Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

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

sirsapo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 03 May 2009, 21:40
  • Location: Phoenix, AZ

Unread post02 Aug 2014, 03:13

That's a pretty interesting analysis, but if I may add my 2 cents, if the chart formatting was a little better it would greatly add to the presentation. I'd add some X-axis grid lines, and some minor tick marks between them, along with some units on the axes (you put in the effort to come up with some pretty accurate numbers, might as well present them as such). Personally I think the USAF Test Pilot School format for charts and whatnot looks the most professional, but that may be just because that's what everyone is accustomed to seeing in their pubs.

Nice work
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post02 Aug 2014, 04:17

Watch out for those possessive "its".

Not sure if using a 6 internal AMRAAM F-35 config as the basis for comparison is appropriate at this point. Maybe greater emphasis on it as future growth because right now it reads like a present capability which is not the case (and uncertain if it's still part of block 4).
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post02 Aug 2014, 10:18

Reading it now Spurst. This is awsome

I know im probably missing something, but what was the weapons load of the planes when they get to station?

You mentioned that they can carry up to X number of missiles, but Im a bit confused on the exact number of missiles they are carrying when on station, is it the max number or something else?

Also I noticed that there were some F-35(CFT) figures on the altitude page, does the F-35 have CFTs, i thought they only carried EFTs

Im also making assumptions on the bootom of the charts as to what the figures are (minutes for the endurance chart, mach number for the speed chart, etc etc.)
Am I correct.
Offline

gergf-14

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2014, 20:21

Unread post02 Aug 2014, 22:59

Awesome, be nice to see navy strike fighter comparison as well as the marines comparison. :drool:
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4479
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post03 Aug 2014, 05:35

I wish I new the official test center format, but you are certainly right that I failed to provide units for my axes. I was importing thecharts from excel. Possessive its always get me. I was using 6 AMRAAM as I was using 2020 as my target year. I didn't list the payloads??? Man, I was so busy gathering data I forgot to make sure you knew what I was doing. A-A was six 120s for Stubby, two 9Xs and four 120s for Vipers, two 9Xs and six 120s for the Beagle. Air to ground was two 120s and two one ton GPS bombs for all, with the Vipers and Beagle adding two 9Xs. Also, the comment about F-35 with CFT was a typo. I will make some clarifications and play with a different format and re post. Thank you so much for the critique!
"Spurts"

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

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post04 Aug 2014, 01:47

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I wish I new the official test center format, but you are certainly right that I failed to provide units for my axes. I was importing thecharts from excel. Possessive its always get me. I was using 6 AMRAAM as I was using 2020 as my target year. I didn't list the payloads??? Man, I was so busy gathering data I forgot to make sure you knew what I was doing. A-A was six 120s for Stubby, two 9Xs and four 120s for Vipers, two 9Xs and six 120s for the Beagle. Air to ground was two 120s and two one ton GPS bombs for all, with the Vipers and Beagle adding two 9Xs. Also, the comment about F-35 with CFT was a typo. I will make some clarifications and play with a different format and re post. Thank you so much for the critique!


Many thanks Sprst, can you also include the approx. fuel load of the planes when they get to station? just to make it clear what their current T/W ratios and Wing loading is when executing the said speeds, turns, etc...

only if its not too much trouble though :mrgreen:

i also noticed that you placed 29,400 lbs as the F-35A's empty weight, I thought the configuration 240-4 was actually lighter than earlier configs, I think 29,090 was the weight.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4479
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post05 Aug 2014, 15:39

I am making a lot of updates to the presentation aspect. It seems you all want more details so I am adding several pages of text going over the details of the load outs, fuel, drag, etc. I hope to have it up within a day or so.

zero-one, I am adding a page showing effective lifting area based on stability and Clmax. T/W ratio is a dynamic thing so it is a waste to use the uninstalled static sea-level values. Also, Wing Loading would be used to guess turning performance right? I am giving you the turning performance, both what it can sustain and what it can do in a snap pull. I do however concede that showing the fuel used can be of interest so I am showing the fuel burn for each transit phase and the amount remaining for the CAP (fight fuel).
"Spurts"

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

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 00:39

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I am making a lot of updates to the presentation aspect. It seems you all want more details so I am adding several pages of text going over the details of the load outs, fuel, drag, etc. I hope to have it up within a day or so.

zero-one, I am adding a page showing effective lifting area based on stability and Clmax. T/W ratio is a dynamic thing so it is a waste to use the uninstalled static sea-level values. Also, Wing Loading would be used to guess turning performance right? I am giving you the turning performance, both what it can sustain and what it can do in a snap pull. I do however concede that showing the fuel used can be of interest so I am showing the fuel burn for each transit phase and the amount remaining for the CAP (fight fuel).


Thanks a lot Sprts, I think I can speak for all when I say, we appreciate your work A LOT I hope you won't mind if I use this for reference on a blog someday.

Also, I always saw T/W ratio as a ball park figure. so when they say T/W ratio is 1.07 I think that could be anywhere from 1.03-1.11 or something like that depending on air density and speed of the air entering the inlet. is this correct?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4479
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 14:44

This is something best seen. Google the High Fidelity Flight Manual for the sim Falcon 4.0. That taught me a lot about dynamic installed thrust. You see the 29,000lb thrust F100 vary from 32,000 to 5,000.
"Spurts"

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

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 709
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 17:37

Just reviewing the Conclusion section:

Conclusions
• We see that under actual combat conditions the F-35 can climb, run, and
turn as well as or better than it’s stable mates. It does this while having a
better ECM/EA suite, full IR targeting and spherical tracking, secure LPI
networking, and all aspect X-Band VLO. In short it is more capable than
anything that has ever been used in combat before <<<<<Missing period here
• Optimum Profile was done to show how “Max Range” mission data could
be gathered as these represent leaving a tanker and returning to a tanker
with reserves based on aircraft weight, a true best case scenario.
• Constrained Profile was done to show how mission planners and
battlespace managers may not want aircraft going across so many
altitudes, and max range at 20kft was at much lower speeds than the
0.8M calculated but the mission planners also can’t afford to simply wait
around <<<<<Missing period here
• When looking at the F-35s clean range at altitudes above 30kft it is easy to
see how the last 75nm in and out could be done as 1.25M and still make a <<<<<'as' should be 'at' ?
500nm+ range, which falls in line with the statement “150nm of cruise at
1.25M”. I may do a case study on this in the future.




Also for readability the Drag and Specs sections would work wonderfully as Tables instead of 3 paragraphs split across two pages. This would aid the reader to more easily and directly compare the figures across the types and would also provide the means to expand the aircraft types considered in the future.

Excellent work.
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4479
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 21:30

And to think I had someone else proofread it too! Thanks.

Oh FYI, Drag is being completely redone, but tabulating the specs is a good idea and I am taking that action.
Last edited by sprstdlyscottsmn on 06 Aug 2014, 22:09, edited 1 time in total.
"Spurts"

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23271
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Aug 2014, 21:47

Proof reading - done by someone else - is ALWAYS a good strategy.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post07 Aug 2014, 00:42

I really think this type of info should be placed on a Blog, there are literally dozzens of anti-F-35 blogs out there all calling the F-35 a turkey. and very very few bloggers that counter.

Mangler Muldoon is one of the few that go against the grain.

Hope he makes more F-35 topics in the future, this info may prove useful
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4479
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post07 Aug 2014, 04:04

SMSGTMac has a blog, I wonder if he wants to use it?
"Spurts"

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

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post07 Aug 2014, 06:08

O right, the elements of power is a good source material. But don't you want to use it yourself to?

I mean, surely you didn't spend a good amount of time preparing this just for hardcore F-16.net readers right? :mrgreen:
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests