F/A-18 vs F-16 Turn rate?

and I never lost.

LOL amazingly, every fighter pilot seems to have never lost a dgft!!!

:-)

Virtually speaking, I'm a huge hornet fan, however the VIPER is just a plane straight up kickarse dogfighter!

The pilot behind those words is C.W. Lemoine, callsign Mover, and I have to say physics kinda supports him.

LOL amazingly, every fighter pilot seems to have never lost a dgft!!!

 

:-)

 

Virtually speaking, I'm a huge hornet fan, however the VIPER is just a plane straight up kickarse dogfighter!

A strange way to quote my post. That's not my quote but you make it seem like it is. I believe what he said is true and it's easily checked.

Well, if we're talking about which plane is better in a gun fight. Both planes will be clean. Here's a quote from a real pilot who's flown both planes.

 

"Given a choice head to head, I would probably choose the F-16. Although I really love fighting in the Hornet against other Hornets, there is no worse feeling than being bled down on energy and out of options. I fought several F/A-18Cs, F/A-18E/Fs, and CF-18s when I flew the F-16, and I never lost. Aside from the F-22, I really don’t think there’s a better dogfighting aircraft out there. A lot of thrust is good, more is better. A clean F-16 is just a rocket ship. That’s just personal preference, of course. Others who have flown both may have vastly differing opinions."

While this is relevant, we need to consider which blocks he flew. Earlier block Hornets had underpowered engines while the lot 20 that we have has had an engine upgrade. On the other hand, the earlier Vipers had a higher thrust to weight ratio which decreased a bit due to the Viper adding on some pounds for equipment.

Here's a quote from a real pilot who's flown both planes. ".. when I flew the F-16, and I never lost. Aside from the F-22, I really don’t think there’s a better dogfighting aircraft out there..."

Lol, this pilot thinks very wrong, there are a lot of better dogfighting aircrafts out there

Lol, this pilot thinks very wrong, there are a lot of better dogfighting aircrafts out there

Yes, he mentioned the F-22 but let's keep it between the Hornet and Viper.

There are a LOT of first-person accounts of aircraft performance by pilots who flew and fought in them. You need to read a little bit more widely, because if you do you will realize that the ratio of pilots who prefer the F-16 to the F-18 equals the ratio of F-16 pilot accounts to F-18 pilots accounts. There are a few accounts by people who have flown both. And, these are pretty much equally split, with the fault line running between people who have flow the F-16 first (or mainly) and vice versa. If you imagine you are going to get a golden bullet smoking gun correct answer on whether the F-16 or the F-18 is "better", than you are going to be very disappointed or very deluded. For many reasons, but one among which is that there is no one single "better" metric that is applicable. "It depends" is the best you can do.

As for your original question -- it seems to me, still, that you do not understand the difference between instantaneous turn rate, sustained turn rate, and minimum radius. And why these differences make a difference in different ways to BFM. Or what factors aside from the aircraft itself go into determining these.

Do you want to go through a revolutionary paradigm shift?

Read Chapter 4 of:

https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/local/docs/pat-pubs/P-826.pdf

You will find the experience fundamentally transformative in terms of your perspective, questions, and answers.

The pilot behind those words is C.W. Lemoine, callsign Mover, and I have to say physics kinda supports him.

......I really don’t think there’s a better dogfighting aircraft out there..."

I wonder if he ever went up against/flew a Mig-29? Watched some interesting documentaries and podcasts (Fighter Pilot Podcast with Indian Air Force Air Marshal Harish “Fulcrum 1” Masand is really good) on those lately with plenty of comments from long-time pilots of the aircraft.

Is noted even turning at max-G they need to reduce the throttle or else the aircraft will over-speed....now THAT is power!

It must have been nice for the term 'energy bleed' not to apply to you when flying a fighter lol.

Counterpoint

https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/dogfighting-in-an-fa-18-hornet/

So, really, as in many things in life, the only correct answer is "it depends"

Oh, and BTW, my understanding is that at least in DCS the Mirage can accelerate while in a 6G turn (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). So there's that ....

......I really don’t think there’s a better dogfighting aircraft out there..."

 

I wonder if he ever went up against/flew a Mig-29? Watched some interesting documentaries and podcasts (Fighter Pilot Podcast with Indian Air Force Air Marshal Harish “Fulcrum 1” Masand is really good) on those lately with plenty of comments from long-time pilots of the aircraft.

Is noted even turning at max-G they need to reduce the throttle or else the aircraft will over-speed....now THAT is power!

It must have been nice for the term 'energy bleed' not to apply to you when flying a fighter lol.

I heard an interview with Air Marschal Harish Masand, he has great experience and nice personality.

When it comes to accelerating under 9G it is common for both MiG-29 and F-16 9 (and some other modern fighters), but they have to start the turn with relatively high speed to accelerate under 9G, at lower speed both bleed energy in 9G turn very rapidly, it's because at high speed AoA in 9G turn is a lot smaller.

MiG-29 was a great dogfighter but it also had it's flaws in close combat; very small amount of time on full power, somewhat worse visibility than other 4 gen fighters with pilot seating deep in the cockpit, manual flight controls harder to operate under high G and overall somewhat manual and work heavy pilot's interface, smoky engines without afterburner and rather big silhouette.

And MiG-29 was unfortunately a stable aircraft which increased it's drag in turns and lowered it's lift, this was already a bit outdated idea in 1980s, but it was cheaper and easier to produce.

Here in Poland the air force operate both MiG-29 and F-16 not being a producer of any of them so our air force had an opportunity to directly compare both.

I would still kill for full fidelity MiG-29 with it's real pros and flaws.

......I really don’t think there’s a better dogfighting aircraft out there..."

 

I wonder if he ever went up against/flew a Mig-29? Watched some interesting documentaries and podcasts (Fighter Pilot Podcast with Indian Air Force Air Marshal Harish “Fulcrum 1” Masand is really good) on those lately with plenty of comments from long-time pilots of the aircraft.

Is noted even turning at max-G they need to reduce the throttle or else the aircraft will over-speed....now THAT is power!

It must have been nice for the term 'energy bleed' not to apply to you when flying a fighter lol.

The MiG-29A was supposedly a real hot rod, but IIRC it was slightly beaten by the F-16 above 400 kts or so in terms of rate, but better below that and able to pull higher AoA.

It's also a total beast in DCS if you give it a try. Just stay below 1000 km/h as the SAS limits pitch input in the transonic region.

For F-16's minimum turn time, check this:

Starting around 0:34

As it stands ingame:

The problem here is the use of sea level. If you go to 15,000ft and get the speed up and the F-16 starts winning. There would be a question in my mind as to whether sea level is a realistic altitude from which all of those pilot accounts speak for.

Due to the enforcement of a hard deck for all of these friendly dogfights, virtually no engagement will take place at sea level.

I don't think the Hornet is overperforming or if it is only slightly, it matches the GAO report as it is now.

Also, you're using the G-limit override, and a real pilot won't use that in a dogfight. That is a real world limitation and a part of the Hornet's rate fight issues - it has to get slow to turn competitively and when it does it has to be careful not to lose all that speed.

The problem here is the use of sea level. If you go to 15,000ft and get the speed up and the F-16 starts winning. There would be a question in my mind as to whether sea level is a realistic altitude from which all of those pilot accounts speak for.

 

Due to the enforcement of a hard deck for all of these friendly dogfights, virtually no engagement will take place at sea level.

 

I don't think the Hornet is overperforming or if it is only slightly, it matches the GAO report as it is now.

 

Also, you're using the G-limit override, and a real pilot won't use that in a dogfight. That is a real world limitation and a part of the Hornet's rate fight issues - it has to get slow to turn competitively and when it does it has to be careful not to lose all that speed.

Doesn't matter that I used SL, the disparity stays the same at 15 kft as neither aircraft loses any engine performance compared with each other up to that altitude.

As for the G-limit override, I only used that above 7+ G's in order to verify that the Hornet doesn't slow down in rate due to a higher parasitic drag. Instead the Hornet can maintain a higher sustainable load factor from start to finish, and its max STR is just as high as the F-16's, infact the Hornet's ingame STR stays almost constant from between 350-550 kts where'as the F-16's is much steeper and rises to a peak around 530 kts.

Finally if we go by the GAO report the F-16 should outrate the F/A-18 by ~2 deg/sec (~19.4 deg/sec vs ~21.4 deg/sec), both aircraft clean & 60% fuel. This disparity is not apparent ingame however.

So what is causing this? Well as far as I can tell it is due to the F-16 slightly underperforming whilst the F/A-18 is slightly overperforming. Individually the discrepancy is very small, but put together it becomes noticable.

DCS F-16 vs HAF manual EM charts for same weight + load out:

So below 400 kts, and most noticably below 300 kts, the F-16 needs a bit more STR, and this could be linked with it seemingly lacking in acceleration and thus ability to regain energy as well. This could be due to lacking some thrust at low speed, or it could be due to a bit too high drag at high AoA - the underperforming straight line acceleration points to the former however.

Also the currently inability of the DCS F-16 to reach 9+ G's (DFLCS should allow for 9.3 G's) quickly enough further hampers it vs the Hornet. When these two DFCLS issues along with the slight lack of performance is fixed the Viper will undoubtedly perform noticably better in the WVR arena, and the F/A-18 shouldn't dominate it so hard anymore.

Finally if we go by the GAO report the F-16 should outrate the F/A-18 by ~2 deg/sec (~19.4 deg/sec vs ~21.4 deg/sec), both aircraft clean & 60% fuel. This disparity is not apparent ingame however.

.

Source?

Stopp doing wrong assumptions.

We know from a pilot flying the lot 20 that they can sustain 6.5g 330kts at 1500ft asl (di=0, fuel > 50%) , thats by far more than your best guess of 19.4dps.

We know that the lot 20 has by far the better inst. turn rate and even slightly better best str. than the F16 block52. (See post #11 in threat `Whats the best corner speed for the hornet?` this graph is originally from a Aerospace Project Development Group, located in zurich).

And according your post#169 8.2.2017 12.56 am you also know the french comparison of the m2, F18epe and f16 Block52. According that source sustained the epe and the block52 have similar turn rate at 15kft of 13 dgs (2xaim9).

So, expect for the f18epe at least sustained performance / figures like block 52 shows, but at lower speed.

Check also:

`Its (hornet epe) extremely good manoeuvrability in curvilinear flight is important in aerial combat in visual flight conditions and is proven to be of the best worldwide.`

source: https://www.vtg.admin.ch/en/einsatzmittel/luft/fa18-hornet.html

The block 50 is one of the worst turning f16 (ge100 big inlet has a 1.5dps advantage), the epe the best rating f18.

You have to bfm. Simply turning at bstr. fighting the f18 in dcs is not going to work.

The F-18 will outturn almost anything in radius or rate at below 400 knots. The problem is that you can’t accelerate up out of that zone as quickly as an F-16. The fact is that the planes are closely matched. No pilot with experience is either would be the least bit surprised if he lost a mock wvr fight to the other. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. The reality is though, that WVR fights don’t start at the merge. There are all sorts of things going on before that

Source?

Stopp doing wrong assumptions.

 

We know from a pilot flying the lot 20 that they can sustain 6.5g 330kts at 1500ft asl (di=0, fuel > 50%) , thats by far more than your best guess of 19.4dps.

 

We know that the lot 20 has by far the better inst. turn rate and even slightly better best str. than the F16 block52. (See post #11 in threat `Whats the best corner speed for the hornet?` this graph is originally from a Aerospace Project Development Group, located in zurich).

 

And according your post#169 8.2.2017 12.56 am you also know the french comparison of the m2, F18epe and f16 Block52. According that source sustained the epe and the block52 have similar turn rate at 15kft of 13 dgs (2xaim9).

 

So, expect for the f18epe at least sustained performance / figures like block 52 shows, but at lower speed.

 

Check also:

`Its (hornet epe) extremely good manoeuvrability in curvilinear flight is important in aerial combat in visual flight conditions and is proven to be of the best worldwide.`

source: https://www.vtg.admin.ch/en/einsatzmittel/luft/fa18-hornet.html

 

The block 50 is one of the worst turning f16 (ge100 big inlet has a 1.5dps advantage), the epe the best rating f18.

You have to bfm. Simply turning at bstr. fighting the f18 in dcs is not going to work.

I'm not the one making any assumptions here, the source has always been the actual Blk.50/52 performance charts (HAF manual), and here we see the clean 22,000 lbs F-16C Blk.50/52 achieve a 21.7 deg/sec STR @ 0.68 mach (9 G) @ SL. The clean F/A-18C Epe is capable of ~19.5 deg/sec.

As for the French comparison, it was an estimate and not based on actual performance charts, hence it shows a 1.7 deg/sec lower STR than the actual Blk.50/52 performance charts for the same altitude, and a 0.7 deg/sec higher STR for the F/A-18 than the GAO report.

Yet others seem to have a different opinion, so who is right?

 

 

 

Source on this?

No idea, but words from an Hornet pilot has to be considered in this case aswell? I never heard from a pilot that the Hornet can sustain better max turn rate then the viper, i did heard only the opposite. So if any pilot could came and say that, i think everyone will be satisfied and discussion's over

Source on this?

The GAO report posted earlier, it gave a 19.2 deg/sec max STR @ SL & 12.3 deg/sec STR at 15 kft for an F/A-18C epe w/ 2x AIM9 + 2xAIM120 & 60% fuel. That means a clean jet without pylons, just the extra weight of the missiles (wing tip & fuselage stations don't really add any drag). So add about 0.3 deg/sec for the weight decrease & ever so slight drag reduction and you end up at 19.5 deg/sec for a clean jet.

The GAO report posted earlier, it gave a 19.2 deg/sec max STR @ SL & 12.3 deg/sec STR at 15 kft for an F/A-18C epe w/ 2x AIM9 + 2xAIM120 & 60% fuel.

Yes, and this is what I get in dcs:

2019-11-20 17:25:38.926 INFO SCRIPTING: ## TurnRate ## : Script initialized

2019-11-20 17:25:38.926 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: Counter, Alt(m), GS(km/h), GS(Mach), Turn Rate(deg/s)

2019-11-20 17:26:15.096 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 0 44 714 0.584 18.9

2019-11-20 17:27:26.271 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 1 51 641 0.524 18.7

2019-11-20 17:28:01.872 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 2 37 695 0.568 19.1

2019-11-20 18:11:20.803 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 1 97 755 0.617 19.4

seems pretty close to me.

That means a clean jet without pylons, just the extra weight of the missiles (wing tip & fuselage stations don't really add any drag). So add about 0.3 deg/sec for the weight decrease & ever so slight drag reduction and you end up at 19.5 deg/sec for a clean jet.

This, however, is nothing but your own speculation, so leave that to yourself and don't present it as a source, thanks.

GAO reports or pilots words?

No idea, but words from an Hornet pilot has to be considered in this case aswell?

And another one said it felt heavy and draggy, so who's right?

I never heard from a pilot that the Hornet can sustain better max turn rate then the viper, i did heard only the opposite. So if any pilot could came and say that, i think everyone will be satisfied and discussion's over

Never heard that either, but then again, dcs hornet doesn't really outrate the viper as long as you stay within the 7.5g limits, they go about even. Now if viper is 'buffed' as it seems to be very slightly underperforming according to some people, it will have better STR than hornet. Still won't make it win any dogfights because paddle switch exists, but at least maybe the threads will stop? Probably wishful thinking though.

And another one said it felt heavy and draggy, so who's right?

 

 

Never heard that either, but then again, dcs hornet doesn't really outrate the viper as long as you stay within the 7.5g limits, they go about even. Now if viper is 'buffed' as it seems to be very slightly underperforming according to some people, it will have better STR than hornet. Still won't make it win any dogfights because paddle switch exists, but at least maybe the threads will stop? Probably wishful thinking though.

+1

Would be great if those threads would stop.

why should the paddle switch help you having a better sustained turn rate? pulling more g's will result in losing speed, if above the sustained level, sadly we dont know how many g's the GAO hornet is pulling to sustain that turn rate, or how fast is he going while sustaining it, you would need a chart that we dont have, so the information is quite not usable.. we dont even know if, for example, he's using the paddle switch considering that it's a performance test