Jet Performance Graphs

[SgtPappy]

We all know of Dr. Gonzo's a/c performance pages.

Are there any graphs like that which exist for 4th generation jet fighters? Those planes are still in service but are getting old enough to have their performance data somewhere on the internet.

I'm really trying to figure out if the F-15C/F-16C of 1999 configurations have better major performance characteristics (i.e. climb, accel, top speeds at different altitudes) than their equivalent Russian planes, i.e. Su-27 and MiG-29 (late 90's models).

After all the the propaganda the US-made shows on Discovery have shoved down my throat, I'd like to know what the F-15's and 16's have against their Russian counterparts OTHER than BVR superiority.

[eagl]

You're probably not going to find any "real" data that lets you do any sort of comparison that would be useful in real life.  If you find anything, it will most likely be single data points, such as instantaneous turn rate at a particular weight and airspeed.  The full graphs and diagrams are not going to be releasable, at least by official US sources.  The info you seem to be looking for is still tactically significant so it isn't releasable.

A good simulation (the old Janes F-15 or Janes F-18 for example) can hit pretty darn close to reality through some smart programming and aerodynamic modelling, but it is still going to be an approximation and not anything a real fighter pilot could use.

[Babalonian]

What, no F-18? 

I've always wondered this too, but I think where this info is at hand and readily available falls into the realm of modern-day air defence and strategical planning, a notoriously hush hush industry and bunch of professionals nowadays.  Probabley gotta do some of your own digging and data compilation to get something close to exactly what you want.

[Grayeagle]

Well .. I have some 'anecdotal' stuff .. I had a chance to fly the F-16 simulator at Nellis for awhile.
I also spent more than a few hours in the F-4 sim at various bases I was stationed at here an there.

I had a chat with the tech rep guy for Falcon *the game* long ago ..Pete (a Guard F-16 pilot when I met him).
I told him that I had flown the game .. compared to what the actual sim would do it was night and day.

He laughed, said there was no way they could make a game that would match real world figures or even come close.
I told him they did a great job of makin an F-16 feel like a Thud ..F-105 .. it took forever to get off the ground and vertical perfomance was terrible. -shrug-

.. also had a long chat with an F-15 pilot a couple years ago.
He said it's the Ferrari ..whereas the F-22 is just so much a step up that those guys have to use a stripped down F-15 as primary trainer ..the entry level air combat platform  ..like the AT-6 was to the Mustang

Go to any airshow that has an F-16/F-15 flyin, granted they aren't carryin full loads, but .. you can see what they do.
Can't do it in a sim/game that I know of.

As for comparison to Soviet gear .. there just isn't any.
Orders of magnitude difference.
They are lead sleds.
There hasn't been an opponent aircraft that is a match for the F-15 built yet, altho they are closing the gaps, slowly.

But .. that's just my opinion based on what I learned over the years from the guys I talked to, things I saw, read, did, here an there.

-GE

[SgtPappy]

Hm, I suppose that's why I haven't had much knowledge on jet fighters.

AH forced me to be competitive and research deeply into aircraft. For jet sims, I suppose that isn't even possible. I guess a fun arcade game like HAWX is now validated since it's difficult to make a sim based on 4th gen jets.

In terms of Soviet aircraft, they seem to focus HUGELY on supermaneuverability now, perhaps in hope that the next fight with air-air combat is going to be some super-close range, missile-spamming, flare-spewing battle. Apparently many say the MiG-29 is just as fast as an Eagle at low altitude and the Su-27, the closest Soviet contemporary to the F-15, climbs and accelerates better. Any ideas concerning the U.S.'s fighter design philosophy after Vietnam and before the mid 90's?

From what it seems, it looks like U.S. fighters were still heavy, but designed for sheer speed and weapon efficiency (just like in WWII), rather than some other option. The USSR at the time, seems to have been designing fighters with maneuverability with weapons set at a lower priority in mind while in WWII, they wanted low-alt performance with weapons set as a lower priority.

[Grayeagle]

After Vietnam = F-4 to F-15 and F-16.
The F-5 went overseas (ie: South Korea)..USAF didnt use 'em much (Aggressors out at Nellis is about it)

There just wasn't anything close to an F-15 in the decades after it was introduced ..it would fly circles around any opponent aircraft. Some in the US inventory (F-14 f'rinstance) would give it a challenge .. but for out and out dog fighting prowess .. the F-15 was and still is an awesome machine.

The Russians put out a *lot* of propwash about their *everything* .. to the point that the F-15 was initially brought into being to counter the uber Mig 25.. I mean . . it was fast and flew high, the planform looked like it was a great fighter.. totally outclassed the F-4 that tried to chase it down.
The Mig was just cruisin and the F-4 jock wasn't sure the Mig even knew the Phantom was there.

Well. Then that pilot defected with one.

Lot of assumptions about the Mig 25 turned out to be pure hogwash.
Turn? . . not in a country mile. Made of mostly stainless steel. *Heavy*
Fast? You bet, if it burnt the engines down, blew out the turbine blades, and destroyed the airframe.. it could go fast. For a little while. To impress someone.
Pure interceptor. Short range point defense.
Not even close to what most thought it was.

Nowadays ..if someone tells me Russian made *anything* is good, well .. I'm not from Missouri, but *near* there .. Show Me.

(like the Bekaa Valley Air War .. can you imagine how empty the flight lines must have been at the end of that day? Talk is cheap)

IMHO, the Yak 9 was their pinnacle.. I'd still rather fly a Mustang .. but, that's just me.

-GE aka Frank

[RTHolmes]

The F-5 went overseas (ie: South Korea)..USAF didnt use 'em much (Aggressors out at Nellis is about it)

they had aggressor F5s at Upper Heyford near me fairly often back in the 80's, all black with the red star - very cool to see

[68ZooM]

This sounds like a question for the snailman 

[Masherbrum]

We like Pie.

[curry1]

We like Pie Charts.

fixed

[Masherbrum]

fixed

Fail.   

[MORAY37]

After Vietnam = F-4 to F-15 and F-16.
The F-5 went overseas (ie: South Korea)..USAF didnt use 'em much (Aggressors out at Nellis is about it)

There just wasn't anything close to an F-15 in the decades after it was introduced ..it would fly circles around any opponent aircraft. Some in the US inventory (F-14 f'rinstance) would give it a challenge .. but for out and out dog fighting prowess .. the F-15 was and still is an awesome machine.

The Russians put out a *lot* of propwash about their *everything* .. to the point that the F-15 was initially brought into being to counter the uber Mig 25.. I mean . . it was fast and flew high, the planform looked like it was a great fighter.. totally outclassed the F-4 that tried to chase it down.
The Mig was just cruisin and the F-4 jock wasn't sure the Mig even knew the Phantom was there.

Well. Then that pilot defected with one.

Lot of assumptions about the Mig 25 turned out to be pure hogwash.
Turn? . . not in a country mile. Made of mostly stainless steel. *Heavy*
Fast? You bet, if it burnt the engines down, blew out the turbine blades, and destroyed the airframe.. it could go fast. For a little while. To impress someone.
Pure interceptor. Short range point defense.
Not even close to what most thought it was.

Nowadays ..if someone tells me Russian made *anything* is good, well .. I'm not from Missouri, but *near* there .. Show Me.

(like the Bekaa Valley Air War .. can you imagine how empty the flight lines must have been at the end of that day? Talk is cheap)

IMHO, the Yak 9 was their pinnacle.. I'd still rather fly a Mustang .. but, that's just me.

-GE aka Frank

Gray, you are definitely still living in the 70's and early 80's.  Article basically says that only the F-22 holds an advantage over current versions of front line Russian fighters.  I also found it funny, the author specifically mentions the Bekaa Valley air war as a contrast.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-04.html

Abstract

This paper performs a comparative assessment of Russian technology employed in contemporary fighter aircraft and associated systems and weapons. Models of future air combat are defined and discussed. All categories of basic systems technology are then consecutively compared against their US or other Western equivalents. Finally, fighter types are compared to the first order. In conclusion, the notion that contemporary production Russian fighters are inferior in technology, performance and overall capability to their US/EU peers is largely not correct, and predicated on assumptions about Russian technological capabilities which ceased to be true a decade or more ago.

In other words.. THIS


...is not THIS.

[Ex-jazz]

In other words.. THIS
(Image removed from quote.)

Well put...

But, soon we will have a same old  'Ejection seat demonstration' remarks...

IMHO
The SU-27+ is The Best Looking modern age Fighter.

[Motherland]

IMHO
The SU-27+ is The Best Looking modern age Fighter.

No contest

[indy007]

Anything that's not stealth is already obsolete. That includes the Su-27, Su-30, Su-34, Eurofighter. The guy who gets to dictate the fight is going to win every time. Only stealth or insane amounts of speed can do that.