Jump to content

Engines performance


JRM

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

Based on?

The F-18 is currently by far the best dogfighter in DCS. It has a better sustained turn rate than any other aiplane (except the Jeff which I know close to nothign about), it also climbs just as well as the F-15, F-14 and much better than the Mig-29A. 

This is coming from direct experience flying all these modules in hundreds of PvP dogfights. The F-18, even if you don't cheat by pulling the paddle, is basically unbeatable. 

If this is correct or not we don't know, because there are no EM charts for the -402 engined Hornet, but it sure as hell goes against the general literature and anecdotal evidence available, which says the F-18 is pretty slow and not a rate fighter compare to e.g. the F-16. 

 

Windows 10 - Intel i7 7700K 4.2 Ghz (no OC) - Asus Strix GTX 1080 8Gb - 16GB DDR4 (3000 MHz) - SSD 500GB + WD Black FZEX 1TB 6Gb/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2021 at 7:32 PM, captflyby said:

Truth is, should have built the F-18E Super Hornet, not the old  slow C model.  But what is done is done.

Super hornet is about 8000lbs heavier than legacy hornet and its engines produce only marginally higher thrust.
The result of this is lower TWR when compared to legacy hornet, which tanslates in even lower acceleration. 

If you're already unhappy about the sluggishness of the legacy hornet, super hornet would only disappoint you further... super hornet is slower, not faster. 

High speed and acceleration with little effort can be found in eagle, viper, tomcat, flanker, fulcrum, mirage and eurofighter (when it comes out), not hornet.

If you want to put the hornet at mach 1.6, strip it down, burn half the fuel and spend several minutes afterburning at 30+k ft  
 


Edited by Hardcard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hardcard said:

@bkthunder

Hornet doesn't climb as well as the eagle, viper, mirage, etc. 

 

I stand corrected (by my own test data), the Viper climbs slightly faster, as for the F-15 and Mirage, no chance: the F-18 is much faster (clean and given a fuel qty that results in the same theoretical T/W raito).

Quote

Also, I think that the mirage still beats hornet (and all the rest) in the one circle. 

In 1C yes, but I am saying that the F-18 is the best rate fighter, while it is commonly referre to as being a radius fighter. 

In DCS it's the best radius fighter bar the Mirage, but its also the best rate fighter. Best of both worlds. 

Windows 10 - Intel i7 7700K 4.2 Ghz (no OC) - Asus Strix GTX 1080 8Gb - 16GB DDR4 (3000 MHz) - SSD 500GB + WD Black FZEX 1TB 6Gb/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bkthunder said:

I stand corrected (by my own test data), the Viper climbs slightly faster, as for the F-15 and Mirage, no chance: the F-18 is much faster (clean and given a fuel qty that results in the same theoretical T/W raito).

 

Put any pylon or significant A2A load on the hornet and you get easily outclimbed by eagles and fulcrum with a similar payload. Its true that a clean hornet is surprisingly fast, but i'm surprised it actually climb better than an eagle/fulcrum. Exact conditions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bkthunder said:

The F-18 is currently by far the best dogfighter in DCS. It has a better sustained turn rate than any other aiplane (except the Jeff which I know close to nothign about), it also climbs just as well as the F-15, F-14 and much better than the Mig-29A. 

 

Oh, by all means... show us tracks in-game of a Hornet, starting with the same  airspeeds, weapons loads, weights, etc. outclimbing an F-15C or F-14B... Additionally, show us tracks of you beating Vipers more than 50% of the time in PvP without pulling the paddle switch. Real Hornet pilots beat real Viper pilots in real life in close BFM... just as real Viper pilots beat real Hornet pilots in real life in close BFM. In the WVR arena, these 4th gen fighters are VERY close in performance and it comes down to pilot skill, maximizing his airframe strengths whilst exposing his opponents weaknesses. 

 

  • Like 2

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

Additionally, show us tracks of you beating Vipers more than 50% of the time in PvP without pulling the paddle switch. Real Hornet pilots beat real Viper pilots in real life in close BFM... just as real Viper pilots beat real Hornet pilots in real life in close BFM. In the WVR arena, these 4th gen fighters are VERY close in performance and it comes down to pilot skill, maximizing his airframe strengths whilst exposing his opponents weaknesses. 

 

You just can't stop, can you?

