Hornet fans, Why do you prefer the Hornet more than the Viper beside it being a more complete module?

[Strider1_Trigger]

I started a thread about a F-16C vs. F/A-18C a few days ago, You can find the thread here: 

It seems like more people prefer the Hornet. I have flown both of these aircraft but I favour the Viper slight due to its better performance and its system is easier to manage. Also, I feel that the Viper is more satisfying when landing. I'm curious, what make you favour the Hornet more beside it being a more complete module?

Edited June 24, 2021 by Strider1_Trigger

[Stearmandriver]

Can't land the viper on a boat.  That's pretty much all the reason I need. 

[Fusedspine33]

Boat ops


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skysurfer]

The current Viper isn't really a Viper. Maybe I'll like it more once it's out of EA.

[ruddy122]

Carrier Ops and once you figure out the weapons and avionics more flexible in terms of number of weapons available to you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cajundave]

Granted I haven't spent as much time learning the Viper yet, but I find the Hornet HOTAS and avionics more intuitive than the Viper's.  

[Flia]

What i like most on Hornet :

 

* Well designed cockpit

* Very good hud compared to F-16 little one

* Much better hotas comands and overall comand logic 

* Very easy Air refueling. I like to look when i puting tanker basket to my Refueling Probe

* Overall feel from Hornets  Flybywire system. I feel much more stability and control of the aircraft than in the F-16.

* His multirole capatibility to do really everything you want 

* Carrier operations 

 

I always like F-16 more. I fly a lot Falcon 4.0 and and I was convinced that the Viper was the best plane there could be. Until ED made Hornet, which I fell in love with. And over time learned what else it could do compared to the F-16. A true multi-role machine.

 

Edited June 23, 2021 by Flia

[Ercoupe]

Are you guys saying that the F-18 is easier (comparatively) to get into than the F-16?. I've been using the Viper for a few day, now. I grabbed it for the two week trial. I found that I was able to understand the systems quicker than either the A-10C or the Harrier. I've had the Harrier for a couple of years and I STILL don't know how to use that airplane. I've gotten fairly decent in the A-10, but it took  a while. 

But after a quick look at the training missions, I was  able to start the F-16's engine, take off, engage enemy jets, and drop bombs. Haven't tried Mavericks, yet. 

Well, once the trial is over, maybe I'll check out the F-18. Haven't done much carrier ops but it could be fun. 

[ruddy122]

No both modules are good but have different philosophies

Once you know how to effectively use the weapon it’s a lot of fun

Lot of patience learning the avionics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Donut]

Naval Aviation

 

FBW on the Hornet seems easier for me to fly with than the Viper

 

I don't have a FFB stick

 

Much easier to refuel

 

Internal ECM

 

The subsonic performance of the Hornet is not that far behind the Viper's...comparing Lot 20 with upgraded -402 engine and a Block 50.  Especially when the two FMs are nailed down.  For the Hornet, acceleration and drag seem to be a bit off (slow) still. 
 

Prefer higher AOA capability

[markturner1960]

Carrier ops

[Saruman]

Carrier Ops and the fact I had been flying Viper on another sim for a looooong time, so Hornet is a fresh breeze to me.

[Dunx]

Carrier ops, basket, better displays, cup holders.

[Harker]

For me, it's the much more sophisticated avionics in general and MSI in particular (especially after missing features are implemented). The amount of situational awareness, sensor integration and target management that the Hornet can offer cannot be matched by the Viper. That's the biggest one.

Third display, allowing you to have two sensor pages and still have the HSI/SA pulled up.

Both aircraft have good HOTAS schemes, but I like the extra automation of the Hornet (ranked target stepping, quickly pulling up the RDR ATTK, AZ/EL, HSI/SA etc) and the ability to select options with the TDC.

Easier to navigate menus. In the Viper, you only have 6 pages available and you need to replace an existing one, if you want to view another one. In the Hornet, you can view all pages easily and quickly switch to the important ones.

Two MIDS radios for a total of 4 radios.

Higher flexibility in loadouts.

Carrier ops. There's something very satisfying about doing an OK landing after a long mission and proper carrier ops add an extra element on top of everything else.

[WOPR]

2 words:  Unlimited Alpha.

[wilbur81]

1. Low speed, high-alpha handling.

2. Carrier Ops.

3. Slightly more interesting ordinance variety.

4. Large cockpit displays with lots of good data.

5. and the low speed, high-alpha handling.

