Operational Performance Comparison: Viper, Beagle and Stubby

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Actually, I did. I don't have a blog. I did this for the F-16.net readers who are tried of naysayers naive talk about "external drag isn't that high" or "when both loaded to 50% fuel and two AAMs" nonsense and want a practical comparison to use. Well, and I guess I did this because I wanted to just for fun.

Of course while I am doing this I am wishing someone had a Su-27 manual for me to grab info for. I have been a fan of the T-10 series for over 15 years (aerodynamically speaking) and I would love to do a Flanker vs Eagle compro with scramble missions and escorts and CAPs.

[mixelflick]

I have been a fan of the T-10 series for over 15 years (aerodynamically speaking) and I would love to do a Flanker vs Eagle compro with scramble missions and escorts and CAPs.

Would LOVE to see this myself. I bet the situation changes such that it favors the Flanker, especially the SU-35 vs upgraded F-15C's. REASON: It carries a LOT more gas than the Eagle, requiring less tanking. Add to that it's superior agility, I fear it'll gain quite an edge.

A lot of this hinges upon the unknown. IF the Eagle's AESA is as good as they say it is, IF the AIM-120D has a 50% increase in range and IF the SU-35 really has some measure of signature reduction (doubtful). I dunno man, it's going to be close that's for sure. Have to hand it to Sukhoi, they refined that beast over 3 decades to develop a (speculated) world beater...

Looking forward to it...

[KamenRiderBlade]

The one thing I've always like about Russian planes, they know how to pack in as much internal gas into their air frames.

Something America really needs to think about in all future designs.

I'm glad the F-35 is a step in that direction.

[zero-one]

Actually, I did. I don't have a blog. I did this for the F-16.net readers who are tried of naysayers naive talk about "external drag isn't that high" or "when both loaded to 50% fuel and two AAMs" nonsense and want a practical comparison to use. Well, and I guess I did this because I wanted to just for fun.

Wow, well thank you very much Sprts, we appreciate it, never knew you were having such fun with that.

Of course while I am doing this I am wishing someone had a Su-27 manual for me to grab info for. I have been a fan of the T-10 series for over 15 years (aerodynamically speaking) and I would love to do a Flanker vs Eagle compro with scramble missions and escorts and CAPs.

Yup, the Flanker is the best threat aircraft out there in my opinion, a worthy challange to any NATO air superiority fighter.

The most accurate sim/game I have is "Strike Fighters" and energy management on that game is brutal, (for me )
F-16s and F-15s turn fastest at around 300+ knots, but bleed energy like mad at that speed,regardless of AB use.

The F-16C at Mach 0.85 has a lower turn rate, but it sustains energy better, still bleeding but a lot less than at 350 knots.

the Su-27S is a monster, turning at Mach 0.85,I have to stop using AB cause the thing keeps accelerating, and at Mach 0.9+ - Mach 1+ the turn rate drops. So I simply tap the AB from time to time.

When it comes to ECM and Target acquisition, the Flanker is behind the Viper and Eagle, the Alamo's Pk is considerably lower than the Sparrow's, and the Pk meter increases a bit slower when locking targets up.

Really teaches you that in A-A, Kinematics isn't everything

[sferrin]

Oh boy.

[KamenRiderBlade]

Oh boy.

What's that supposed to mean?

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Okay, here is revision one. I added more detail about the loadout, drag, and fuel burn as well as correcting the typos you all have found.

Oh and guys, please keep the comments civil and relevant to the discussion. People are allowed to have differing opinions and nobody is 100% correct 100% of the time.

[KamenRiderBlade]

Okay, here is revision one. I added more detail about the loadout, drag, and fuel burn as well as correcting the typos you all have found.

Oh and guys, please keep the comments civil and relevant to the discussion. People are allowed to have differing opinions and nobody is 100% correct 100% of the time.

::Gives you a big hug::

Good job!

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

So I just saw that the revision was been downloaded (as of the time of this writing) 12 times. I didn't know that many people were interested enough to grab it up so fast! Checking the original file I see 230 downloads! Thanks for the support guys!

[meatshield]

Okay, here is revision one. I added more detail about the loadout, drag, and fuel burn as well as correcting the typos you all have found.

Oh and guys, please keep the comments civil and relevant to the discussion. People are allowed to have differing opinions and nobody is 100% correct 100% of the time.

That is an interesting read! Thanks for posting! Educational.

[zerion]

Thanks Spurts, it's very informative. My only critique would be on the individual drag pages. Is there room to designate which aircraft at the top of each page?.

[newmanfrigan]

Great stuff Sprts. I'm going to find it quite useful.

[KamenRiderBlade]

sprstdlyscottsmn

Sent you alot of PM's about flight manuals, you may want to take a look

[sferrin]

So I just saw that the revision was been downloaded (as of the time of this writing) 12 times. I didn't know that many people were interested enough to grab it up so fast! Checking the original file I see 230 downloads! Thanks for the support guys!

I'll bet half of them are from China.

[mixelflick]

Amazing analysis.

How long did that take?