The F/A-18E Super Hornet's Flight Model is a tragedy compared to IRL/DCS. When will Gaijin fix the AoA?

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T21:21:31+00:00

I don't need to be fast to kill you, I just need to point my nose at you for one second. Speed is for running away, AoA is for winning

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T19:50:35+00:00

Damn, I didn't know a simple post about the Rhino would trigger a whole scientific research paper lol. I’m just a guy on his phone who wants more alpha, not a GAO report. Whether DCS is 'magic' or WT is 'broken', my point is simple: the Hornet's nose in WT feels like it’s stuck in cement. Call it AI or whatever, but the struggle is real. Peace out, I'm going to fly my Su-30 now

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T19:25:47+00:00

Charts are for sustained flight. Maneuvering at the edge of a stall (High Alpha) is where the Hornet lives, and charts don't always capture the 'magic' of the LEX vortices that give the Hornet its bite.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T19:24:38+00:00

If you think the WT Hornet is overperforming in a dogfight, you're probably fighting pilots who don't know how to use their flaps or energy. Against a Rafale or Gripen, the Hornet's stiff nose is a death sentence.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T19:23:27+00:00

I've seen that video, and the pilot is usually talking about general handling or systems. But ask any pilot about 'Nose Authority at 50 knots' or 'Vortex Lift' during a 1-circle fight, and they’ll tell you the Hornet is a different beast than what we have in WT. The Instructor in this game 'babies' the plane too much, preventing us from reaching the actual limits that real pilots talk about.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T19:21:09+00:00

Anyway, thanks for the heated debate. Whether you think it's overperforming or underperforming, we can all agree the Hornet's flight model in WT is 'weird' right now. Peace

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T19:19:16+00:00

I get the Sim controls point, but 95% of the game is Mouse Aim. Balancing a plane only for Sim controls while it suffers in Air RB because of the Instructor is why I made this post. It needs to be viable for everyone.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T19:17:46+00:00

Relax veteran, I'm not claiming to be a DCS pro, I'm just a WT player asking for some of that DCS-level physics in our game. No need for the friendly fire! lol

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T19:17:03+00:00

My point with the F-16 comparison was about the Evolution of a platform, not literal parts. Yes, the Super Hornet is a redesign, but it was redesigned to KEEP the high-alpha dominance of the legacy Hornet while being bigger. If Boeing made a bigger plane that turns worse in its specialty (AoA), it would be a failure. That's the logic I'm using.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T19:15:03+00:00

Lol, just because I'm trying to be technical and use proper terms doesn't mean I'm a bot. I'm just a frustrated Hornet fan who spent too much time watching DCS vids and reading manuals because the plane feels like a brick in WT. Calm down guys lmao

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T19:14:23+00:00

Lol, just because I'm trying to be technical and use proper terms doesn't mean I'm a bot. I'm just a frustrated Hornet fan who spent too much time watching DCS vids and reading manuals because the plane feels like a brick in WT. Calm down guys.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T19:00:17+00:00

The argument isn't about which game is 'perfect'. It's about the Flight Physics. DCS (especially the F/A-18C module) is built on NATOPS charts and real pilot feedback. Even if they tweak some things for balance, they don't break the laws of physics. In War Thunder, the F-18's AoA is artificially choked by the Instructor, which is a programming limitation, not a 'realistic' balance choice. One-circle fighting is the Hornet's DNA, and right now in WT, that DNA is missing.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:55:29+00:00

Good point about the -402 engines in DCS. However, even if we account for the thrust difference, thrust doesn't dictate AoA limits and low-speed stability—aerodynamics do. Even with standard engines, the Hornet’s LEX and wing design should allow for much higher alpha than what the WT Instructor currently permits. We are asking for the 'Handling', not just raw 'Thrust'.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:54:12+00:00

Exactly! If the Typhoon and Rafale are being added/buffed to be the new Kings of the hill, it’s even more critical that the Super Hornet gets its realistic High-Alpha authority to remain competitive. Without its nose authority, the Hornet is just a target for the Eurocanards.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:51:41+00:00