 

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by wilbur81

[M4ND4L0R3]

Im gonna go completely off the pace and say that even though i have loved the idea of fighter jets since i was 3, and played every AC game there is ( cmon I was young etc ), I just have never enjoyed the asthetics of the aircraft.

For me it just doesnt have the " presence " of the hornet, tomcat, or even the flanker. Its always been kind of like a " meh, ok, because i have to I will use it " plane for me.

[Bunny Clark]

I enjoy both pretty equally, I don't think I could pick a favorite of the two. That said, the things that I like about the Hornet over the Viper is:

 

• Carrier Ops
• Third display. 
• Color moving map, and overall I prefer the navigation systems. 
• Less crowded and easier to read HUD.
• I like the way it flies better, and it is less effected by stores. 
• I prefer the UFC, I think it's easier to work with than the separate key panel and display in the Viper, and it's better integrated with the aircraft's systems. 

[notproplayer3]

Firstly, personal preference, my country's airforce flies fa18's and I just find the fa18 to be cooler looking, bigger, more rugged and more of a workhorse than the viper. 

 

Other than that, in missions, I prefer the payload options on the hornet more than on the viper.

 

The fact that the hornet is a bigger, dual engine plane with much more fuel is quite nice for what I like to do. 

 

Hornet low speed stability and handling is amazing when compared to the wobbling tendency of the f16 when landing for example, plus the the high alpha is simply great for most dogfights from my experience. 

 

Usability of the weapon related systems may be part subjective part objective, but I simply like operating the hornet more in combat, I do like things in the f16 more such as the radar but overall the hornet wins by a bit (third mfd, better stores page, better hsi/sa page, all my opinion of course).

 

I know this is because it's wip for the viper but for A/G, with a targeting pod especially, the jhmcs on the hornet is a godsend, I literraly can't live without it at this point. The fact that it shows the target point in so helpful for general orientation to the target and the fact that you can at any point designate behind your shoulder if you needed it, a target you just spoted, then use your targeting pod from here is next level workflow in my mind. It is still quite far from the level of precision and usability of the a10c II but still amazing for A/G. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shimmergloom667]

Carrier ops, avionics, more efficient multirole and it just looks so, so much better.

[BarTzi]

Because Hornet didn't skip leg day.

[idenwen]

Pro F18:
Additional weapon station on centerline

Longer legs

Can take/tank more vertical speed on landings

Carrier ops

Way more SA and information available (May change when dev of f16 takes speed)

 

Pro F16:

Agility

Visibillity

Better Pilot-Plane interface

Power

 

[Skysurfer]

13 hours ago, Ercoupe said:

Are you guys saying that the F-18 is easier (comparatively) to get into than the F-16?. I've been using the Viper for a few day, now. I grabbed it for the two week trial. I found that I was able to understand the systems quicker than either the A-10C or the Harrier. I've had the Harrier for a couple of years and I STILL don't know how to use that airplane. I've gotten fairly decent in the A-10, but it took  a while. 

But after a quick look at the training missions, I was  able to start the F-16's engine, take off, engage enemy jets, and drop bombs. Haven't tried Mavericks, yet. 

Well, once the trial is over, maybe I'll check out the F-18. Haven't done much carrier ops but it could be fun. 

 

The Viper is fairly easy to learn and understand as well once you bind the HOTAS properly but it's also partly due to the fact that it's really raw and lacks a ton of functionality as of right now - can't really compare it to the A-10 in that regard.

[Donut]

Historically, it seems the F-16 has been much more popular...has it's own fan website (F-16.net), the Falcon 3.0 and 4.0, BMS sims, Iron Eagle movies, etc. It is also a widely used aircraft in many of the world's air forces.  
 

However, I think the Hornet is severely underrated.  It unfortunately lived in the shadow of the Tomcat, didn't have a blockbuster movie about it (could change with Top Gun 2...even if SH), and it's performance is given a bad rap as well...I think due to a lot of people or sources using older models before the engine upgrade and/or valuing supersonic capability and top end speed more.

 

I think DCS is really making people see the Hornet for what it truly is...a remarkably capable high performance aircraft that can stand up to the best fighters in the world.  ED seems to be giving it the attention and respect it has deserved.

[ruddy122]

True the Hornet is underrated

The USN liked it so much they developed the Super Hornet and the Growler

All that from the legacy Hornet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk