By: Anonymous
- 19th September 2005 at 07:51Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
BTW interesting read Bring_it_on... of course you have to keep in mind that the aircraft the Germans are flying are downgraded export model Migs. In some respects the very late model Mig-23s had several advantages over them (including range). Even the standard Soviet Migs had better radar setups and much better navigation equipment and the Mig-29S added jamming ability and the longer range R-27s (ie R-27ET and R-27ER) which the earlier migs can't carry.
By: bring_it_on
- 19th September 2005 at 08:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yup..However I found the other aspects a bit more interesting..
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 19th September 2005 at 08:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sferrin, thanks a million for the info, I stand corrected with the SARH question.. How was the aiming principle of AIM-54A or AIM-54C? Were those also dependant on target illumination until the very impact?
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 19th September 2005 at 08:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yup..However I found the other aspects a bit more interesting..
I got a scan of Jane's How To Fly and Fight With MiG-29 Fulcrum, PM me, if you are interested.. The book elaborates on the topic to a much greater extent and does not include only aerodynamics, but also points many drawbacks of outdated weapons control system of the MiG compared to F-16C, as well as the outcome of practical comparison..
By: sferrin
- 20th September 2005 at 04:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sferrin, thanks a million for the info, I stand corrected with the SARH question.. How was the aiming principle of AIM-54A or AIM-54C? Were those also dependant on target illumination until the very impact?
Both were semiactive until they were in range of the onboard scanner (about 10 miles) and then they went active. At that point the aircraft could stop illuminating. There were also the options to be semiactive all the way, go active right from the start provided the target was close enough, and home on jam.
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 20th September 2005 at 08:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Both were semiactive until they were in range of the onboard scanner (about 10 miles) and then they went active. At that point the aircraft could stop illuminating. There were also the options to be semiactive all the way, go active right from the start provided the target was close enough, and home on jam.
That is exactly what I was after.. Doesn't the R-27ER have the same features? I understand they currently were some major improvements over the original 9B-1101K seeker..
New
Posts: 362
By: cru
- 20th September 2005 at 08:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is exactly what I was after.. Doesn't the R-27ER have the same features?
No, because the Phoenix have a transmitter/receiver in its nose, that's a complete (monopulse) radar, while the R 27, like all semi-active missiles has only a receiver, being dependent of the launching aircraft to iluminate the target.
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 20th September 2005 at 09:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, because the Phoenix have a transmitter/receiver in its nose, that's a complete (monopulse) radar, while the R 27, like all semi-active missiles has only a receiver, being dependent of the launching aircraft to iluminate the target.
Okay.. That must have been the mistake.. I have read about AIM-54s way back in the past and since then projected its features automatically on all other SARH missiles.. Strange, I have never realized this...
New
Posts: 362
By: cru
- 20th September 2005 at 09:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, the Phoenix is first generation active missile; most of its trajectory is still semi-active; as long as you have a huge radar (~1m in diamm. and 10 kW peak power) as the APG 71 is OK; the really revolutionary step was the intoduction of AMRAAM, followed by MICA and R 77. They have a datalink (one way only) that allow even small planes like F 16 or Mirage to fire, turn away, re-illuminate the target and transmit midcourse corection to the missile, while staying out of the danger.
By: Pit
- 21st September 2005 at 14:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Harry:
This is Mr Detonator post I refered, I will post it full here (hope he has no problems!)...
Hi guys,
I was on bussines trip so I didn`t have time to write. Now I`m reading the discussion and I`m glad to see that you have already mentioned the NATOPS manuals for F-15. I have also considered to get that manual too but I don`t know what level of technical information I can expect from it. For example I don`t need to read the pilot procedures , basic flight fundamentals or combat operationals but rather the operating limits and flight characteristic of the F-15. So I would expect tenths of diagrams, plots related to the performance of the aircraft. I have found this web page which offers copies of flight manuals on CD. Please have a look there and write your suggestions whether it is worth the money or not.
quote to egodriver
"at first the F-15A was 7,33g limited but with the introduction of OWS (Overload warning system) F-15C & A are allowed to fly up to 9g. "
That`s what I don`t undestand. First, the F-15 CAS system is briefly decribed in some NASA tech-papers you can get easily on the net. In general, when the CAS is "ON", it allows deflections which can not overload the airframe structure limit (the destruction lift). The CAS includes angular speed and acceleration senzors for yaw, roll and AOA. Then it modifies the stick input to get the optimum surface deflection. Therefore the CAS is a limiter of AOA and G-load. When applying greater stick force when CAS system is "OFF" the G-limit(AOA) can be overriden. The difference between these modes is that by the CAS "OFF" the F-15 is sluggish, not comfortable to fly but still safe as they claim.
It seems a little bit illogical when they introduced another limiter called the OWS (Overload warning system, MSIP upgrade F-15C) ,it allowed them g-loads up to 9G. I think they made inner construction changes at first so the airframe can withstand more that 7.33G. Then they changed the CAS software to get better stabs deflection(better pitch rate, more AOA, more Gs in dependency of speed). From the NASA diagram I have mentioned it`s clear to see that 7.33G was a strenght limit, the aerodynamics of F-15 can do more. Introducing of OWS was just a word for polishing lacks in airframe strenght and software. That`s my opinion.
quote to Jdata
"I don't know where you got the ITR but from all the people I have spoken to told me that value is hard to measure on the F-15 because of the pitch rate hence why it isn't in the -1".
I don`t think it can not be measured. Accurate ITR values are rarely published, since they are quite variable under different circumstances and that applies to almost all aircrafts. Anyway you have written the answer on that point. Aircrafts like F-15 and F-16 were built as pure SEP fighters to get the best STR so the ITR values are mostly irellevant. French introduced opposite philosophy with the delta Mirage2000. But everyone knows that Mirage2000 sucks in TWR, so it can`t have a comparable STR. I have seen many Mirage2000 displays on airshows, but I don`t remember seeing Mirage doing full 360 degree turn. The F-16 drivers like to show their highest STR.
quote to egodriver
"Generally the F-16 has a better roll rate but the F-15 has better pitch rate and AOA capacities"
No matter about the roll rate, you‘re right. But I`m not sure which one has the better pitch rate. Generally a high pitch rate means, the plane increases AOA quicker so the turn can begin quicker too. So this can be quite important for ITR performance when AC starts to turn with the highest energy potencial. I dont know the exact F-15 AOA capabilities, but I doubt they are much better than F-16‘s. The F-16 has some theoretical advantages for better pitch-rate. The first is the relaxed static stability issue, where the plane isn`t longer heavy on the nose at subsonic. In fact the F-15 stabs always decrease the overal lift bcs of longitudinal static stability, so to get the same AOA they would probably need a bigger deflection in comparison with F-16. Therefore the stabs of F-15 produce much more of the induced drag. Design features such high-lift devices (flaps, slats) can increase maximum usable AOA by increasing stall AOA. The Cl max depends on AOA, but is also increased by a profile curvature(flaps, slats), so the higher lift coeficient will ensure gaining G-load quicker. For example slats can give another 20-25% of the overall lift when extended. But the F-15 doesn`t have slats.
quote egodriver
"Max instantaneous turn rate is more than 28°/s at low altitude.Best sustained turn rate is more than 20°/s at low altitude. If you take a 100kts base for stall at 1g, the minimum speed at which you can load to 9g is approximately 300kts.In this condition you get largely more than 28°/s. For information a 9g turn at 400kts give 27°/s (that's mathematic)."
Well, I`m not sure how did you get the number 27°/s STR under these conditions (9G, 400kts), I got only 24.5°/s. Nevermind, maybe I did the conversion from knots to meters/seconds wrong But I`m sure that Su-27 or Mig-29 neither the F-15 don`t have the ability to sustain 9G at 400kts(0.604Mach), that is too low speed. When I counted it with speed 0.8Mach(534kts, sea level, 9G) I got 18.5°/s. Then I could say an aircraft with higher T/W ratio (btw. is growing with speed,bcs of ram effect) and greatest L/D can achieve 9G sustained earlier than 0.8Mach. The STR is growing when the speen is lower than 0.8Mach, but the TWR and L/D has to be adequate. If not, the aicraft will bleed energy so then the ITR will depend on wing loading and maximal lift coeficient Cl max. But as I see you guessed the exact value where the 9G sustaining turn occurs for F-15. Any aircraft has its own L/D(pressure, skin friction, parasitic,induced,wave drag), TWR, flight control system, strenght limits, etc, etc. That means each AC will sustain 9G at different speed.
In comparison with your calculations the Mig-29 can sustain only 7.5G at speed of 400kts. I have picked up this figure from a diagram where I can see, what G-load the MIG can sustain in a 360degree turn on full AB regime in dependency on altitude. This diagram was computed for one reference flight configuration (weight), so you can recount it for any other weight value. Another diagram shows the STR dependency on speed and altitude. The highest STR the Mig29 can achieve is 19.5-20°/s at speeds close to 0.8Mach. My point is that at 400kts((0.604Mach) the aircraft has also the STR near 18°/s , but only 7.5G. I didn`t see a diagram for ITR there, it is only stated as a value of 23.5°/s. There is also a diagram for g-load(instantaneous) related to the speed and altitude, where I can calculate any point of it and the result is the same as on the diagram. The formula for this is following:
Instantaneous G load = 1/2 x Clmax x air density x speed^2 / wing loading x acceleration due to gravity
Quote JDATA&Egodriver
"From talking to pilots, your speed at which 9G occurs is too low. Due to the "lag time" of the CAS, you'll blimp to 9Gs in the 320-350ias range but you won't sustain it that's in the Echo. „ and „300kts is to slow to hold 9g, clear. But not to make a rapid instantaneous maneuver. The Mig-29 can do exactly the same."
For comparison I can give precise information related to Mig-29‘s performance. The 9G occurs first at 0.55Mach(363kts) at sea level and maximal AOA of 26degree by a reference weight of 14200kg . To hold 9G-load the speed must be higher then 0.7Mach(460kts) at sea level. Don`t know exact values for Su-27, but it is supposed it could hit 9G even quicker ...~0.5Mach, that`s 325kts(sea level). It would really surprise me if F-15 got its 9G on 300kts. I suppose that the F-15 has the worst lift coefficient at maximal AOA in comparison with both Russian planes, therefore the F-15 should hit (not sustain) 9G at higher speeds.
Hmm, first you have written that 300kts is too low to hit 9G for F-15, then value of 320-350kias. I dont think it is too much difference between 300 and 320 so as between IAS and TAS on sea level. From which source did you get this value? Are they really from the original F-15 manual? I would predict speeds around 360-380kts where it hits 9G, but those are my estimated values.
Quote to ego driver
"No trace of buffet or other "degradation" in the control of the aircraft. The turn is very smooth and easy to fly, and the aircraft has enough reserve to make a tighter turn."
I`m with Jdata again. I hope you both agree with me that Mig-29 is one of the most maneuverable AC on high AOA. During such a slow fly-by at high AOA on the Mig-29, the pilot feels small vibrations which start already at 17degree AOA. When over 20degree the plane shakes like an old car. But looking on the aircraft from the ground everything looks fluid. Anyway one question to you guys. Have you seen the Mig-29 or Su-27 with your own eyes? I think you both come from USA and there has not been much opportunity to have a look.
Quote to egodriver
An F-15 doing a sustained 9 g turn at Mach 0,74 on sea level(490 knots) has a 21°/s. Every aircraft doing the same will have exactly the same turn rate!
But the Mig-29 has never hit 21°/s STR at all. According to Mig-29 flight instruction manual, the sustained 9G turn at 0.74(sea level) the Mig hits its 19.5°/s STR.
By: Harry
- 21st September 2005 at 18:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks
New
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog
- 19th January 2010 at 06:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
this months AFM has an interesting story of a USAF pilot with 1900h on different blocks of F-16s, vs a Bulgarian MiG-29 pilot with 1500h.
i won't write everything here, you can go read it yourself. but some key statements
pros of MiG-29
+ simple and rugged, could be used on a dirtier strip which the F-16 can't. time that is normally used to prepare the strip could be used for other things. FOD inlet design very practical (this is the older MiG)
+ although it uses two engines, it can match the agility of the F-16
+ F-16 and MiG-29 used different design approaches to achieve similar results
cons of MiG-29
- uses two very large engines for its size of aircraft. very fuel thirsty, consumes way more fuel for its size of aircraft despite having more fuel than the F-16.
- pilot eventually won by bingo fuelling the MiG-29 to death only after a few turns.
- the pilot prefers the F-16 in the end, with a big factor having to do with its fuel economy and range.
some other things in this issue
Polish AF reports
failure time of F-16 at every 7 hours
failure time of MiG-29 at every 5 hours
failure time of every Su-20/22 at every 10 hours! :eek:
F-16 almost as bad as MiG-29 levels of operationability for the Poles..
The two aircraft are horrendously close, with the graphs almost overlapping in many regions. The F-16 has slightly superior Ps curves, suggesting higher sustained turn rate. The Ps benefits it VERY SLIGHTLY down to 220 knots (all knot figure seem to be in TAS). In INSTANTANEOUS turn rate, the MIG is superior, has smaller radius, up to corner airspeed of the F-16, around 375 knots at this altitude, the MiG corner is at around 360 looking at the graph. At this altitude, the F-16 enjoys a speed advantage.
AT 15,000 FEET
The MiG-29 can only hold a 7.5G sustained turn versus the F-16's 8.6 (this is the Block 52 version versus what apparently is a Fulcrum-A). The MiG-29 gets a small sustained turn advantage up to 485 knots. In instantaneous turn, the MIG is superior, with smaller radius up to 475knots (the F-16's corner airspeed at THAT altitude looking at the chart). The MiG corner airspeed seems to be around 450.
TAKING IT UP TO 30,000 FEET
The MiG-29 gets an advantage in all respects until 850knots. 'Nuff said.
I know that this ignores roll rates, avionics and others, but it is still a MOST interesting.
And it makes sense, and it is one of the theories which explains all the suppositions.
1)Sometimes MiG pilots came a turn rate advantage, sometimes the F-16 pilots, and not just in speed. The difference could potentially be explained here.
2)A F-16 is a ground-pounder oriented fighter, therefore it would probably be optimized for low-altitude work. A MiG-29 is a high altitude air superiority fighter, which along with its abysmal range performance down low would well result in an emphasis on high-altitude work. High altitude is also where the AWACS are, a target for the MiGs.
By: Sens
- 6th August 2012 at 19:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Errrr, why in the world would they call it semi-active, then? A missile that requires target illumination until the very point of impact stays fully passive the whole time, right? If it is so, then why bother building a seeker in? A simple datalink for course updates would be all you need..
The AIM-7 was such a missile too and the main weapon for interception missions. The F-16s had no AIM-7 capability at first, because that role were the task of the F-4s and F-15s f.e.
The Soviets saw the MiG-29 as replacement of the MiG-23 at first. The main role was that of an allweather interceptor under GCI command similar to the PVO. The agility allows the MiG-29 to be used in the A2A role similar to the F-16 or MiG-21bis. But in the 80s the Eastern pilots had not a similar freedom of operations to make some use of that or AWACs support. For that kind of warfare possible for the prsent F-16s the MiG-29 has to have an automated radar-set or weapon-system including an active AAM.
Aerodynamic wise the MiG-29 has an advantage over the F-16, but not so as a weapon-system. Without FBW and automation of fire-control upgrade it lacks some inst. capability. By the way there is nothing like a simple datalink available, still the main advantage of the Gripen, F-16 a.s.o. over the MiG-29.
By: Amiga500
- 6th August 2012 at 19:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aerodynamic wise the MiG-29 has an advantage over the F-16, but not so as a weapon-system
Did the original Fulcrum come with the HMCS?
I firmly believe a force of Fulcrums with the HMCS/Archer combination would have been much more effective than a force of F-16s over Germany if things had turned hot in the late 80s.
Indeed, I think it probably would have dominated the skies. Good low speed pointability to reduce the missile's need to hard turn off the rail and the ability to cue it well off bore. A lethal combination IMO.
Yes, the NATO fighters had a longer reach with their better radar and radar guided missiles* - but in my opinion, in practice those missiles and as a result that entire doctrine would have been shown to be woefully ineffective.
Now, well... MiG-35 vs. F-16 blk 60? The F-16 would have better long range systems, while the MiG might** retain an advantage close in.
*and were more flexible with their more powerful avionics. But the ability to hit ground targets wouldn't help them avoid the Archer in a furball.
**anyone figures for weight growth for both Fulcrum and Viper over the years?
By: TR1
- 6th August 2012 at 20:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well given that no F-16s in Europe had BVR capability before the Cold War ended (first ones being the Air National Guard F-16ADF, started conversions in 89), and the MiG-29 also had HMS and R-73, I see the Fulcrum as having a huge weapons system advantage.
By: Sens
- 6th August 2012 at 20:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only reasonable way for the Westeners to put hand on a Fulcrum would be vanilla 9.12B version with downrated engines, used by the Luftwaffe.
The one who have read Jane's How To Fly... shall know that German pilots actually found massive performance shortcuts after having their engines downrated. I don't think this comparison shown here applies to any other Fulcrum on this planet and I am confident that a GE-powered F-16C has much to catch on at low speeds, while it should have a better push at higher transsonic. (now, PW-powered versions are not that much able to cope with the MiG, again)
A classic example of taking the best F-16 has and the worst MiG-29 has.. Getting bored reading this BS...
You should have known better. The 9.12B is the version of the best wing-load and highest agility from that. For daily use the GAF examples were flown with limited power-setting for the RD-33 engines to get more life-time from the engines. That was no longer so during exercises, when that restriction was lifted.
By: Sens
- 6th August 2012 at 20:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did the original Fulcrum come with the HMCS?
I firmly believe a force of Fulcrums with the HMCS/Archer combination would have been much more effective than a force of F-16s over Germany if things had turned hot in the late 80s.
Indeed, I think it probably would have dominated the skies. Good low speed pointability to reduce the missile's need to hard turn off the rail and the ability to cue it well off bore. A lethal combination IMO.
Yes, the NATO fighters had a longer reach with their better radar and radar guided missiles* - but in my opinion, in practice those missiles and as a result that entire doctrine would have been shown to be woefully ineffective.
Now, well... MiG-35 vs. F-16 blk 60? The F-16 would have better long range systems, while the MiG might** retain an advantage close in.
*and were more flexible with their more powerful avionics. But the ability to hit ground targets wouldn't help them avoid the Archer in a furball.
**anyone figures for weight growth for both Fulcrum and Viper over the years?
Yes, both and that allowed several "kills" at WVR against pilots not used to that. Having "survived" that "kills" allowed those not to be trapped in a similar way again. In short never stay slow or close to such equipped MiG-29s. Even without that exercises that tactical advantage had not lasted long. I agree the West may have lost a number of fighters by that at first. I am surprised that just a few Western pilots were informed about that capability and even less were trained to counter that. :mad:
By: Anonymous - 19th September 2005 at 07:51 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
BTW interesting read Bring_it_on... of course you have to keep in mind that the aircraft the Germans are flying are downgraded export model Migs. In some respects the very late model Mig-23s had several advantages over them (including range). Even the standard Soviet Migs had better radar setups and much better navigation equipment and the Mig-29S added jamming ability and the longer range R-27s (ie R-27ET and R-27ER) which the earlier migs can't carry.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 19th September 2005 at 08:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yup..However I found the other aspects a bit more interesting..
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 19th September 2005 at 08:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sferrin, thanks a million for the info, I stand corrected with the SARH question.. How was the aiming principle of AIM-54A or AIM-54C? Were those also dependant on target illumination until the very impact?
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 19th September 2005 at 08:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I got a scan of Jane's How To Fly and Fight With MiG-29 Fulcrum, PM me, if you are interested.. The book elaborates on the topic to a much greater extent and does not include only aerodynamics, but also points many drawbacks of outdated weapons control system of the MiG compared to F-16C, as well as the outcome of practical comparison..
Posts: 135
By: Grizzly01 - 20th September 2005 at 04:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to German pilots best ITR of MiG-29 is 28DPS. As for 360 degree turn time, it is 15 to 16 seconds, I've seen it myself.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 20th September 2005 at 04:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Both were semiactive until they were in range of the onboard scanner (about 10 miles) and then they went active. At that point the aircraft could stop illuminating. There were also the options to be semiactive all the way, go active right from the start provided the target was close enough, and home on jam.
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 20th September 2005 at 08:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is exactly what I was after.. Doesn't the R-27ER have the same features? I understand they currently were some major improvements over the original 9B-1101K seeker..
Posts: 362
By: cru - 20th September 2005 at 08:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, because the Phoenix have a transmitter/receiver in its nose, that's a complete (monopulse) radar, while the R 27, like all semi-active missiles has only a receiver, being dependent of the launching aircraft to iluminate the target.Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 20th September 2005 at 09:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Okay.. That must have been the mistake.. I have read about AIM-54s way back in the past and since then projected its features automatically on all other SARH missiles.. Strange, I have never realized this...
Posts: 362
By: cru - 20th September 2005 at 09:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, the Phoenix is first generation active missile; most of its trajectory is still semi-active; as long as you have a huge radar (~1m in diamm. and 10 kW peak power) as the APG 71 is OK; the really revolutionary step was the intoduction of AMRAAM, followed by MICA and R 77. They have a datalink (one way only) that allow even small planes like F 16 or Mirage to fire, turn away, re-illuminate the target and transmit midcourse corection to the missile, while staying out of the danger.
Posts: 675
By: Pit - 21st September 2005 at 14:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Harry:
This is Mr Detonator post I refered, I will post it full here (hope he has no problems!)...
Hi guys,
I was on bussines trip so I didn`t have time to write. Now I`m reading the discussion and I`m glad to see that you have already mentioned the NATOPS manuals for F-15. I have also considered to get that manual too but I don`t know what level of technical information I can expect from it. For example I don`t need to read the pilot procedures , basic flight fundamentals or combat operationals but rather the operating limits and flight characteristic of the F-15. So I would expect tenths of diagrams, plots related to the performance of the aircraft. I have found this web page which offers copies of flight manuals on CD. Please have a look there and write your suggestions whether it is worth the money or not.
quote to egodriver
"at first the F-15A was 7,33g limited but with the introduction of OWS (Overload warning system) F-15C & A are allowed to fly up to 9g. "
That`s what I don`t undestand. First, the F-15 CAS system is briefly decribed in some NASA tech-papers you can get easily on the net. In general, when the CAS is "ON", it allows deflections which can not overload the airframe structure limit (the destruction lift). The CAS includes angular speed and acceleration senzors for yaw, roll and AOA. Then it modifies the stick input to get the optimum surface deflection. Therefore the CAS is a limiter of AOA and G-load. When applying greater stick force when CAS system is "OFF" the G-limit(AOA) can be overriden. The difference between these modes is that by the CAS "OFF" the F-15 is sluggish, not comfortable to fly but still safe as they claim.
It seems a little bit illogical when they introduced another limiter called the OWS (Overload warning system, MSIP upgrade F-15C) ,it allowed them g-loads up to 9G. I think they made inner construction changes at first so the airframe can withstand more that 7.33G. Then they changed the CAS software to get better stabs deflection(better pitch rate, more AOA, more Gs in dependency of speed). From the NASA diagram I have mentioned it`s clear to see that 7.33G was a strenght limit, the aerodynamics of F-15 can do more. Introducing of OWS was just a word for polishing lacks in airframe strenght and software. That`s my opinion.
quote to Jdata
"I don't know where you got the ITR but from all the people I have spoken to told me that value is hard to measure on the F-15 because of the pitch rate hence why it isn't in the -1".
I don`t think it can not be measured. Accurate ITR values are rarely published, since they are quite variable under different circumstances and that applies to almost all aircrafts. Anyway you have written the answer on that point. Aircrafts like F-15 and F-16 were built as pure SEP fighters to get the best STR so the ITR values are mostly irellevant. French introduced opposite philosophy with the delta Mirage2000. But everyone knows that Mirage2000 sucks in TWR, so it can`t have a comparable STR. I have seen many Mirage2000 displays on airshows, but I don`t remember seeing Mirage doing full 360 degree turn. The F-16 drivers like to show their highest STR.
quote to egodriver
"Generally the F-16 has a better roll rate but the F-15 has better pitch rate and AOA capacities"
No matter about the roll rate, you‘re right. But I`m not sure which one has the better pitch rate. Generally a high pitch rate means, the plane increases AOA quicker so the turn can begin quicker too. So this can be quite important for ITR performance when AC starts to turn with the highest energy potencial. I dont know the exact F-15 AOA capabilities, but I doubt they are much better than F-16‘s. The F-16 has some theoretical advantages for better pitch-rate. The first is the relaxed static stability issue, where the plane isn`t longer heavy on the nose at subsonic. In fact the F-15 stabs always decrease the overal lift bcs of longitudinal static stability, so to get the same AOA they would probably need a bigger deflection in comparison with F-16. Therefore the stabs of F-15 produce much more of the induced drag. Design features such high-lift devices (flaps, slats) can increase maximum usable AOA by increasing stall AOA. The Cl max depends on AOA, but is also increased by a profile curvature(flaps, slats), so the higher lift coeficient will ensure gaining G-load quicker. For example slats can give another 20-25% of the overall lift when extended. But the F-15 doesn`t have slats.
quote egodriver
"Max instantaneous turn rate is more than 28°/s at low altitude.Best sustained turn rate is more than 20°/s at low altitude. If you take a 100kts base for stall at 1g, the minimum speed at which you can load to 9g is approximately 300kts.In this condition you get largely more than 28°/s. For information a 9g turn at 400kts give 27°/s (that's mathematic)."
Well, I`m not sure how did you get the number 27°/s STR under these conditions (9G, 400kts), I got only 24.5°/s. Nevermind, maybe I did the conversion from knots to meters/seconds wrong But I`m sure that Su-27 or Mig-29 neither the F-15 don`t have the ability to sustain 9G at 400kts(0.604Mach), that is too low speed. When I counted it with speed 0.8Mach(534kts, sea level, 9G) I got 18.5°/s. Then I could say an aircraft with higher T/W ratio (btw. is growing with speed,bcs of ram effect) and greatest L/D can achieve 9G sustained earlier than 0.8Mach. The STR is growing when the speen is lower than 0.8Mach, but the TWR and L/D has to be adequate. If not, the aicraft will bleed energy so then the ITR will depend on wing loading and maximal lift coeficient Cl max. But as I see you guessed the exact value where the 9G sustaining turn occurs for F-15. Any aircraft has its own L/D(pressure, skin friction, parasitic,induced,wave drag), TWR, flight control system, strenght limits, etc, etc. That means each AC will sustain 9G at different speed.
In comparison with your calculations the Mig-29 can sustain only 7.5G at speed of 400kts. I have picked up this figure from a diagram where I can see, what G-load the MIG can sustain in a 360degree turn on full AB regime in dependency on altitude. This diagram was computed for one reference flight configuration (weight), so you can recount it for any other weight value. Another diagram shows the STR dependency on speed and altitude. The highest STR the Mig29 can achieve is 19.5-20°/s at speeds close to 0.8Mach. My point is that at 400kts((0.604Mach) the aircraft has also the STR near 18°/s , but only 7.5G. I didn`t see a diagram for ITR there, it is only stated as a value of 23.5°/s. There is also a diagram for g-load(instantaneous) related to the speed and altitude, where I can calculate any point of it and the result is the same as on the diagram. The formula for this is following:
Instantaneous G load = 1/2 x Clmax x air density x speed^2 / wing loading x acceleration due to gravity
Quote JDATA&Egodriver
"From talking to pilots, your speed at which 9G occurs is too low. Due to the "lag time" of the CAS, you'll blimp to 9Gs in the 320-350ias range but you won't sustain it that's in the Echo. „ and „300kts is to slow to hold 9g, clear. But not to make a rapid instantaneous maneuver. The Mig-29 can do exactly the same."
For comparison I can give precise information related to Mig-29‘s performance. The 9G occurs first at 0.55Mach(363kts) at sea level and maximal AOA of 26degree by a reference weight of 14200kg . To hold 9G-load the speed must be higher then 0.7Mach(460kts) at sea level. Don`t know exact values for Su-27, but it is supposed it could hit 9G even quicker ...~0.5Mach, that`s 325kts(sea level). It would really surprise me if F-15 got its 9G on 300kts. I suppose that the F-15 has the worst lift coefficient at maximal AOA in comparison with both Russian planes, therefore the F-15 should hit (not sustain) 9G at higher speeds.
Hmm, first you have written that 300kts is too low to hit 9G for F-15, then value of 320-350kias. I dont think it is too much difference between 300 and 320 so as between IAS and TAS on sea level. From which source did you get this value? Are they really from the original F-15 manual? I would predict speeds around 360-380kts where it hits 9G, but those are my estimated values.
Quote to ego driver
"No trace of buffet or other "degradation" in the control of the aircraft. The turn is very smooth and easy to fly, and the aircraft has enough reserve to make a tighter turn."
I`m with Jdata again. I hope you both agree with me that Mig-29 is one of the most maneuverable AC on high AOA. During such a slow fly-by at high AOA on the Mig-29, the pilot feels small vibrations which start already at 17degree AOA. When over 20degree the plane shakes like an old car. But looking on the aircraft from the ground everything looks fluid. Anyway one question to you guys. Have you seen the Mig-29 or Su-27 with your own eyes? I think you both come from USA and there has not been much opportunity to have a look.
Quote to egodriver
An F-15 doing a sustained 9 g turn at Mach 0,74 on sea level(490 knots) has a 21°/s. Every aircraft doing the same will have exactly the same turn rate!
But the Mig-29 has never hit 21°/s STR at all. According to Mig-29 flight instruction manual, the sustained 9G turn at 0.74(sea level) the Mig hits its 19.5°/s STR.
to anyone feel free to comment.
Posts: 2,282
By: Harry - 21st September 2005 at 18:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 19th January 2010 at 06:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
this months AFM has an interesting story of a USAF pilot with 1900h on different blocks of F-16s, vs a Bulgarian MiG-29 pilot with 1500h.
i won't write everything here, you can go read it yourself. but some key statements
pros of MiG-29
+ simple and rugged, could be used on a dirtier strip which the F-16 can't. time that is normally used to prepare the strip could be used for other things. FOD inlet design very practical (this is the older MiG)
+ although it uses two engines, it can match the agility of the F-16
+ F-16 and MiG-29 used different design approaches to achieve similar results
cons of MiG-29
- uses two very large engines for its size of aircraft. very fuel thirsty, consumes way more fuel for its size of aircraft despite having more fuel than the F-16.
- pilot eventually won by bingo fuelling the MiG-29 to death only after a few turns.
- the pilot prefers the F-16 in the end, with a big factor having to do with its fuel economy and range.
some other things in this issue
Polish AF reports
failure time of F-16 at every 7 hours
failure time of MiG-29 at every 5 hours
failure time of every Su-20/22 at every 10 hours! :eek:
F-16 almost as bad as MiG-29 levels of operationability for the Poles..
Posts: 3,538
By: quadbike - 19th January 2010 at 07:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The newer Mig 29s have increaed range and fuel capacity. Could be different then :).
Posts: 111
By: DarkDuke - 6th August 2012 at 12:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Things changed after F-16 became block52 version and much more hearvier than primary version
It has a batch of graphs in the presentation, but for those who want the meat, here it is. They assume clean aircraft, no externals, 100% internal fuel, level turns (no slices) and A/B thrust.
AT SEA LEVEL:
The two aircraft are horrendously close, with the graphs almost overlapping in many regions. The F-16 has slightly superior Ps curves, suggesting higher sustained turn rate. The Ps benefits it VERY SLIGHTLY down to 220 knots (all knot figure seem to be in TAS). In INSTANTANEOUS turn rate, the MIG is superior, has smaller radius, up to corner airspeed of the F-16, around 375 knots at this altitude, the MiG corner is at around 360 looking at the graph. At this altitude, the F-16 enjoys a speed advantage.
AT 15,000 FEET
The MiG-29 can only hold a 7.5G sustained turn versus the F-16's 8.6 (this is the Block 52 version versus what apparently is a Fulcrum-A). The MiG-29 gets a small sustained turn advantage up to 485 knots. In instantaneous turn, the MIG is superior, with smaller radius up to 475knots (the F-16's corner airspeed at THAT altitude looking at the chart). The MiG corner airspeed seems to be around 450.
TAKING IT UP TO 30,000 FEET
The MiG-29 gets an advantage in all respects until 850knots. 'Nuff said.
I know that this ignores roll rates, avionics and others, but it is still a MOST interesting.
And it makes sense, and it is one of the theories which explains all the suppositions.
1)Sometimes MiG pilots came a turn rate advantage, sometimes the F-16 pilots, and not just in speed. The difference could potentially be explained here.
2)A F-16 is a ground-pounder oriented fighter, therefore it would probably be optimized for low-altitude work. A MiG-29 is a high altitude air superiority fighter, which along with its abysmal range performance down low would well result in an emphasis on high-altitude work. High altitude is also where the AWACS are, a target for the MiGs.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 6th August 2012 at 19:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The AIM-7 was such a missile too and the main weapon for interception missions. The F-16s had no AIM-7 capability at first, because that role were the task of the F-4s and F-15s f.e.
The Soviets saw the MiG-29 as replacement of the MiG-23 at first. The main role was that of an allweather interceptor under GCI command similar to the PVO. The agility allows the MiG-29 to be used in the A2A role similar to the F-16 or MiG-21bis. But in the 80s the Eastern pilots had not a similar freedom of operations to make some use of that or AWACs support. For that kind of warfare possible for the prsent F-16s the MiG-29 has to have an automated radar-set or weapon-system including an active AAM.
Aerodynamic wise the MiG-29 has an advantage over the F-16, but not so as a weapon-system. Without FBW and automation of fire-control upgrade it lacks some inst. capability. By the way there is nothing like a simple datalink available, still the main advantage of the Gripen, F-16 a.s.o. over the MiG-29.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 6th August 2012 at 19:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did the original Fulcrum come with the HMCS?
I firmly believe a force of Fulcrums with the HMCS/Archer combination would have been much more effective than a force of F-16s over Germany if things had turned hot in the late 80s.
Indeed, I think it probably would have dominated the skies. Good low speed pointability to reduce the missile's need to hard turn off the rail and the ability to cue it well off bore. A lethal combination IMO.
Yes, the NATO fighters had a longer reach with their better radar and radar guided missiles* - but in my opinion, in practice those missiles and as a result that entire doctrine would have been shown to be woefully ineffective.
Now, well... MiG-35 vs. F-16 blk 60? The F-16 would have better long range systems, while the MiG might** retain an advantage close in.
*and were more flexible with their more powerful avionics. But the ability to hit ground targets wouldn't help them avoid the Archer in a furball.
**anyone figures for weight growth for both Fulcrum and Viper over the years?
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 6th August 2012 at 20:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well given that no F-16s in Europe had BVR capability before the Cold War ended (first ones being the Air National Guard F-16ADF, started conversions in 89), and the MiG-29 also had HMS and R-73, I see the Fulcrum as having a huge weapons system advantage.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 6th August 2012 at 20:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You should have known better. The 9.12B is the version of the best wing-load and highest agility from that. For daily use the GAF examples were flown with limited power-setting for the RD-33 engines to get more life-time from the engines. That was no longer so during exercises, when that restriction was lifted.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 6th August 2012 at 20:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, both and that allowed several "kills" at WVR against pilots not used to that. Having "survived" that "kills" allowed those not to be trapped in a similar way again. In short never stay slow or close to such equipped MiG-29s. Even without that exercises that tactical advantage had not lasted long. I agree the West may have lost a number of fighters by that at first. I am surprised that just a few Western pilots were informed about that capability and even less were trained to counter that. :mad: