no F-18 boring?

[JesterIsDead]

Play the Raven campaigns. You really get to know the Hornet and you will be sweating all the missions and some case III's. There are also some extraordinary events you have to perform in the Hornet. I felt the same way you did until the campaigns really stretched what you can do with the Hornet. Trust me, the first case III on a dark and stormy night makes you appreciate a boring jet!

[BuzzU]

The Hornet can do it all. If you find it boring it's because you aren't doing it all.

[Raisuli]

On 12/14/2023 at 9:55 AM, Braunn said:

Hornet is just a lower powered aoa beast with long legs.

 

 

That cracked me up.  In my day, which was the first deployment of the F-18A, the running joke was it had just enough gas to get from one end of the boat to the other.  Then again, we compared it to the F-14.  With ferry tanks.  When I 'cruise the strip' at NTTR, which means mach 1.3 in the viper and 1.15 in the hornet, the hornet get at least three laps before it's time to find a gas station, where the viper is almost lucky to get two, so compared to the F-16 it really does have long legs!

The viper can take off (barely) with 10 CBU-97s and 4 AAMs.  The hornet can't even carry the -97, which is a shame, but it will take off with 8 -154As and 4 AAMs.  There are things the viper carries that I wish the hornet had available, but overall I really do like the hornet's hauling capacity.

I boils down to whether you prefer to spend your time on trim and engine management or pushing buttons on the computer.  I kinda like all of the above; some days I want to trim and watch those needles, some days I want to push buttons and make things go boom twenty miles away.  Some days I take a steam-guage Cessna and fly ninety knots, other days I take the same route at five hundred.

But there is something special about 800 knot overhead breaks. 

[maxTRX]

5 hours ago, Raisuli said:

...But there is something special about 800 knot overhead breaks. 

... followed by 7G turn all the way till in-close (ok, 6 or 5G will do).  3 green just before the ramp. (Paddles jumping into the net.. still holding the pickle)

[Exorcet]

5 hours ago, Raisuli said:

That cracked me up.  In my day, which was the first deployment of the F-18A, the running joke was it had just enough gas to get from one end of the boat to the other.  Then again, we compared it to the F-14.  With ferry tanks.  When I 'cruise the strip' at NTTR, which means mach 1.3 in the viper and 1.15 in the hornet, the hornet get at least three laps before it's time to find a gas station, where the viper is almost lucky to get two, so compared to the F-16 it really does have long legs!

The F-16 has the better range, the Hornet is a bit fuel hungry. If you're flying at different speeds that's really going to throw off results because flying faster means higher fuel flow. The F-16 uses much less fuel and has a slightly higher cruise speed, so it will get more distance when it's not heavily loaded. On the other hand:
 

Quote

 

The viper can take off (barely) with 10 CBU-97s and 4 AAMs.  The hornet can't even carry the -97, which is a shame, but it will take off with 8 -154As and 4 AAMs.  There are things the viper carries that I wish the hornet had available, but overall I really do like the hornet's hauling capacity.

 

Since the Hornet can carry more, things swap around when the planes are heavy.

[Braunn]

19 hours ago, Exorcet said:

The F-16 has the better range, the Hornet is a bit fuel hungry. If you're flying at different speeds that's really going to throw off results because flying faster means higher fuel flow. The F-16 uses much less fuel and has a slightly higher cruise speed, so it will get more distance when it's not heavily loaded. On the other hand:
 

Since the Hornet can carry more, things swap around when the planes are heavy.

Doesn't really swap around though. I have yet to experience the Hornet in any scenario where it doesn't have longer range than the Viper. And I fly both regularly while in the Viper I always stay out of burner unless super necessary. Most cases, even with two bags, couple of mavs and Jdams, unless runway is short, I don't even use burner on take off in the Viper. In the Hornet you kinda have to with weapons loaded up. Clean neither needs burner on take off in this game. 

Try a clean Hornet and a clean Viper, stay out of burner on both and check for yourself. 

[Exorcet]

29 minutes ago, Braunn said:

Doesn't really swap around though. I have yet to experience the Hornet in any scenario where it doesn't have longer range than the Viper. And I fly both regularly while in the Viper I always stay out of burner unless super necessary. Most cases, even with two bags, couple of mavs and Jdams, unless runway is short, I don't even use burner on take off in the Viper. In the Hornet you kinda have to with weapons loaded up. Clean neither needs burner on take off in this game. 

Try a clean Hornet and a clean Viper, stay out of burner on both and check for yourself. 

I've done the test a few times, though not recently. Clean the Viper is a couple hundred miles ahead in my experience. With AAM's that shrinks a bit, but then the gap widens with fuel tanks.

AG loadouts is where the Hornet's advantage lies as the F-16 struggles to climb to really efficient altitudes with bombs or AGM's unless it's the bare minimum.

Here are some screens from one of my tests, might be a little hard to read, but it's a SEAD loadout. 4x HARM on the top row, then 2x HARM and 2x Fuel on the bottom. Max AAM payload taken as well. Jammer on the F-16 since the Hornet has one internal. Fuel is adjusted for plane weight, which is why the F-16 has a lower bingo than F-18.

The F-18 gets 690 miles vs 564 from the F-16 with missiles only.

With tanks the F-18 reaches 1036 vs 1011 F-16. In this case the Hornet did go further, but this is a border line payload.

I used to repeat these with FM updates, but as I said before, I haven't redone the test in a while. If things have changed recently, it would be good to know.

Edited January 23, 2024 by Exorcet

[Braunn]

15 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I've done the test a few times, though not recently. Clean the Viper is a couple hundred miles ahead in my experience. With AAM's that shrinks a bit, but then the gap widens with fuel tanks.

AG loadouts is where the Hornet's advantage lies as the F-16 struggles to climb to really efficient altitudes with bombs or AGM's unless it's the bare minimum.

Here are some screens from one of my tests, might be a little hard to read, but it's a SEAD loadout. 4x HARM on the top row, then 2x HARM and 2x Fuel on the bottom. Max AAM payload taken as well. Jammer on the F-16 since the Hornet has one internal. Fuel is adjusted for plane weight, which is why the F-16 has a lower bingo than F-18.

The F-18 gets 690 miles vs 564 from the F-16 with missiles only.

With tanks the F-18 reaches 1036 vs 1011 F-16. In this case the Hornet did go further, but this is a border line payload.

I used to repeat these with FM updates, but as I said before, I haven't redone the test in a while. If things have changed recently, it would be good to know.

 

No fuel adjusting, no overthinking it. Plane for plane testing. Full tank. Apples apples. 

Ferry range is not what most people do so the most realistic way of doing it is fly a mission. 10/10 times I can stay active in the AO longer in the Hornet than in a Viper before starting to look for a tanker. That said, I've also done a few tests comparing them both just taking off and cruise and the Hornet range is at least 50 miles more no matter what I do. 

[nachinus]

I don't know about boring, but in my limited experience with DCS jets, I got less engaged with the F/A-18 than I was with the previous module I got, the M2000.

The Mirage is beautiful and its vintage cockpit and instruments were more inspiring for me than the powerful and very effective screen+buttons interface of the F/A-18. But I think the main reason I didn't enjoy the Hornet so much is because I didn't find the appropiate campaigns for my (lacking) skills. The stock one is ok-ish but brief and although there are many user-made ones, I tried some and tend to be in the hard side for me. The Mirage has less ones available (both user-made and official), but with a friendly learning curve. I didn't try Raven One Campaign for F/A-18 because it needs the Supercarrier module, but I did enjoy quite a lot Baltic Dragon's campaign for the Mirage.

If any of you has some suggestions for good F/A-18 campaigns or mission sets appropiate for not-so-good virtual pilots I am all ears.

[BuzzU]

I've read more than once that the Hornet is the most complex plane in DCS. How can the most complex plane be boring?

[Exorcet]

4 hours ago, Braunn said:

No fuel adjusting, no overthinking it. Plane for plane testing. Full tank. Apples apples. 

Ferry range is not what most people do so the most realistic way of doing it is fly a mission. 10/10 times I can stay active in the AO longer in the Hornet than in a Viper before starting to look for a tanker. That said, I've also done a few tests comparing them both just taking off and cruise and the Hornet range is at least 50 miles more no matter what I do. 

Adjusting fuel is an apples to apples comparison. You can't use raw fuel amount, the planes are different. Cruise range also isn't just for ferrying, unless you're immediately taking off and going into combat. How far you can cruise is going to determine how far away you can fight.

I haven't done as many combat comparisons on fuel use, but I've found situations where the F-16 comes ahead. It was able to get up to combat speed and altitude faster and then use mil power to conserve fuel while maintaining most of its speed. The Hornet needed AB the entire time to keep up which burned through the fuel. Again it's going to be mission dependent. Heavily loaded the F-18 will pull ahead.

[Czar66]

4 hours ago, Braunn said:

No fuel adjusting, no overthinking it. Plane for plane testing. Full tank. Apples apples. 

Ferry range is not what most people do so the most realistic way of doing it is fly a mission. 10/10 times I can stay active in the AO longer in the Hornet than in a Viper before starting to look for a tanker. That said, I've also done a few tests comparing them both just taking off and cruise and the Hornet range is at least 50 miles more no matter what I do. 

Same here. Started playing the Viper late last December. From the get go, I had fuel management issues while having a ton of flight time in the hornet. I got better at it on the Viper but for sure I have to be more careful on the Viper with a CAS loadout than with a similar loadout on the Hornet.

 

12 minutes ago, BuzzU said:

I've read more than once that the Hornet is the most complex plane in DCS. How can the most complex plane be boring?

I guess the A-10C is more complex than the Hornet.

[Ramius007]

If someone is finding F-18 boring, then they have to join pvp servers with pl-12 armed J-11's or have to face Flankers, Fulcrums and Mirages in gulf war setup in stripped to A variant Hornet, change of perspective from hunter to prey should be interesting itself

Edited January 24, 2024 by Ramius007

[BIGNEWY]

45 minutes ago, BuzzU said:

How can the most complex plane be boring?

it is personal opinion, aircraft bias, and many other reasons, I wouldn't waste to much time pondering it

[Exorcet]

15 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

Same here. Started playing the Viper late last December. From the get go, I had fuel management issues while having a ton of flight time in the hornet. I got better at it on the Viper but for sure I have to be more careful on the Viper with a CAS loadout than with a similar loadout on the Hornet.

CAS is one role where the Hornet will likely come out ahead in terms of fuel. Especially if CBU's are involved. They're bricks, and the F-16 being a tiny plane feel bit of the added drag index, not to mention weight. I'll also mention that I really have no idea why the Air Force shuns 1000 lb bombs. They're a really nice middle ground between 500's and 2000's. I love carrying them on the F-18.

  

15 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

I guess the A-10C is more complex than the Hornet.

I'd say the same.

[BuzzU]

29 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

 

I'd say the same.

Explain why you feel that way? The Hog does A/G. The Hornet does so much more. Even landing on the boat is so much more complex than landing the Hog on an airfield, which has to be one of the easiest planes to land in DCS.

Edited January 24, 2024 by BuzzU

[Czar66]

19 minutes ago, BuzzU said:

Explain why you feel that way? The Hog does A/G. The Hornet does so much more. Even landing on the boat is so much more complex than landing the Hog on an airfield, which has to be one of the easiest planes to land in DCS.

 

Got the Hog on early access, early enough to get Nevada with it.
Got the Hornet in 2018 and had a blast with it since then till today.

Warthog has more things going on like: SPI management, SPI broadcasting, More functions on its HMD, more extensive counter measure configuration and deployment, AIM-9 sub modes, CDU management (intimidating in the begining but intuitive later on), 1 more radio, ARC-210 radio, store hang, laser guided rockets.

Granted, the Hornet has stuff A-10 doesn't by being also a fighter jet...but my guess is on the Warthog being heavier on 'stuff to do'.

I adore both.

[BuzzU]

7 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

Got the Hog on early access, early enough to get Nevada with it.
Got the Hornet in 2018 and had a blast with it since then till today.

Warthog has more things going on like: SPI management, SPI broadcasting, More functions on its HMD, more extensive counter measure configuration and deployment, AIM-9 sub modes, CDU management (intimidating in the begining but intuitive later on), 1 more radio, ARC-210 radio, store hang, laser guided rockets.

Granted, the Hornet has stuff A-10 doesn't by being also a fighter jet...but my guess is on the Warthog being heavier on 'stuff to do'.

I adore both.

I had to go look to see how we compare. I got the Hog in 2017 and the Hornet in 2018. So, we both have had them awhile.

It's true the Hog can get you scratching your head, and the Hornet can too. It's not really important which one needs the most scratching. They're both complex.

I never thought of them as boring and had to say something but i'll let it go. We're all individuals and boredom affects us all different.

[Exorcet]

59 minutes ago, BuzzU said:

Explain why you feel that way? The Hog does A/G. The Hornet does so much more. Even landing on the boat is so much more complex than landing the Hog on an airfield, which has to be one of the easiest planes to land in DCS.

 

More to learn if you want to do everything the A-10 can offer.  It might be AG only, but AG is typically more workload than AA. Militaries don't want pilots to be fighting their controls while also trying to dogfight. Carrier landings are harder than airfield, but an airfield landing doesn't have to be easy. Weather, visibility, airfield condition, etc. When it comes to the A-10 specifically, it can't thrust its way out of problems  like multirole fighters can.

[maxTRX]

Hog A/G only?  nah...  When our online 'bunch' got bored, we used Hogs against Frog(feet?:)) in intense heater exchanges, then we switched sides... fun!

[Chaffee]

Recently getting back into flight sims with DCS. I've flown a lot of them, going all the way back to the '70s (yes, the '70s. There were computers. We had one).

I love the F/A-18C, particularly (re)-learning 1-circle BFM...

or just throwing it into a 50-degree alpha, 40-knot cobra to impress my 9-y-o (who is the world's biggest Tomcat fan)...

and the reliable, fast-spooling engines...

and the strike capabilities...

and the SA...

and I'm not going to knock other aircraft because I like this one. The F/A-18 just happens to be one that I like.

[BuzzU]

On 1/24/2024 at 7:36 AM, BIGNEWY said:

it is personal opinion, aircraft bias, and many other reasons, I wouldn't waste to much time pondering it

You're right. I've moved on from this thread.

[Slippa]

14 hours ago, Chaffee said:

Recently getting back into flight sims with DCS. I've flown a lot of them, going all the way back to the '70s (yes, the '70s. There were computers. We had one).

Welcome .

”70s”? I don’t remember any home computers being around, we were still pretty impressed by digital watches. When did we get ‘Pong’?

[Cab]

1 hour ago, Slippa said:

Welcome .

”70s”? I don’t remember any home computers being around, we were still pretty impressed by digital watches. When did we get ‘Pong’?

Sometime in the ‘70’s ‘(I didn’t care enough to google it either)

[Braunn]

On 1/24/2024 at 3:05 PM, Exorcet said:

Adjusting fuel is an apples to apples comparison. You can't use raw fuel amount, the planes are different. Cruise range also isn't just for ferrying, unless you're immediately taking off and going into combat. How far you can cruise is going to determine how far away you can fight.

I haven't done as many combat comparisons on fuel use, but I've found situations where the F-16 comes ahead. It was able to get up to combat speed and altitude faster and then use mil power to conserve fuel while maintaining most of its speed. The Hornet needed AB the entire time to keep up which burned through the fuel. Again it's going to be mission dependent. Heavily loaded the F-18 will pull ahead.

If you're adjusting fuel load for weight before testing you're basically moving the yard stick around, and it will create a different result. I get that you probably like the Vipers very much, I do too, but there's no way around the fact that they are thirsty AF when operating in a combat scenario. They do have range in perfect conditions like good AOA (6deg), light load and 90 percent throttle, but I don't like to compare fighters to airliners. 

Edited January 29, 2024 by Braunn