Hornet can out-rate F-15, F-16 and MiG-29 consistently. Here are the tracks:

15C SL maxAB 25%fuel clean DI = 0

5 consecutive max STR turns, 1 first turn is obviously disregarded, as it is just the setup. Times are measured from and to HDG = 000 in the infobar. No outside meausring tools.

F-16 5 turns 1:23  =  83 seconds    16,6  sec/turn    21,7 degrees/s average
F-18 5 turns 1:20  =  80 seconds     16,0  sec/turn   22,5 degrees/s average
F-15 5 turns 1:23  =  83 seconds     16,6  sec/turn   21,7 degrees/s average
MiG-29         1:24  =  84 seconds     16,8  sec/turn   21,4 degrees/s average

What are the current weaknesses of the Hornet, would you please be so kind to enlighten us?

F18str_DI_0_25pck.trk F15str_DI_0_25pck.trk F16str_DI_0_22k.trk MG29str_DI_0_25pck.trk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

Put any pylon or significant A2A load on the hornet and you get easily outclimbed by eagles and fulcrum with a similar payload. Its true that a clean hornet is surprisingly fast, but i'm surprised it actually climb better than an eagle/fulcrum. Exact conditions?

Unrelated but have a look at the OP here 

 

2 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

Oh, by all means... show us tracks in-game of a Hornet, starting with the same  airspeeds, weapons loads, weights, etc. outclimbing an F-15C or F-14B... Additionally, show us tracks of you beating Vipers more than 50% of the time in PvP without pulling the paddle switch. Real Hornet pilots beat real Viper pilots in real life in close BFM... just as real Viper pilots beat real Hornet pilots in real life in close BFM. In the WVR arena, these 4th gen fighters are VERY close in performance and it comes down to pilot skill, maximizing his airframe strengths whilst exposing his opponents weaknesses. 

 

Tust me, in the F-18 I beat any Viper flown by anyone online (without pulling the paddle), as a matter of fact I beat any airplane except sometimes the Jeff. Let's say that I am a very decent dogfighter but by no means the best, in all honesty probably in the top 10 pilots that you usually see on mobettameta's or just dogfight. 
I am sure any experienced PvP dogfighter will confirm the Hornet is above anything else and outrates anything else in game. 

EDIT: these stats already tell the same story https://justdogfight.com/top-planes/

Before they changed the F-14 FM, the Tomcat was the top one with unrealisitcally high turn rate at low speed (people flying it with full flaps.....).

One mor thing to point out is that on such servers, the Hornet starts at 50% fuel which lasts forever, while the F-15 at 50% fuel has a much lower endurance.

The F-14 and Mig-29 had such low endurance that they set the to start at full fuel, so this is obviusly a big disadvantage. 

The Viper starst at 50% liek the Hornet. 

 

However I refer back to my "as accurate as possible" climb test I linked above, where a nearly empty MiG-29 can't even begin to keep up with a Hornet.

 

 


Edited by bkthunder
  • Like 1

Windows 10 - Intel i7 7700K 4.2 Ghz (no OC) - Asus Strix GTX 1080 8Gb - 16GB DDR4 (3000 MHz) - SSD 500GB + WD Black FZEX 1TB 6Gb/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me in a 90 degrees climb from 400 kts, the Hornet does not outclimb the F-15, but it is very close

400 kts, around 5 G (initial) pull to vertical

F-14B tracks are broken for me, but it achieved around 28000  feet 

F-15C 35250 feet

F-18   33860 feet

Obviously this test is not meant to be something accurate, it's more like just messing around 🙂

 

F-15_400kts_climb.trk F-18_400kts_climb.trk

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like anecdotes.  Find me an sme who did acceleration tests in dcs … and reports a bug…  There is a great scripted mission by bushmanni to do so in dcs.  

According sources, the f18c (lot19) sep at 10kft is 695ft/s at m 0.9 (33325lbs, 2a9+2a120). In game, I get 668ft/s . ED is doing a great job and is getting closer and closer. 👍🏻

If you are looking for a challenge, do a climb & acceleration test and compare the results to rw figures.the hornet lot 20 should climb and accelerate from brake release to 49’000ft and mach 1.4 (2a9, 2a120, 100 % fuel, standard atm.) , in 4 minutes and 9 seconds…. 

So far it I takes 4’06”. 👍🏻👍🏻. What do you get?

As for air quake: you need to know that the  f16 (and mig 29) starts a 1vs1 fight with much more % internal fuel than the f18 because they burn internal fuel much faster on burner. That doesn’t really help…

23036227-707C-4168-80F7-44D2ABB6EAC3.jpeg


Edited by Figaro9
Added pic
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how most of the people in this thread just say "You don't really know...  But I do..."

Aside from the ones that offer evidence of course...  And I only see evidence on one side of the argument.

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Figaro9 said:

I like anecdotes.  Find me an sme who did acceleration tests in dcs … and reports a bug…  There is a great scripted mission by bushmanni to do so in dcs.  

According sources, the f18c (lot19) sep at 10kft is 695ft/s at m 0.9 (33325lbs, 2a9+2a120). In game, I get 668ft/s . ED is doing a great job and is getting closer and closer. 👍🏻

If you are looking for a challenge, do a climb & acceleration test and compare the results to rw figures.the hornet lot 20 should climb and accelerate from brake release to 49’000ft and mach 1.4 (2a9, 2a120, 100 % fuel, standard atm.) , in 4 minutes and 9 seconds…. 

So far it I takes 4’06”. 👍🏻👍🏻. What do you get?

As for air quake: you need to know that the  f16 (and mig 29) starts a 1vs1 fight with much more % internal fuel than the f18 because they burn internal fuel much faster on burner. That doesn’t really help…

23036227-707C-4168-80F7-44D2ABB6EAC3.jpeg

 

I think, that 1G acceleration is not the problem here. (I also got something like 4:15 for that test, while the F-16 can do it in around 3:10 for example)

If there is something wrong, that must be acceleration under G load imo.

I've made some tacview records earlier with a 5G turn for both Hornet and Viper to measure speed gain under that G load.

some data: (22k clean F-16, F-18 same config)

350 - 400 under 5Gs:

F-16: 3,4 seconds 

F-18: 3,9 seconds

So F-16 has very little edge here under some circumstances, and I think, the reason for that might be, that the Hornet's CL-alpha slope might be very steep.

There was a thread about this earlier:

 

In summary:

There is quite good HUD footage, that shows G and AoA values.

F-18turn real1.jpg

F-18turn.jpg

While this is of course not 100% because exact weight info is not present, you can see that there is a max G = 7,3 indication, giving us a hint. I tested this back then with close to max weight where 7,3G is allowed. (must be below 34000 lbs)

So, as you can see: 

In DCS  AoA - 20,4 -> 5,3 G

IRL        AoA - 22,4 -> 4,6 G

Later I matched the exact 22,4 AoA shown in the vid: ---> that gives 5,5 Gs versus the 4,6 in the HUD tape

f-18 22_4deg.jpg

This could easily cause both the higher STR (exceeding the GAO doc value), and the sense of better than expected acceleration in a turn, due to lower AoA and therefor drag.

 

F-16recovery_320_450_DCS.zip F-18_320_450-DCS.zip


Edited by HWasp
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me in a SL acceleration test from 300kts to 500kts

F-16 : 7,6 seconds

F-18 : 9,8 seconds

So, in a straight line F-16 has a almost 30% advantage here, as expected, so nothing crazy from the Hornet

 

On the other hand, I did a speed recovery test:

Start speed = best rate speed -100 kts , end speed = best rate speed,   (Hornet 260-360, F-16 350-450)

Timed the circle from and to HDG 000

Times are almost equal, so the Hornet can keep up with the F-16 easily in this case, it appears the F-16 does not gain advantage here from it's superior straight line acceleration

 

I would be very interested to see, how these things would change, if the DCS Hornet would get closer to the G/AoA shown on the HUD tape video.

F-16_speedrecov350_450.trk F-18_speedrecov260_360.trk


Edited by HWasp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bkthunder

When you perform those tests with the eagle, do you fly with wing pylons attached?  I'm asking because they slow down the aircraft quite a bit.

Sure, eagle is 5000lbs heavier (empty weight), but it also has 33% higher thrust, which is enough to still give it a higher T/W ratio at the end of the day. 
Unless there are aerodynamic penalties affecting the eagle way more, it should beat the hornet in terms of acceleration and climb rate.

