How hard is it to learn the F/A-18C?

[Life Pilgrim]

Not a fan but contemplating since it has a fully fly-by-wire system.
Is it as easy as learning the Mirage-2000C?

Can you fight vertically with a-a loadout? I heard the F/A-18C is underpowered...
Maybe I should just wait for the F-16C Block 50.

[rygree]

its fun to fly, easy to learn start up takes 2 min (at the moment) and its very capable in multi player

if your at all intrested buy it

[rygree]

Also if you do buy it and you want too, I can help you learn it just send me a pm or something

[Life Pilgrim]

Thanks. I figured it would be easy to fly as it has a fully digital FBW control system.
I'm on the fence since I hear the RL aircraft is underpowered and I'm not much of a fan of a navalized aircraft as it has too many engineering compromises to enable it to operate from the deck of a carrier...BUT the F-16C Block 50 may only be released NEXT year at the earliest...

[Insônia]

All modern plane is easy to learn how to fly, thats tech all about. and DCS F-18 in early access lack of sheer amount of sensors and weapons.
However.

As advanced multi roles platform, there are a lot of weapon configuration, weapon envelope, limitation, sensors, pods,calibration, operation,emergency procedures need be learned and memorized.

And different tactics and maneuver to delivery those weapons. Not just planes itself.

And other operation like AAR and carrier landing are never easy to learn and practice.
From Low alt all weather FLIR flight to popup and HAHB. Man in loop to HARM, JSOW

you always say FBW is easy blah blah blah.

WIth FULL release.

A/A radar with TWS, SCAN RAID, AZ/EL
A/G radar with MAP, EXP1, EXP2, EXP3, SEA, GMT, PVU, AGR, IRA, and TA
AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR Targeting Pod
Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS)
Link-16
AWW-13 Datalink Pod
NVGs
Weapons:
AGM-88C HARM
AGM-45A/B Shrike
AGM-84D Block 1C Harpoon
AGM-84E SLAM
AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER
AGM-65E Maverick
AGM-65F/G Maverick
AGM-154A JSOW
AGM-154C JSOW
Walleye I ER/DL
Walleye II ER/DL
GBU-10 Paveway II
GBU-12 Paveway II
GBU-16 Paveway II
GBU-24B/B Paveway III
GBU-38 JDAM
GBU-31 JDAM
GBU-32 JDAM
AIM-9X Sidewinder
AIM-7P Sparrow
AIM-120B/C AMRAAM
Mk-40 Destructor Sea Mine
Mk-63 Quickstrike Sea Mine
Mk-77 Fire Bomb

Decoys:
ADM-141 TALD
GEN-X

each type of the weapon and sensor has very unique envelope ,tactics and avionics procedures.

Viper novice pilots take 2 years in weapon school to learn F-16. Which is one of longest learning curve they have to pass though. F/A-18 has no less jobs than F-16.

If you just want to fly this thing. i bet my net pals daughter is flying better as well.
there a lot of thing need to be done, not all of them are easy. you dont learn you cant call it study sim.

[Life Pilgrim]

Well, FBW makes it enjoyable to fly the aircraft. That doesn't sound too difficult except for the carrier landing but the thing is if you fly the F/A-18C...you fly with all of its drawbacks as it is a navalized aircraft and none of the advantages...It's great for roleplaying an F/18C pilot though.

I never said the F-16C was easy. Just that it has none of the compromises of a navalized aircraft. That made it worth learning as it is optimized for flight and combat instead of being optimized for carrier operation first and flight/combat second. The F/A-18 looks great though and it has more fuel than thge F-16C.

It's whether buy now, wait for a probable Christmas sale, or pass it completely and just go for the F-16C a true-bred combat aircraft.

[Life Pilgrim]

Or buy the F-16C upon release and pass the F/A-18C for the F-15E....forgoing easy FBW control for more performance as the F-15E has no fully digital FBW...The F-15E sarcifices air combat performance as well for true ground strike capability but it doesn't have to operate from the carrier thus the compromises are not as much.....

[george47mathew]

Life Pilgrim님이 먼저 게시:

Well, FBW makes it enjoyable to fly the aircraft. That doesn't sound too difficult except for the carrier landing but the thing is if you fly the F/A-18C...you fly with all of its drawbacks as it is a navalized aircraft and none of the advantages...It's great for roleplaying an F/18C pilot though.

