More than 4 agm-65?

[Bl00dWolf]

Hello!

 

Why can't fa 18 carry more than 1 maverick per pylon?

F16 can carry up to 3 mavericks per 1 pylon. (IRL, block 50/52)

Thrust-to-weight ratio on fa18 better than f16.

 

Will this be fixed in the future?

Edited December 30, 2019 by Bl00dWolf

[FoxTwo]

The F/A-18 cannot mount the LAU-88, and the LAU-88 isn't compatible with the G Mavericks.

 

 

Realistically the block 50 F-16 shouldn't be mounting the LAU-88 either but it did at one point so at least there's precedent for it.

[Ramsay]

Why can't fa 18 carry more than 1 maverick per pylon?

 

The Hornet uses AGM-65 E and F that weigh approx. 650 lbs, due to their weight/drag they are mounted on separate pylons.

 

F16 can carry up to 3 mavericks per 1 pylon. (IRL, block 50/52)

Only early versions of the F-16 carried the LAU-88 triple rail launcher. It is/was used with smaller mavericks AGM-65 A/B/D/H that weigh ~470 lbs and have less drag.

 

AFAIK LAU-88 triple rail launchers where not used on F-16C block 50/52 and when used on the earlier versions, the inner rails were used to transship stores and not on tactical missions.

 

The rocket motor close out seal shoots out the back of the maverick when launched, the trajectory sent it into the stabs when the inboard missile was fired.

 

Thrust-to-weight ratio on fa18 bettor than f16.

 

Irrelevant to what can and cannot be loaded - AFAIK the F-16C has better thrust-to-weight.

 

TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE

 

In my opinion, the Viper's biggest strength is its brute force: it has lots of horsepower. The biggest kick in the pants-next to a catapult shot off an aircraft carrier-is the kick from stroking full afterburner in a General Electric-powered, bigmouth Viper on a cold winter morning. With a greater than 1.2:1 thrust-to-weight ratio at takeoff gross weight, it takes all of 1,200 feet to get airborne at 160 knots, and the jet can be supersonic just two miles later, if it's left in burner. The acceleration is unbelievable! If there weren't a 7G restriction on a fueled centerline tank, I would easily have 9G available to pull straight into the vertical and accelerate on the way up. Of course, I've done the "quick climb" to 15,000 feet, and after level-off, I still have 350 knots. The Viper can out-accelerate most anything in the air, including the Hornet.

 

To accurately compare the Hornet's performance to the Viper's, I took off from the same runway. The Hornet needed 200 feet more than the Viper to get airborne at about the same speed, and at the end of the runway it had only 330 knots versus the Viper's 500-plus. The best climb angle that I could get out of the Hornet before airspeed started to decay was 45 degrees, and I leveled off with 200 knots; the Viper's climb took one minute less. The Hornet's lack of thrust seems to be where all the critics linger, and that's valid-to a point. When a pilot flies into battle, lots of thrust is nice to have and is definitely fun to have, but it isn't necessarily a must-have-depending on the aircraft's other attributes. Like the Viper, the Hornet has different engine versions in inventory, but even with two "big motors", the GE-404-402 has 18,000 pounds of maximum thrust each, and in a drag race, the Hornet would be no match for the Viper.

 

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1020035#p13478769

 

Will this be fixed in the future?

No, there is nothing to fix.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Ramsay

[Bl00dWolf]

FoxTwo, Ramsay ok, thx you for answers!