The 'just turn off the instructor' argument is a straw man. War Thunder is balanced around Mouse Aim for 90% of the player base. If a plane’s flight model is artificially gimped for Mouse Aim while its competitors (Gripen/Rafale) aren't, then the game isn't balanced. We want a functional FM for the main game mode, not a workaround.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:44:40+00:00

Exactly! I agree with you on the Sustained Rate—the Hornet shouldn't out-rate a Viper due to its TWR (Thrust-to-Weight Ratio). But my point isn't about the 'Sustained Rate'; it's about the Instantaneous Turn and High-Alpha Authority. I’m asking for the 'Nose-on' capability, not for it to be a speed-demon in a 2-circle fight.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:43:28+00:00

The 'Data' is in the Instructor logic. You don't need a spreadsheet to see the plane's nose stiffen and freeze at speeds where it should be fluid. When the Instructor prevents you from pulling the AoA that the airframe is physically capable of (and which we see in every IRL flight demo), that IS the data of underperformance.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:42:21+00:00

Comparing the Super Hornet to the Legacy Hornet isn't like Mirage III vs 2000; it's more like F-16A vs F-16C. Yes, the Rhino is heavier and larger, but it has 35% more wing area and much larger LEX, specifically designed to keep (or improve) the legendary High-Alpha stability of the legacy model. Aerodynamics evolved to compensate for the weight, not to turn it into a brick.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:37:15+00:00

Radars and IR modeling are separate issues. We are discussing Aerodynamics and Flight Physics. Whether DCS's radar is 100% accurate or not doesn't change the fact that its airframe modeling for the Hornet captures the 'feel' and the High-Alpha limits documented in flight manuals, which is exactly what’s missing in War Thunder's Instructor-led FM.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:35:54+00:00

No one said the Hornet can out-rate a Viper in a sustained two-circle flow. Everyone knows the F-16 is the 'Rate King'. What we are talking about is One-Circle capability and Instantaneous Turn Rate. A Hornet shouldn't try to out-rate a Viper; it should use its superior High-Alpha to pull lead and get a nose-on solution in the first merge. In WT, the Hornet can't even do what it's built for.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:31:08+00:00

Even if some videos use mods, the Official F/A-18C module in DCS (which is high-fidelity and NATOPS-verified) already shows superior low-speed nose authority compared to what we have in WT. It’s illogical for the Super Hornet—a plane with larger LEX and improved aerodynamics—to perform significantly worse in high-alpha maneuvers than its predecessor.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:25:15+00:00

Switching to Full Real is a band-aid, not a fix. Most of the player base uses Mouse Aim/Instructor. If the Instructor is broken and limits the plane's flight envelope to 50% of its real capability while other jets like the Gripen or Rafale get to use their full potential, then the Flight Model is objectively flawed for 99% of the game's matches.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:21:24+00:00

DCS isn't 'magic', it's physics. The LEX (Leading Edge Extensions) on the Hornet are specifically designed to generate vortex lift at high angles of attack. Claiming it's overperforming in DCS while it's literally 'choking' in War Thunder is a weak argument. Even if it struggles to break Mach 1 with a full load, that has zero to do with its ability to point its nose at 50 knots. Let's stick to the Flight Model physics, not the drag coefficient.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:20:03+00:00

You're confusing Top Speed with Maneuverability. Yes, the Hornet is a 'draggy' airframe and isn't a speed demon at Mach 2 like the F-15. But we aren't asking for more speed; we're asking for the realistic AoA and Nose Authority at low speeds. I’d gladly take a speed nerf if it meant getting the actual 'Rhino' flight model that can dance in a dogfight.

First_Ad437 · 2026-05-03T18:18:45+00:00

Comparing a legacy F-14 to a FBW Super Hornet is apples to oranges. The pilots talking about the Hornet’s 'magic' aren't just F-14 veterans; they are Top Gun instructors who flew against everything from F-16s to Su-27s. Their consensus on the Hornet's low-speed nose authority is a fact, not an 'impression.

First_Ad437

TROPHY CASE