Anyway, I do fly both jets almost every week and I already know that the eagle is way faster in terms of top speed... I seem to recall that it's also faster in terms of acceleration, but I'm not prepared to bet on it, since my recollections aren't as reliable as tests. 

I'll run pylonless eagle vs pylonless hornet tests and see what kind of numbers I get.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much ado about very little I see. Remember that real jets might vary from each other more than our sim does from these sources.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/46529/en&ved=2ahUKEwjQ9IaNjOj0AhUMJ8AKHWn-Ae0QFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3pP3pkasfsPDTHHtLxdzGC

See here the EASA standards for actual flight Sims accuracy. +- 10-20% is pretty standard

  • Like 1

476th Discord   |    476th Website    |    Swift Youtube
Ryzen 5800x, RTX 4070ti, 64GB, Quest 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2021 at 11:35 PM, Swiftwin9s said:

No one tell them that the Hornet in DCS is actually too powerful

 

6 hours ago, Swiftwin9s said:

Much ado about very little I see. Remember that real jets might vary from each other more than our sim does from these sources.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/46529/en&ved=2ahUKEwjQ9IaNjOj0AhUMJ8AKHWn-Ae0QFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3pP3pkasfsPDTHHtLxdzGC

See here the EASA standards for actual flight Sims accuracy. +- 10-20% is pretty standard

I'm a little bit confused now....

First you say, that it's overperforming in your opinion, then, after someone actually does some work trying to prove that, and get it fixed, then it's "much ado for very little", let's just leave it like that. lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Just a note to this thread that the Hornet acceleration is just about spot on. It's actually just slightly slow in my test against the IRL acceleration data. I can't remember off the top of my head what doc it's from.

Mobius708
 

I think you are right. 

Having more G/AoA than it should could easily cause both the higher STR and the better than expected acceleration under G load while the straight line acceleration is exactly matching the data.

What can also be seen on the HUD tape vids in the linked thread, is that when they do a quite agressive high AoA (up to 30 degrees) pull, the speed loss is less drastic than in DCS.

My theory is, that if in DCS, the Hornet would have a less steep lift curve to match the G/AoA in the vid, that would also cause lift induced drag to be less, meaning overall worse STR but also speed loss would be less drastic pulling high AoA, so it would give more nose authority I think.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, M1Combat said:

What were the baro conditions for that vid?

Indeed. And which engines in that CF-18? And how much was he pulling on the stick? And how much fuel was left? / how much did he weigh at the moment? I was rightfully roasted once on these forums for trying to make a FM point based upon that video. I'm afraid one just doesn't have enough context to do a whole lot with that video. So, in conclusion: ED has gotten SUPER close to the real deal... perhaps as close as possible given the inherent constraints of building the most brilliant, comprehensive, and available-to-the-armchair-hobbyist air combat simulation in history... bar none. 👍   (Yes, I'm looking at you, M.I.S. NOR Platform. 😉)


Edited by wilbur81
  • Like 2

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2021 at 11:07 PM, Hardcard said:

@bkthunder

When you perform those tests with the eagle, do you fly with wing pylons attached?  I'm asking because they slow down the aircraft quite a bit.

Sure, eagle is 5000lbs heavier (empty weight), but it also has 33% higher thrust, which is enough to still give it a higher T/W ratio at the end of the day. 
Unless there are aerodynamic penalties affecting the eagle way more, it should beat the hornet in terms of acceleration and climb rate.

Anyway, I do fly both jets almost every week and I already know that the eagle is way faster in terms of top speed... I seem to recall that it's also faster in terms of acceleration, but I'm not prepared to bet on it, since my recollections aren't as reliable as tests. 

I'll run pylonless eagle vs pylonless hornet tests and see what kind of numbers I get.

 

 

There's no way to remove the Pylons from the F-15, is there?

Anyways those tests were precisely aimed at veryifying the T/W ratio, so the climb started at very low speed to avoid havign to account for drag too much. You can read the thread, it's pretty interesting. 

Windows 10 - Intel i7 7700K 4.2 Ghz (no OC) - Asus Strix GTX 1080 8Gb - 16GB DDR4 (3000 MHz) - SSD 500GB + WD Black FZEX 1TB 6Gb/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, M1Combat said:

What were the baro conditions for that vid?

Very good question! They are flying in Canada not in Iraq, so I would gess, it is not extremely hot. How much ISA deviation would be required to have a difference of around 19% in your opinion? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...