I never said the F-16C was easy. Just that it has none of the compromises of a navalized aircraft. That made it worth learning as it is optimized for flight and combat instead of being optimized for carrier operation first and flight/combat second. The F/A-18 looks great though and it has more fuel than thge F-16C.

It's whether buy now, wait for a probable Christmas sale, or pass it completely and just go for the F-16C a true-bred combat aircraft.

Even the Su-27 got FBW...although of very early versions, Su -27 is inherently very unstable aircraft by design, on purpose made unstable. The FBW keeps it from being out of control and allows it to do those sick maneuvers.

Latest FBW makes it easier to fly...still most jets do have trim and when you come for landing, the aircraft starts to pitch down which you'd have to correct it by trim.

I don't see any huge difference with Mirage 2000 and the F-15 in terms of stability. For a mechanical aircraft, the F-15 seems much stable than Su 27, and it does not require constant trimming. Its strange when the other post you say you prefer the Mirage 2000 over the F-15C when it comes to workload and ease of flying. The F-15C certainly seems very stable and no clickable cockpit.

Makes it sound like you have not even used the F-15C module or the Mirage either...

[Life Pilgrim]

george47mathew님이 먼저 게시:

Life Pilgrim님이 먼저 게시:

Well, FBW makes it enjoyable to fly the aircraft. That doesn't sound too difficult except for the carrier landing but the thing is if you fly the F/A-18C...you fly with all of its drawbacks as it is a navalized aircraft and none of the advantages...It's great for roleplaying an F/18C pilot though.

I never said the F-16C was easy. Just that it has none of the compromises of a navalized aircraft. That made it worth learning as it is optimized for flight and combat instead of being optimized for carrier operation first and flight/combat second. The F/A-18 looks great though and it has more fuel than thge F-16C.

It's whether buy now, wait for a probable Christmas sale, or pass it completely and just go for the F-16C a true-bred combat aircraft.

Even the Su-27 got FBW...although of very early versions, Su -27 is inherently very unstable aircraft by design, on purpose made unstable. The FBW keeps it from being out of control and allows it to do those sick maneuvers.

Latest FBW makes it easier to fly...still most jets do have trim and when you come for landing, the aircraft starts to pitch down which you'd have to correct it by trim.

I don't see any huge difference with Mirage 2000 and the F-15 in terms of stability. For a mechanical aircraft, the F-15 seems much stable than Su 27, and it does not require constant trimming. Its strange when the other post you say you prefer the Mirage 2000 over the F-15C when it comes to workload and ease of flying. The F-15C certainly seems very stable and no clickable cockpit.

Makes it sound like you have not even used the F-15C module or the Mirage either...

The F-15C is easier to fly than the Su-27SK in DCS but the Mirage-2000C is far easier to fly than the F-15C, at least to me. This becomes more apparent when you push each aircraft in a dogfight.

The Mirage-2000C is as easy to fly as the F-16C. They are like game aircraft or arcade aircraft due to their fully digital FBW.

[george47mathew]

I see...so you're only interested in arcadish jets, eh?

[Life Pilgrim]

george47mathew님이 먼저 게시:

Life Pilgrim님이 먼저 게시:

Even the Su-27 got FBW...although of very early versions, Su -27 is inherently very unstable aircraft by design, on purpose made unstable. The FBW keeps it from being out of control and allows it to do those sick maneuvers.

Latest FBW makes it easier to fly...still most jets do have trim and when you come for landing, the aircraft starts to pitch down which you'd have to correct it by trim.

I don't see any huge difference with Mirage 2000 and the F-15 in terms of stability. For a mechanical aircraft, the F-15 seems much stable than Su 27, and it does not require constant trimming. Its strange when the other post you say you prefer the Mirage 2000 over the F-15C when it comes to workload and ease of flying. The F-15C certainly seems very stable and no clickable cockpit.

Makes it sound like you have not even used the F-15C module or the Mirage either...

The F-15C is easier to fly than the Su-27SK in DCS but the Mirage-2000C is far easier to fly than the F-15C, at least to me. This becomes more apparent when you push each aircraft in a dogfight.

The Mirage-2000C is as easy to fly as the F-16C. They are like game aircraft or arcade aircraft due to their fully digital FBW.

I see...so your only interested in arcadish jets, eh? [/quote]

Hahahaha, it's not that but digital FBW system allows for a relaxed control of the aircraft i.e., you can let go of the stick and the aircraft will maintain its attitude...even in a dogfight....this relaxed control is less stressful or not as fatiguing as analog flight controls where you have to be vigilant at all times.

[Life Pilgrim]

The coming JF-17 has digital FBW for its pitch control but analog controls for roll and yaw ...probably not going to buy it either. The F-16C is a sure grab....and between F-15E or F/A-18C...Landing on a carrier is TOUGH. I hate buying a DCS module only to never fly it again after some months or being unable to master an important aspect of it like landing on a carrier....you know, the guilt, haha. But the F/A-18C has a fully digital flight control system., This should help TREMENDOUSLY in landing on a carrier.

[george47mathew]

Life Pilgrim님이 먼저 게시:

Hahahaha, it's not that but digital FBW system allows for a relaxed control of the aircraft i.e., you can let go of the stick and the aircraft will maintain its attitude...even in a dogfight....this relaxed control is less stressful or not as fatiguing as analog flight controls where you have to be vigilant at all times.

Arcade is less stressful too...FC3 Mig 29 of present state is extremely stable...as if it flys on rails.

Except for landing speeds, which the plane will pitch down. I know the Mirage 2000 does at landing speeds.

And here I was hoping for a navalized jet that does not have ease of flying or other aids in carrier landing...something like an F-8 crusader, F-4 Phantom naval versions and an A4 Skyhawk. Those "old school" pilots certainly had it tough...

If one can master the Su-33 In carrier ops, then F-18 should be easy to land.

[rygree]

Another point the f-18 isnt all that diffcult to land on the carrier, landing it properly on the carrier is the hard part.

[Life Pilgrim]

george47mathew님이 먼저 게시:

Life Pilgrim님이 먼저 게시:

Hahahaha, it's not that but digital FBW system allows for a relaxed control of the aircraft i.e., you can let go of the stick and the aircraft will maintain its attitude...even in a dogfight....this relaxed control is less stressful or not as fatiguing as analog flight controls where you have to be vigilant at all times.

Arcade is less stressful too...FC3 Mig 29 of present state is extremely stable...as if it flys on rails.

Except for landing speeds, which the plane will pitch down. I know the Mirage 2000 does at landing speeds.

And here I was hoping for a navalized jet that does not have ease of flying or other aids in carrier landing...something like an F-8 crusader, F-4 Phantom naval versions and an A4 Skyhawk. Those "old school" pilots certainly had it tough...

If one can master the Su-33 In carrier ops, then F-18 should be easy to land.

Aren't FC3 flight models realistic?just the avionics arent true to life in terms of operability.

I think people buy a DCS study sim module for its immense reward for MASTERY as do I.
Just that I prefer a relaxed control aircraft when I want to master it PLUS that it's optimized for flight and combat. The F/A-18C is fun for roleplaying though. It looks great and it carries a wide variety of weaponry.

But you're right landing the Su-33 is tough. China copied the Su-33 into their J-15 and it has had too many landing accidents that they decide to design a new carrior-borne aircraft to replace it. The flight control system is unstable during landing! It has no digital FBW!

[george47mathew]

Life Pilgrim님이 먼저 게시:

george47mathew님이 먼저 게시:

Arcade is less stressful too...FC3 Mig 29 of present state is extremely stable...as if it flys on rails.

Except for landing speeds, which the plane will pitch down. I know the Mirage 2000 does at landing speeds.

And here I was hoping for a navalized jet that does not have ease of flying or other aids in carrier landing...something like an F-8 crusader, F-4 Phantom naval versions and an A4 Skyhawk. Those "old school" pilots certainly had it tough...

If one can master the Su-33 In carrier ops, then F-18 should be easy to land.

Aren't FC3 flight models realistic?just the avionics arent true to life in terms of operability.

I think people buy a DCS study sim module for its immense reward for MASTERY as do I.
Just that I prefer a relaxed control aircraft when I want to master it PLUS that it's optimized for flight and combat. The F/A-18C is fun for roleplaying though. It looks great and it carries a wide variety of weaponry.

But you're right landing the Su-33 is tough. China copied the Su-33 into their J-15 and it has had too many landing accidents that they decide to design a new carrior-borne aircraft to replace it. The flight control system is unstable during landing! It has no digital FBW!

Not all FC3. The Mig 29 still uses SFM flight model...its yet to have a PFM model, so until then it flys on rails.