This is a discussion on Combat Aircraft Comparison stats within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Thanks go to finiteless for permission in posting his comparison charts here.
Feedback has been welcomed!
Please do not copy ...
Thanks go to finiteless for permission in posting his comparison charts here.
Feedback has been welcomed!
Please do not copy this to other sites without advising me first. I have sought permission to have it posted here and I do not want to break the trust granted by seeing it popup elsewhere.
Pictures attached:
Last edited by WebMaster; November 25th, 2005 at 02:16 PM.
Location: I'll tell u but then I'll have to shoot u
Posts: 933
Threads:
Good accurate and more importantly the colours used are eyecatching and can be discerned from oneanother therefore making a quick glance comparison easier.
Though I would have liked to see a rough comparison between avionics as well.
Plus in order to solve the copyright problem, I think webs should turn it into a members only thread(if it can be done) cause mostly it's an element in the visiting guests which copies and pastes onto other sites.
________________
MICROSOFT i.e: Most Intelligent Customers Realize Our Software's for Fools & Teenagers.
Everyone, please respect this request from gf0012-aust:
Quote:
Please do not copy this to other sites without advising me first. I have sought permission to have it posted here and I do not want to break the trust granted by seeing it popup elsewhere.
These data are somewhat misleading, just by looking at the T:W ratio in the graph, it seems like the F/A-18C has higher a T:W ratio than the SU-27, but if you think again, I realised the SU-27 has higher fuel capacity, so meaning if you count by how many fuel it has (litres) instead of percentage, it'll give a better comparison.
berry, the dry weight is no fuel or weapons. The T:W ratios are calculated by dividing the afterburner thrust by the dry weight. It's just a broad comparison. Weapons loadouts, pods, drop tanks, etc. would change the numbers.
Using percentages makes for a logical comparison, for example, the SU-27 with 25% fuel would have a higher T:W than the F/A-18C with 50% fuel. (assuming no weapons)
And the T:W's do not necessarily translate directly into speed. Unlike tanks, aircraft are affected by aerodynamic forces.
These data are somewhat misleading, just by looking at the T:W ratio in the graph, it seems like the F/A-18C has higher a T:W ratio than the SU-27, but if you think again, I realised the SU-27 has higher fuel capacity, so meaning if you count by how many fuel it has (litres) instead of percentage, it'll give a better comparison.
Also, wtf is "dry weight"?
Here's an excel worksheet, with the data for some fighters, its a little dated now, as I've not kept it current, you can add your own data, and mess about generally.
It has in the comments fields the calculations used to give the figures for each.
see LINK DEAD
If you disagree with any figures go ahead and change them, theres also a useful conversion calc at the bottom, but as usual please check your results, and yes I know theres a couple of mistakes.
If you want to improve it 'Go ahead', but give me a mention in the footnotes .
Cheers
________________
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Last edited by JWCook; March 23rd, 2007 at 12:42 AM.
These data are somewhat misleading, just by looking at the T:W ratio in the graph, it seems like the F/A-18C has higher a T:W ratio than the SU-27, but if you think again, I realised the SU-27 has higher fuel capacity, so meaning if you count by how many fuel it has (litres) instead of percentage, it'll give a better comparison.
Not at all misleading, it's cut and dry. Thrust to Weight is exactly that, X number pounds of thrust and X number pounds of aircraft weight. Doesn't matter if 10,000 of those pounds of aircraft weight is fuel or tires, it's stictly a function of weight.
In the military, dry weight means the aircraft is without ANY fluids, ordenance, crew and or special mission equipment (drop tanks, FLIR pods etc.) Dry weight doesn't mean much to anyone other than the pilot. Prior to a flight, a pilot computes the weight balance of his aircraft. He enters the dry weight first, then adds the weight and "station" of each and every addtional item the aircraft is equipped with. Fuel, ordenance, the pilot, special mission equipment and so forth. The operators manual has a diagram that shows the "station" numbers of the aircraft and the pilot idenetifies what station any given added component will be added. These are utilized to factor the "arm" of each component installed beyond the dry weight. With the total arm and weight of the aircraft calculated the pilot will then know what his Gross Take Off Weight and Center of Gravity is. There are limititations (in the operators manual) on Gross Take Off Weight and Center of Gravity. You don't just jump in an airplane and go. Pilots also compute "performance planning". With the weight of the aircraft known they can factor their fuel burn based on their modes and speeds of flight to deduce wether or not they can complete the mission. If you need aerial refueling for example, you have to compute where in the wild blue yonder you will be when you need the fuel, otherwise the tankers wont be there.
The Most important Statistic, and the one that cannot be graphed or Quantified
You put a bad pilot in a good airplane, and he or she fights a good pilot in a less capable or equivelant aircraft.....The good pilot wins every time.
Airframes and the systems are just tools, they don't mean a damn thing if you have more money than brains and experience.
Case in point, the Falklands war, on paper the Supersonic Mirage III should have had a picnic eating Sea Harriers alive, at least on paper, but the operational reality was that the RN had the better pilots, and they weren't flying at the maximum range of the Harrier, so they could defeat a supersonic aircraft with a subsonic aircraft, especially when the Mirage could not loiter and dogfight.
On the other side of that example, Argentinian pilots flew the Skyhawk A4Q, Ex Israeli Dagger ( Mirage 5), both old obselete versions of the Mirage and Skyhawk, without alot of electronic support, and still inflicted potentially crippling damage against the premier Naval Air defense systems in the Royal Navy, and that done through visual bombing, requiring overflying the target. not very healthy thing to do in the late 20th century, or now for that matter.
I will not refer to the Etendarde exocet. That is another discussion of missile performance, not aircraft.
My point, performance stats are such a small indicator of true combat capability, the true indicator is using those capabilities and matching them to realistic pilot/mission planning, and most inpotantly, pilot training and capability.
Anyone know about MIG-31 FOXHOUND? i don't really give any attention to it until recently and i'm quite impress. i believe it's among the most capable long range interceptor in the world. Long range radar, long range missile, this aircraft could've launch it's missile long before it's opponent can.
________________ Here's how you make a good soldiers. First you train them, then you trust them.
Combat Aircraft Comparison stats 
.
