Who's got a more engine power, F-16C or FA-18C ?

Ofcoarse Hornet has two but between the above jets who has more power ?

It depends, F/A-18C has several engine types and so does the F-16C. You would need to be more specific.

F-110-GE-129 turbofan engine

A better question is which one accelerates and climbs faster?

Viper.

Among the stories I've heard from people that've flown both, the F-16 has eye-watering acceleration and climb abilities, noticeably more powerful than a legacy hornet. But the hornet is a more capable weapons platform and of course has the safety of two engines, and the peace-of-mind that comes with that.

This is a broad generalization though.

A better question is which one accelerates and climbs faster?

 

Viper.

Our F16 has a F-110-GE-129 engine which provides a greater than 1:1 thrust ratio. The aircraft is light in comparison to the F18C and has lots of thrust so the F16 should win this competition on both counts.

It should be able to climb vertically and still accelerate from sea level, although this will be with a clean jet, not one with lots of ordinance and external fuel tanks hanging on it.

Guess we will find out soon enough....

All numbers are estimation since I do not know the specific F/A-18C GW and F-16 GW is normally mention with full internal fuel, AIM-120 on tips and full ammo load. Not sure if F/A-18 GW includes the same. Also consider there is not specific thrust in any engine or weight on each aircraft, only range or class thrust. So, might be different on each individual aircraft/engine.

F/A-18C

F404-GE-402

17,700 to 19,000 lbs thrust range

35,400 to 38,000 lbs range.

F-16C

F110-GE-129

29,000lbs thrust class

F/A-18C GW with Full internal fuel (JP-5) two AIM-9X and full gun ammo

~ 35509

F-16C GW with Full internal fuel (JP-8 ) two AIM-9X and full ammo

~ 27186

Hard to read your chart, might just be formatting. iirc peak is around 33k lbf range, whereas the hornet is a bit under 20k, but has two, so is putting out maybe 20-25% more.

More importantly, in fighter escort config the 16 is under 30k lbs gw (10,000 less than hornet), will do Mach 2 and pull 9G, blowing the hornet away in acceleration and top speed, while achieving better range — she’s slippery, and those dainty little legs don’t hurt.”

I think that’s basically what mvgas said just hard to read the formatting. What matters much more than peak is thrust vs fuel flows @ different altitudes, I have at home if curious

Our F16 has a F-110-GE-129 engine which provides a greater than 1:1 thrust ratio. The aircraft is light in comparison to the F18C and has lots of thrust so the F16 should win this competition on both counts.

 

It should be able to climb vertically and still accelerate from sea level, although this will be with a clean jet, not one with lots of ordinance and external fuel tanks hanging on it.

 

Guess we will find out soon enough....

1:1 thrust:weight ratio does not mean you can go full vertical and still accelerate. You need to overcome both weight and drag to do that, because both are opposing thrust if you're going straight up.

But yes, the Viper should perform better than the Hornet.

From someone who’s flown both.

https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs-viper-part-four/

The downside to the Hornet is its power limitation. It is severely underpowered, and although you can get slow and threaten other aircraft with the nose, doing so can leave you without follow-on options. It is very unforgiving of pilots who ham-fist and bleed away all their energy.

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.

1:1 thrust:weight ratio does not mean you can go full vertical and still accelerate. You need to overcome both weight and drag to do that, because both are opposing thrust if you're going straight up.

Not to nitpick but it does actually mean that thrust > weight at sea level, but you are correct in that it does not consider drag. And given the rate at which thrust decreases with density, the party wouldn't last long.

From someone who’s flown both.

 

https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs-viper-part-four/

That's interesting, I don't personally know anyone that has flow both but have several friends that have one or the other. The consensus seems to be f/a-18 in a fight, f-16 for fun. Performance is fun, but avionics + HOBS/nose authority make things blow up. Don't shoot the messenger, i'll be flying both - but in this case I am just regurgitating hanger BS.

Not to nitpick but it does actually mean that thrust > weight at sea level.

Furthermore thrust values are for usually given for the uninstalled engine.

From someone who’s flown both.

 

https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs-viper-part-four/

To get perspective of another pilot whos flown both.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-16-vs-f-18-a-navy-test-pilots-perspective.169261/

Id also throw in don't remember ever having to use half a dozen buttons on my hotas to " break radar lock"when flying DCS F18 hornet? (Hyperbolic?)

If anything id say the Hornets fine in A2A when it comes to HOTAS, Its A/G and everything else that requires more hands off time from HOTAS in comparison to the Viper.

Besides the question here was about performance ( IE pertaining to Thrust to weight ratios, and maneuverability presumably) not anything else. No doubt the F16C Blk 50 will very much out accelerate, and out climb the F/A18C Hornet ( even with F404 GE 402).

It depends, F/A-18C has several engine types and so does the F-16C. You would need to be more specific.

Umm, It Does?

the Difference between the original F404 and the 402 EPE is less than 10% Peak Thrust, and most, if not all of the remaining of the Charlie Hornets all use the 402 EPE

T

Id also throw in don't remember ever having to use half a dozen buttons on my hotas to " break radar lock"when flying DCS F18 hornet? (Hyperbolic?)

 

If anything id say the Hornets fine in A2A when it comes to HOTAS, Its A/G and everything else that requires more hands off time from HOTAS in comparison to the Viper.

I'm not sure what he's referring to as "break lock" isn't very precise (does he mean exit STT or clear L&s?), but DCS Hornet is in a very weird WIP state. It's not representative of how it will work, particularly the undesignate button. There's a thread in f-18 forums where I explained much of it (air to air radar or similar title).

But, while Return To Search is a single button press, and will back out of STT, AACQ, ACM, and expanded or special modes like flood, spotlight, it won't clear target designations. If you have a l&s target undesignate will step l&s through ranked track files. To actually clear all designations you do have to go hands off. You can do it with hotas different ways but does probably require 4-5 button presses- maybe that's what he was referring to?

Umm, It Does?

Was wondering the same but I was already sounding like a dick :)

Umm, It Does?

 

the Difference between the original F404 and the 402 EPE is less than 10% Peak Thrust, and most, if not all of the remaining of the Charlie Hornets all use the 402 EPE

O. K., what is the thrust class/range of the -400/402? Is it different that what I posted? Does the manuals refer to each engine separately or the same?

I think people are mistaking the question.

It is how much does one engine generate thrust power, as if attached to test bench, and not about how fast aircraft does, accelerates or what is T/W ratio at what given loadout or altitude etc.

I think people are mistaking the question.

 

It is how much does one engine generate thrust power, as if attached to test bench, and not about how fast aircraft does, accelerates or what is T/W ratio at what given loadout or altitude etc.

I meant per plane not per engine

Just a remark concerning F-16c vs F-18c power :

I took off in hornet following (just behind and on right side) an AI F-16c, with same load. Afterburner on, when the F-16 started also with AB … and I was catching him and had to reduce power !

I knew the F-16 has more power so I was surprised …

Then I tried airstart side by side at a given speed (around 350kn) and set next wpt to max speed. So me and the F-16 started at 350 and we went full AB immediately (also same load).

The F-16 left me alone, behind, in no time !

I'm still perplex about why the take off from the F-16 was so "slow" while he was using AB (maybe not max AB ?)

The main draw down for the Hornet is its weight compared to the Falcon. Even after getting the upgraded F404 engines, it only got an extra 1400 pounds of thrust in total.

I'm not sure what he's referring to as "break lock" isn't very precise (does he mean exit STT or clear L&s?), but DCS Hornet is in a very weird WIP state. It's not representative of how it will work, particularly the undesignate button. There's a thread in f-18 forums where I explained much of it (air to air radar or similar title).

 

But, while Return To Search is a single button press, and will back out of STT, AACQ, ACM, and expanded or special modes like flood, spotlight, it won't clear target designations. If you have a l&s target undesignate will step l&s through ranked track files. To actually clear all designations you do have to go hands off. You can do it with hotas different ways but does probably require 4-5 button presses- maybe that's what he was referring to?

 

 

 

Was wondering the same but I was already sounding like a dick :)

Ahh i see. Thats probably why.

Ofcoarse Hornet has two but between the above jets who has more power ?

Wow, lots of pages of jibba-jabba over something that's been really obvious for a third of a century. An airplane, any airplane at all, is a big ol' chunk of lead, and part of the weight of that brick of lead is its engines. Here's how shit goes:

The F/A-18 has more engine power than the F-16. LOTS more. It's a heavy airplane with two massively powerful engines. The F/A-18 Hornet (CF-18 for you/us Canucks) is a well-designed, superb-handling, modern fighter jet that's just a little too damn big and heavy for it's engine power. But, it has LOTS of engine power. Think of an enormous 5000-pound car, but with gargantuan 454-cubic-inch V8 engines--TWO of them!! One for the rear wheels, one for the front. That helps a bunch.

But, the F-16 has a far higher thrust-to-weight ratio. It's a tiny little plane with only one engine, that happens to have whopping high thrust compared to the size and weight of the aircraft.

So, when both are lightly loaded (same percentage of total fuel load and external weapons), the F-16 will effortlessly out-perform the F/A-18 in terms of acceleration, climb rate, and maximum continuous G in a tight turning fight, due to the F-16's very high thrust to weight ratio.

In a nutshell, any version of the F-16 kicks complete and utter ass compared to anything else the Western world has to offer in terms of flight performance when lightly loaded, except, perhaps, for the F-22 Raptor--which can't be accurately simulated at the Consumer (i.e. Video Game) level for the next 50 years or so, because it's all classified out the wazoo.

And, that's all there is to it kids :)

AD

 

But, the F-16 has a far higher thrust-to-weight ratio. It's a tiny little plane with only one engine, that happens to have whopping high thrust compared to the size and weight of the aircraft.

 

So, when both are lightly loaded (same percentage of total fuel load and external weapons), the F-16 will effortlessly out-perform the F/A-18 in terms of acceleration, climb rate, and maximum continuous G in a tight turning fight, due to the F-16's very high thrust to weight ratio.

 

AD

That being said, I'll still take the hornet and its ability to get the first shot off any day of the week. Most of what you mentioned really starts too matter in Winchester situations, which can and do happen for sure.

But in today's world of HOBS and HMCS the nose pointing authority of the hornet pays dividends over great STR and high acceleration. Tomcats and Fulcrums have great performance in those aspects too and can seriously out vertical the hornet, but it does them no good when they can be shot at with 9x from any angle. In pairs, up close, the hornet can be a monster if you and your buddy know what your doing and have the right weapons.

However in BVR speed is priceless, so all that thrust in a tiny package gives F-16 a big advantage there without a doubt.

Ofcoarse Hornet has two but between the above jets who has more power ?

There's an open-source report by the United States General Accountability Office (GAO) that gives some of the thrust data for the F/A-18C/D/E/F's engines at a variety of altitudes and airspeeds. Always remember that thrust isn't static, and that published numbers are typically from engines on a stand, not installed in the aircraft, and certainly not at the various altitudes and airspeeds in which they operate! The report number is B-260367, publicly released 18 June 1996 (i.e., unclassified, unlimited distribution) and can be accessed at the GAO's website. With respect to OP's question (relative power of the F/A-18C with the -402 engines vs. the F-16C with the -129), the following data is relevant:

Per engine, the F110-GE-129 produces more thrust than the F/A-18C's -402, but the Hornet has two engines. From the GAO report, the installed thrust at static (0 KTAS) at sea level (0 ft) per -402 is 15,179.5lbs, producing a total of 30,359lbs of thrust. As with any turbofan engine, the thrust will increase as airspeed increases (to a point - inlet design and engine tuning affect this), and will decrease as altitude increases. At Mach 0.9 at sea level, the -402 produces 19,310lbs per engine, for a total of 38,620lbs of thrust. You can put that against the weight of the F/A-18C to derive a thrust to weight ratio at 0 airspeed, and at 0.9 Mach. The report actually does 0.8-1.2 for lower altitudes and 0.8-1.6 for higher.

For fast reference, let's say you're up at 20,000 feet at the same airspeed (0.9M). Per the report, each -402 engine is producing 12,202lbs (total 24,404lbs). Not even close to a 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio here unless the plane is clean and almost out of gas. At 40,000 feet? 5,134lbs/engine (total 10,268lbs). So, to say "an engine produces x thrust" is a pretty bad mischaracterization - you aren't getting anywhere near the quoted numbers way up in the cons!

For the F-16C, the problem is I haven't seen any open-source documents which list its installed thrust, only that it's engine "can produce 29,500lbs" or things to that extent. That doesn't tell me what the installed thrust is, nor its thrust in other areas of the envelope. If I take a wild-ass guess, maybe it's ~27,000lbs at static (0 alt, 0 KIAS). Using that, if I'm describing an F/A-18C with the -402 engine and an F-16C with a -129 at 0 altitude and 0 airspeed (about to take off, so nothing particularly tactical there), and I use some gross weights from everyone's favorite, totally reliable source Wikipedia (yes, I am being sarcastic):

F/A-18C: 36,970lbs TOGW vs. 30,359lbs installed thrust for a 0.82:1 thrust-to-weight ratio

F-16C: 26,500lbs TOGW vs. 27,000lbs installed thrust for a 1.02:1 thrust-to-weight ratio

As I already said, this is a single point of performance with both aircraft on the ground, 0 airspeed, and the Viper's number is a WAG I pulled out of my backside to try to approximate what the inlet might do to the thrust, but the F-16C at least starts with a better T:W. As the aircraft get moving, the situation becomes dynamic quickly, and thrust is heavily dependent on airspeed, altitude, g, etc. of the aircraft relative to each other. It has already been pointed out that T:W is far from the full story in air combat, but WRT your initial question, I hope that gives you some more insight.

For the F-16C, the problem is I haven't seen any open-source documents which list its installed thrust, only that it's engine "can produce 29,500lbs" or things to that extent

The USAF link for the Viper state F-16C/D, 27,000 pounds:

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104505/f-16-fighting-falcon/