Page 3 of 120

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2014, 03:13
by sirsapo
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

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2014, 04:17
by cantaz
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).

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2014, 10:18
by zero-one
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.

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2014, 22:59
by gergf-14
Awesome, be nice to see navy strike fighter comparison as well as the marines comparison. :drool:

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2014, 05:35
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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!

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2014, 01:47
by zero-one
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.

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2014, 15:39
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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).

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 00:39
by zero-one
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?

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 14:44
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 17:37
by archeman
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.

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 21:30
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 21:47
by spazsinbad
Proof reading - done by someone else - is ALWAYS a good strategy.

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2014, 00:42
by zero-one
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

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2014, 04:04
by sprstdlyscottsmn
SMSGTMac has a blog, I wonder if he wants to use it?

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2014, 06:08
by zero-one
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: