F-18 Hornet GAO charts (validity?)

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 510
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post07 Jun 2018, 16:48

Quick question here. If you look at the GAO Hornet chart for 15,000 ft with an Air to Air load of 2 Aim-9, 2 Aim-120, 3 EFTs, and 60% internal fuel. And compare it (the F/A-18C numbers only) to a similarly equipped Block 50 F-16C (gun ammo, 2 Aim-120, 2 Aim-9, 300 gallon EFT, (2) 370 gallon EFT, and 60% internal fuel); and running the numbers I came out with a total weight of 26,771.2lbs or 26,741.2lbs (depending on the station 2 and 8 pylon + adapter being used ((LAU-129A + 16s301 vs Aim-9 launcher + 16s301))) and a drag index of approx 101. I used the Block 50 26,000ft, 100DI chart for 10K and 20K and averaged the turn numbers (also adjusted turn numbers for being about 750lbs heavier). Hence, it seems like the F-18C and the F-16 B50 have similar numbers even in the slow speed regime (.6M and under).

So my question is.... how is this possible since the Hornet, particularly under 300knots, is supposed to be without match? Which I believe it is-

I am questioning turn rates and radius, not total available AOA.

Also, that GAO Hornet chart has max structural limit curve of 7.5G (approx)? A RAAF Hornet pilot said it was limited at 7.8G (they operate the F-18A, not the Charlie model).

Even at the Hornet's (F-18C) max lift vs B-50 AOA limter, it doesn't seem that the difference is all that large (according to the charts in question). If this is so, what are the reasons (maybe the F404-402's weaken with altitude vs F110, or Hornet trim drag vs F-16 RSS)?


Here is the GAO chart:
Is it valid?
Attachments
F-18C  F-18E graph.jpeg
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3638
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post07 Jun 2018, 17:58

You stated 60% internal fuel. The Hornet chart is 60% INITIAL fuel. You need to increase the weight of the F-16 by another 4,250lb.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 510
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post07 Jun 2018, 18:36

7116lbs + 7072lbs = 14,188lbs *60%= 8512.8lbs

Sorry about that, my mistake-

Thanks Spurts :D



And me not looking acutely (Initial vs Internal) is the reason why I could never pass 20/20 and the depth perception examination :doh:
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3638
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post07 Jun 2018, 20:02

So what happens?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 510
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post07 Jun 2018, 20:42

Well, it seems that the 3 EFT's (probably the 2 370's mostly) adversely effect the B-50's performance (large payloads hurt the performance of a smaller jet vs a bigger jet; granted the Hornet is not that much larger. Though larger none the less-)

With the tanks on both jets, the Hornet has the advantage at the lower and even in the middle. Not to mention that the B-50 gained substantial weight.


*B-50 needs to jettison the tanks asap.

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests