Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

castlebravo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 19:10

Unread post10 Jul 2014, 05:45

The F-35C also has to contend with higher empty weight. We know that the KPP for the F-35C STR is higher than the F-35A, but for all we know that could be at the same gross weight. It is still entirely possible that the F-35A has greater sustained turn performance than the F-35C when both are carrying a fuel load that gives similar range. I even consider it a likely possibility if the F-35C is carrying a gun pod.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2179
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 Jul 2014, 06:17

spazsinbad wrote: the C is the most remarkable, it’s absolutely awesome at 50 alpha and very controllable,” said Peter Wilson STOVL lead with the Pax F-35 ITF...."
[/quote]

Good find Spaz.

These are the times when I wonder, why didn't they make the A more in common with the C than with the B?

-more wing area
-more fuel
-more range
-more room for weight growth maybe
-and as Spurts is finding out, more maneuverable,

on the other hand
-less acceleration
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2179
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 Jul 2014, 06:21

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So, as you can see the 9G F-35A will have the advantage in a super sonic fight or transonic at low altitude, but the F-35C with an extra 50% wing will hold the advantage at lower speeds.


that doesn't seem good as most maneuvering fights occur at high subsonic speeds, So are we saying that the C can hold its own better than the A in a gun fight?
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post10 Jul 2014, 08:55

zero-one wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So, as you can see the 9G F-35A will have the advantage in a super sonic fight or transonic at low altitude, but the F-35C with an extra 50% wing will hold the advantage at lower speeds.


that doesn't seem good as most maneuvering fights occur at high subsonic speeds, So are we saying that the C can hold its own better than the A in a gun fight?

When you say high subsonic, what Mach range are you talking about?

Is it within the Transonic band? of 0.85-1.0?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post10 Jul 2014, 15:38

Update: F-16C with CFTs is done. F-15E is about 50% and will take a while to get right as the data is in a different format. Lastly I will have to get all the findings presented nicely.

castle bravo, the F-35C has between 10 and 17% more weight depending on load carried (as both planes get lighter the difference gets bigger) which gives a first order increase in lift required. It has 50% more wing and larger tails to generate said lift. This is a first order reduction in Cl required to make the 10-17% more lift. Cl is a second order factor in determining drag due to lift, which is dominant in maneuvering flight. So, no matter how much more weight the F-35C carries in the same configuration as an F-35A, it will always have less induced drag at the same G. It will also always have more form drag at any speed/G, but there will come a point when lift-drag overpowers form-drag and the "Sea" will beat out the A in excess power.
"Spurts"

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

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2179
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 Jul 2014, 23:42

KamenRiderBlade wrote:When you say high subsonic, what Mach range are you talking about?

Is it within the Transonic band? of 0.85-1.0?


Well, where do most dogfights occur?

AFAIK its Mach 0.75-0.95,

if Navy C models were to practice DACT with AF A models, I think I would put my money on the Topgun pilots.

Same sensors, same avionics, Stealth, (by the way does the A & C have the same RCS?) but with more maneuverability :mrgreen:
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2179
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 Jul 2014, 23:45

By the way Sprts, it looks like the rivalry between A & C's kinematics are getting pretty interesting, can you make a comparison between the 2 also?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post15 Jul 2014, 15:10

Range and speed are done for the Mudhen. Working on turning and acceleration. The difference in range between a fixed flight profile and an optimum one are astounding.
"Spurts"

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

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post25 Jul 2014, 19:47

All data gathered, now just formatting the presentation.
"Spurts"

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

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2118
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post26 Jul 2014, 04:36

This discussion about the relative maneuverability of the "A" vs. "C" sounds very much like comparing F-16 with F/A-18. As a side issue, using mach number to show where each airplane is best could be misleading. Altitude has been mentioned as a factor, but the easiest way to describe the optimum areas of each airplane is Calibrated Airspeed. In the design requirements, corner velocity requirements at several altitudes are shown in velocity vs. g diagrams, where velocity is calibrated airspeed. Just a guess on my part, I would expect the A to have higher turn rates above 350 - 400 kcas, regardless of altitude, and the C to do better under that speed.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post28 Jul 2014, 15:22

KCAS is certainly useful as it really measures the dynamic pressure which handles both the speed and altitude factors.
"Spurts"

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

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post01 Aug 2014, 23:04

Alright, here it is! I will take some of the initial feedback on this before doing the SHornet, ASHornet, and Sea comparison. There were several times where the performance results surprised me (both high and low) for all the aircraft. I welcome technical/process questions and constructive criticism about the layout and such. Enjoy!
Attachments
USAF Strike Fighters.pdf
(773.45 KiB) Downloaded 1530 times
"Spurts"

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

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post01 Aug 2014, 23:16

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Alright, here it is! I will take some of the initial feedback on this before doing the SHornet, ASHornet, and Sea comparison. There were several times where the performance results surprised me (both high and low) for all the aircraft. I welcome technical/process questions and constructive criticism about the layout and such. Enjoy!


Nice job, I'm really looking forward to when you add in the Hornet family.

Are you willing to add in any older US aircraft to that comparison? Maybe like the F-5?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post01 Aug 2014, 23:29

KamenRiderBlade wrote:
Nice job, I'm really looking forward to when you add in the Hornet family.

Are you willing to add in any older US aircraft to that comparison? Maybe like the F-5?


What I add is limited to the resources I have. I do not have a flight manual for the F-5 (with performance section) nor do I have the type of info I would need to generate a model like I did with the F-35. I wish I still had my performance index from the F-4E. Anyway, if you have any public released docs for a plane I can add it in to a later review.
"Spurts"

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

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post01 Aug 2014, 23:55

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
Nice job, I'm really looking forward to when you add in the Hornet family.

Are you willing to add in any older US aircraft to that comparison? Maybe like the F-5?


What I add is limited to the resources I have. I do not have a flight manual for the F-5 (with performance section) nor do I have the type of info I would need to generate a model like I did with the F-35. I wish I still had my performance index from the F-4E. Anyway, if you have any public released docs for a plane I can add it in to a later review.


If I find anything, I'll definitely post it here for you.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests