Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MiG-29 kontra F-16 (aerodynamics...)

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • zajcev
    Member
    • Mar 2005
    • 64

    MiG-29 kontra F-16 (aerodynamics...)

    In the thread "Rafale ad: fair comment or darned cheek?" is interesting conversation about aerodynamics of Rafale and Typhoon. One of gents told that some aerospace engennir have explained him the differencies.

    So what about comparing MiG-29 aerodynamics versus F-16. On the web I found this pics that might give you some basic ideas:


    left is w/o afterburner, right is with it, fuel reserves 50%, other should be clear
  • cru
    cru
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2004
    • 460

    #2
    I don't know. If it comes from a respected source it may be correct.
    However, I have some observations
    -the first two graph show a larger enveloppe for the MiG 29 in all the regimes. Also it says that it is the F 16 is a C, but it didn't said what block. Because i doubt that a GE powered blk. 50 would perform worst than the MiG at lower altitudes.
    -don't understand what the third graph displays. May be you can elaborate? Because if the two distance (2100 km and 3900) imply that the MiG has a bigger flying distance, that a huge BS! MiG has a smaller combat radius than the Viper. In fact even the Hornet outrages the MiG!

    Also, some remarks. In comparing the flying qualities, it shoulf be mentionaed that the F 16 accelerates better than MiG; in fact better even than the Su 27! Also it is one of the most agile plane.It can go from 1G to 9G in less that 1 second, thanks to FLCS.

    Comment

    • press
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jul 2005
      • 543

      #3
      And what are the aerodynamic differences between the different F-16 blocks? Does one block have different engines than other model...or one model has some aerodynamic doohikeys than other..or the differences are in terms of avionics?


      Since the graphs are Polish...and Poland has both planes...I`d say you eat it as it is Cru

      Comment

      • cru
        cru
        Senior Member
        • Nov 2004
        • 460

        #4
        There is, of course no aerodyamic difference. However, the blk. 50 perform better than blk 52, even the thrust is similar (~13200kgf) because the GE engine is better. Not to mention the big difference between blk. 50 and blk. 42/32 with P&W 220E with just 10500 kgf. And all these are F 16 C. This is the reason I mentioned the block

        Comment

        • Camaro
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2004
          • 517

          #5
          Originally posted by cru
          I don't know. If it comes from a respected source it may be correct.
          However, I have some observations
          -the first two graph show a larger enveloppe for the MiG 29 in all the regimes. Also it says that it is the F 16 is a C, but it didn't said what block. Because i doubt that a GE powered blk. 50 would perform worst than the MiG at lower altitudes.
          -don't understand what the third graph displays. May be you can elaborate? Because if the two distance (2100 km and 3900) imply that the MiG has a bigger flying distance, that a huge BS! MiG has a smaller combat radius than the Viper. In fact even the Hornet outrages the MiG!

          Also, some remarks. In comparing the flying qualities, it shoulf be mentionaed that the F 16 accelerates better than MiG; in fact better even than the Su 27! Also it is one of the most agile plane.It can go from 1G to 9G in less that 1 second, thanks to FLCS.
          hello cru
          can you please post the figures for the F-16?
          weights, loads and ranges to start and here we'll do the maths against the Mig-29
          because some figures i've seen say for example that the internal fuel range gives 750kms for the F-16 and 1400 for the Mig-29 but it migh be radius confused with range...
          thanks in advance

          Camaro

          Comment

          • GarryB
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2000
            • 8678

            #6
            The main reason for the Mig-29 looking so good in those graphs is simply because the Mig-29 can fly both higher and faster than the F-16. Of course if that was the most important consideration then the SR-71 would be one of the best fighters in the world.

            The reality is that situational awareness and weapons are very important too. Advantage to F-16 regarding SA especially against the early model Mig-29s ona one to one basis, but that advantage is lost when the Mig-29 is operating as it was designed under external control. Regarding the weapons the Mig-29 has had close range advantage until recently when the F-16 is getting HMS and off boresight missiles to match, but of course every Mig-29 has this while only a few F-16s are getting this now.

            Comment

            • cru
              cru
              Senior Member
              • Nov 2004
              • 460

              #7
              hello cru
              can you please post the figures for the F-16?
              weights, loads and ranges to start and here we'll do the maths against the Mig-29
              because some figures i've seen say for example that the internal fuel range gives 750kms for the F-16 and 1400 for the Mig-29 but it migh be radius confused with range...
              thanks in advance

              Camaro
              For MiG 29: http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/mig29-01.htm 1500 km (max. range, not combat radius, of course), 2100 with external tank.

              For F 16 various sources say max range W/O externals is 2500, with externals; 3800 km
              The main reason for the Mig-29 looking so good in those graphs is simply because the Mig-29 can fly both higher and faster than the F-16. Of course if that was the most important consideration then the SR-71 would be one of the best fighters in the world.

              The reality is that situational awareness and weapons are very important too. Advantage to F-16 regarding SA especially against the early model Mig-29s ona one to one basis, but that advantage is lost when the Mig-29 is operating as it was designed under external control. Regarding the weapons the Mig-29 has had close range advantage until recently when the F-16 is getting HMS and off boresight missiles to match, but of course every Mig-29 has this while only a few F-16s are getting this now.
              A good article about the F 16 vs. MiG 29: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi...july2a_95.html
              About SA, I don't see haw this advantage is lost to the last version of MiG. Don't forget that all the F 16 blk. 50/52 in the USAF are modernized in the CCIP programme that included Link 16 datalink. The amount of data provided by this is awesome: http://www.cnir.na.baesystems.com/cn...t_terminal.htm . Also blk. 40/42 are upgrade now. Also there are not so few F 16 with JHMCS/AIM 9X. There are about 250.

              Comment

              • GarryB
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2000
                • 8678

                #8
                About SA, I don't see haw this advantage is lost to the last version of MiG.
                Because most except early model Mig-29s or export models have decent RHAWs and self defence counter measures, plus the datalink they operate with means they can fly radar and radio silent with their radar displays showing them where the enemy is. They can also have their passive IRSTs turned on to further help them out while not emitting anything. In other words any advantage the F-16s might have had is gone...

                Also there are not so few F 16 with JHMCS/AIM 9X. There are about 250.
                Compared with every Mig-29 built it is "few".

                Comment

                • zajcev
                  Member
                  • Mar 2005
                  • 64

                  #9
                  A good article about the F 16 vs. MiG 29: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/arch.../july2a_95.html
                  About SA, I don't see haw this advantage is lost to the last version of MiG. Don't forget that all the F 16 blk. 50/52 in the USAF are modernized in the CCIP programme that included Link 16 datalink. The amount of data provided by this is awesome: http://www.cnir.na.baesystems.com/c...vt_terminal.htm . Also blk. 40/42 are upgrade now. Also there are not so few F 16 with JHMCS/AIM 9X. There are about 250.
                  Gents, the thread was aimed to compare aerodynamics solutions, flight performance and so. Please do not start thread "radar X have better range than radar Y"...

                  Note the difference in manouverability graph, where MiG-29 is lacking 9G envelope. What do you think about this case?
                  On the Rafale thread is was Jackonicko who was told about differencies between F-16 and MiG-29 aerodynamics.

                  Note also that on the last graph, the MiG-29 is in red colour and F-16 in blue, exactly opposite like on two previous graphs.
                  Last edited by zajcev; 2nd September 2005, 07:41.

                  Comment

                  • YMB29
                    Junior Member
                    • Aug 2005
                    • 28

                    #10
                    Originally posted by cru
                    For MiG 29: http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/mig29-01.htm 1500 km (max. range, not combat radius, of course), 2100 with external tank.
                    That is for the old versions.

                    Comment

                    • flex297
                      Senior Member
                      • Aug 2003
                      • 10590

                      #11
                      This has been solved years ago.. The ones interested are welcome to read Jane's How To Fly and Fight in MiG-29 Fulcrum, that compares MiG-29 with F-16C from pilot's point of view... It lists and comments drawbacks and advantages of both types...

                      Comment

                      • cru
                        cru
                        Senior Member
                        • Nov 2004
                        • 460

                        #12
                        Because most except early model Mig-29s or export models have decent RHAWs and self defence counter measures, plus the datalink they operate with means they can fly radar and radio silent with their radar displays showing them where the enemy is. They can also have their passive IRSTs turned on to further help them out while not emitting anything. In other words any advantage the F-16s might have had is gone...
                        Stop one moment: you mentioned the "Mig-29 is operating as it was designed under external control". Let's talk about this. The f 16 can also operate with data received from external sources (AWACS, other F 16 in IFDL mode, or GCI); Moreover the MIDS operate at 256 kbt/s (upgraded to ~ 1Mbt, but only in the case of MIDS terminal made by Harris Corp.), compared with 16 k,in the case of the most sophisticated Russian-produced datalink. If you check the link, you will see that on the HDS (horizontal display situation) there is a clear picture of what is going on up to 550 km around the F 16, without using the radar.

                        Now in your last post you changed the topic and mentioned other domains were the last MiG model might have an upper hand: EW and IRST. Well, let's take them one by one:
                        -the F 16 C upgraded until now under the CCIP program use the ALR 69 A(V)-the first all-digital RWR in the worldhttp://www.raytheon.com/products/alr69/
                        - the jammer is the ALQ 184 http://www.raytheon.com/products/ste...s01_030214.pdf;
                        -Sniper targeting pod(with 3rd genration MV IR sensor, long range (50km) pumped-diode laser for ranging/LGBtargeting and A-A tracking function.
                        Compared with every Mig-29 built it is "few".[/QUOTE]
                        Correct, since the MiG 29 had it from the begining in standard configuration. However, 250 are not "few" ; how many Air Forces have 250 4th generation fighters? I'll tell you: a "few"

                        Comment

                        • flex297
                          Senior Member
                          • Aug 2003
                          • 10590

                          #13
                          Originally posted by cru
                          Stop one moment: you mentioned the "Mig-29 is operating as it was designed under external control". Let's talk about this. The f 16 can also operate with data received from external sources (AWACS, other F 16 in IFDL mode, or GCI); Moreover the MIDS operate at 256 kbt/s (upgraded to ~ 1Mbt, but only in the case of MIDS terminal made by Harris Corp.), compared with 16 k,in the case of the most sophisticated Russian-produced datalink. If you check the link, you will see that on the HDS (horizontal display situation) there is a clear picture of what is going on up to 550 km around the F 16, without using the radar.

                          Now in your last post you changed the topic and mentioned other domains were the last MiG model might have an upper hand: EW and IRST. Well, let's take them one by one:
                          -the F 16 C upgraded until now under the CCIP program use the ALR 69 A(V)-the first all-digital RWR in the worldhttp://www.raytheon.com/products/alr69/
                          - the jammer is the ALQ 184 http://www.raytheon.com/products/ste...s01_030214.pdf;
                          -Sniper targeting pod(with 3rd genration MV IR sensor, long range (50km) pumped-diode laser for ranging/LGBtargeting and A-A tracking function.
                          Compared with every Mig-29 built it is "few"
                          Correct, since the MiG 29 had it from the begining in standard configuration. However, 250 are not "few" ; how many Air Forces have 250 4th generation fighters? I'll tell you: a "few"
                          cru, you cannot be serious... You take the latest toys for F-16C and, of course, the oldest MiG-29 that exists and put these two together for comparison to make the F-16 win. Cheap trick..

                          Let me put it differently - take $7mil and see what you can get for this. The same old MiG-29 or the Sniper targeting pod plus ALQ-184 and ALR-69 with no aircraft to hang those on. What is your choice?
                          Last edited by flex297; 2nd September 2005, 08:22.

                          Comment

                          • cru
                            cru
                            Senior Member
                            • Nov 2004
                            • 460

                            #14
                            I was not sepaking about the "old" MiG 29, but the MiG-29 SMT.
                            And if you use a 7 mil MiG 29, you will end with a QMiG 29.

                            But back to the topic, if you red the article in Codeone, you will see that MiG is hard to beat in low speed, high AoA, while F 16 regain an advantage at higher speed.

                            Also, the MiG has a larger enveloppe at high altitude, even compared to the later blk. 50.

                            Comment

                            • flex297
                              Senior Member
                              • Aug 2003
                              • 10590

                              #15
                              Originally posted by cru
                              I was not sepaking about the "old" MiG 29, but the MiG-29 SMT.
                              And if you use a 7 mil MiG 29, you will end with a QMiG 29.

                              But back to the topic, if you red the article in Codeone, you will see that MiG is hard to beat in low speed, high AoA, while F 16 regain an advantage at higher speed.

                              Also, the MiG has a larger enveloppe at high altitude, even compared to the later blk. 50.
                              No, let's put those two on even road. F-16C Block 50? OK.. That makes some $40mil.. For that bucks you get the latest MiG-29KM with few tankers of Vodka as extra, not just basic SMT upgrade.

                              As with aerodynamics, all has been already said in Jane's book that provides a decent comparison between somewhat downgraded and downrated Luftwaffe MiG-29s and F-16C, no need to argue here..
                              Last edited by flex297; 2nd September 2005, 09:11.

                              Comment

                              • cru
                                cru
                                Senior Member
                                • Nov 2004
                                • 460

                                #16
                                Algerian MiG 29=30 mil/piece...

                                Comment

                                • Vortex
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jan 2000
                                  • 3371

                                  #17
                                  In that case, i'll take some mothballed F86 to form a squadron and hang all sorts of !$%!$ on it and i'll still cost a lot less than a Mig29. That must mean it's better.
                                  Country::US of A

                                  Comment

                                  • flex297
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Aug 2003
                                    • 10590

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by cru
                                    Algerian MiG 29=30 mil/piece...
                                    Chilean F-16C Block 50 Peace Puma - 10 jets for $700 mil.
                                    Polish F-16 Block 52 - 48 jets for $3.5bn

                                    Of course, these two countries are no operators of previous versions which makes the financial conditions a bit harder..
                                    Last edited by flex297; 2nd September 2005, 13:12.

                                    Comment

                                    • flex297
                                      Senior Member
                                      • Aug 2003
                                      • 10590

                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Vortex
                                      In that case, i'll take some mothballed F86 to form a squadron and hang all sorts of !$%!$ on it and i'll still cost a lot less than a Mig29. That must mean it's better.
                                      Theoretically... The question is if the pilot of the mentioned Sabre was enough persuaded about the capabilities of the aircraft to dare a fight with the 29. Because I can assure you that every average pilot of the Fulcrum dares to measure with a Lawndart, even on BVR...

                                      Comment

                                      • Samez
                                        Member
                                        • Aug 2005
                                        • 42

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by flex297
                                        Chilean F-16C Block 50 Peace Puma - 10 jets for $700 mil.
                                        Polish F-16 Block 52 - 48 jets for $3.5bn

                                        Of course, these two countries are no operators of previous versions which makes the financial conditions a bit harder..
                                        Chile bought 10 F-16 for $500 mil. Source: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article9.html

                                        On December 27th, 2000, the Chilean government finally decided to purchase up to 10 new Block 50 F-16 fighters (6 C's and 4 D's) in a deal worth $500 million. The LOA was signed on February 2nd, 2002.
                                        We will paid $3500 mil. but we bought a lot of weapons for our F-16's. (i have full list but unfortunetly in Polish :/)
                                        For example:
                                        178 AIM-9X Sidewinder
                                        360 AGM-65G Maverick
                                        280 AGM-154 JSOW
                                        340 Mk82 bombs (227 kg)
                                        230 Mk84 bombs (907 kg)
                                        I can't translate full text

                                        Originally posted by cru
                                        Algerian MiG 29=30 mil/piece...
                                        In 1988 we paid $2 mln. for mig-29 (we bought 11 Mig's-29 + weapons for $25 mln.)

                                        In 1998 one F-16 (i don't know wich block) cost $28 mln. As you see we paid ~$72 milions per one F-16 (with weapons).

                                        Weapons for Polish F-16.
                                        (...)Po wielu latach przymiarek 27 grudnia 2002 roku rząd polski ogłosił jako zwycięzcę w programie na nowy wielozadaniowy samolot bojowy produkt amerykański firmy Lockheed-Martin. Po kilku miesiącach dodatkowych negocjacji (m.in. offset), 18 kwietnia 2003 roku została podpisana ostateczna umowa na dostawę 36 F-16C Block52+ oraz 12 F-16D Block52+ w latach 2006-2008. Samoloty będą użytkowane 3, 6 i 10 eskadrę lotnictwa taktycznego stacjonujące na poznańskim lotnisku Krzesiny i Łasku. Wartość kontraktu realizowanego w ramach programu Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Peace Sky wynosi 3,52 mld dolarw. Wraz z 48 samolotami Polskie Siły Powietrzne otrzymają: 178 pociskw AIM-9X Sidewinder, także 178 pociskw średniego zasięgu AIM-120C-5, 360 pociskw AGM-65G Maverick, 280 zasobnikw szybujących AGM-154 JSOW, 340 bomb Mk82 (227 kg), 230 bomb Mk84 (907 kg), 270 pakietw instalacajnych do w/w bomb w celu przekształecenia ich w GBU-31 lub -38, 270 pakietw do bomb w celu przekształcenia ich w GBU-22 i GBU-24 Paveway III, kilkanaście tysięcy szkolnych bomb BDU-33, kilkadziesiąt tysięcy sztuk amunicji do działka 20mm. Jednocześnie otrzymamy rwnież 22 zasobniki obserwacyjno-celownicze Pantera (eksportowe Sniper-XR), 7 zasobnikw rozpoznawczych DB-110, około 20 hełmw zintegrowanych z systemem celowania nahełmowego JHMCS. Rewolucji ulegnie system szkolenia i symulacji pola walki, głwnie dzięki pozyskaniu w firmie Link rozbudowanego pojedynczego symulatora misji, dwch eskadrowych urządzeń treningowych, dwch symulatorw procedur naziemnych.
                                        (...)
                                        Last edited by Samez; 2nd September 2005, 17:35.

                                        Comment

                                        Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                        Collapse

                                         

                                        Working...
                                        X