hard (its winnable but hard) for the Hornet. The only fighter can win in that situation is the Eagle or the Cat. Don't believe me then just try it yourself on any pvp server.

Question: This performance that the F-16 has shown on the servers, flying at mach 1.5 to 45,000, firing its 120C at 50, 60 miles, killing everything (it seems like it never misses), all this is like in real life or the module of the F-16 is deregulated? I have seen a massacre of any aircraft that tries to face an F-16 and its 120C at high altitudes.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Yeah, I'm trying hard for more than a week on DDCS, 104 and GS servers and the consequences are the same in 18 and 15 (dont have 14...sorry, dont like it heheheh) :)

The F-18 sucks in A-A against anything. It's not very fast. Doesn't accelerate very fast, and it can't pull more than 7.5 G.

The only chance is to somehow make it to the merge and force the fight slow.

VIPER FTW! :D

Question: This performance that the F-16 has shown on the servers, flying at mach 1.5 to 45,000, firing its 120C at 50, 60 miles, killing everything (it seems like it never misses), all this is like in real life or the module of the F-16 is deregulated? I have seen a massacre of any aircraft that tries to face an F-16 and its 120C at high altitudes.

Online typically has planes taking off and immediately fighting, making fuel load not a concern. The F-16 has less range and is more impacted by fuel tanks than big fighters like the F-14 and F-15.

DCS also makes raw performance more influential than in reality because EW is so basic. The F-16 needs to carry an external jammer, which would be a handicap if ECM mattered. Also, while the F-16 has a small radar, FC aircraft are basically crippled in terms of avionics capability. With missiles now getting proper ranges you can shoot on a F-15 or Su-27 before it can even detect you, which is crazy.

Yes, having a hornet and viper radar WIP with no EW modelling so far does not help. Once jamming is implemented for both radars the hornet (or other fighters by that matter) jammer will deny really long shots. The viper radar is not bad at all but should suffer a lot against modern jammers. The hornet on the other hand should burnthrough the jammer a bit earlier, so there you go, you will have a first shot option against viper.

That does not take away the superior viper kinematics, you need to learn to cope with that.

The same should apply against an F15C, if we had some basic EW modelling, this fighter would rule them all in bvr as his radar is really a monster and with its incredible speed it should always have a first shot advantage over vipers and hornets. Sorry for the Off topic

Yes, having a hornet and viper radar WIP with no EW modelling so far does not help. Once jamming is implemented for both radars the hornet (or other fighters by that matter) jammer will deny really long shots. The viper radar is not bad at all but should suffer a lot against modern jammers. The hornet on the other hand should burnthrough the jammer a bit earlier, so there you go, you will have a first shot option against viper.

 

That does not take away the superior viper kinematics, you need to learn to cope with that.

 

The same should apply against an F15C, if we had some basic EW modelling, this fighter would rule them all in bvr as his radar is really a monster and with its incredible speed it should always have a first shot advantage over vipers and hornets. Sorry for the Off topic

Not to mention both the Hornet and F16C still lacks semi automatic and automatic modes for the AN/AlE47 suite.