A MiG-27 demostrator armed with AA-11

I included the word ‘proposal’ deliberately – I know they were never built :confused:

The drawings are taken from Andrei Fomin’s Russian-language Su-33 book.

The first drawing is captioned “Scheme (of) ship-borne fighter MiG-23A (aviaproject 1972)

The second is captioned “Scheme (of) ship-borne fighter MiG-23K (outline project 1977).

I’m not making this stuff up……………. :diablo:

Ken

Flanker_man I see however see that i was only saying the only MiG-23 that really was built as a naval fighter was a sole MiG-27.

ooh mig-23k!!!

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal3/2201-2300/Gal2236_MiG-23K_Biggs/gal2236.htm 😀 😀

– i should appoligise for the shoddy model, i was 17 and n00b the time, ok! LOL

(to redeem myself, in 1/144: http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/2426/a1ur2.jpg)

realyl wish teh 23 had seen even prototype stage as a carrier fighter, would have been ausome 😀

Well there was a MiG-27 built with arresting hook and modified ventral fin

best trained pilots in the world are Afghan pilots 😀

perhaps for flying flying carpets the best pilots are in Afghanistan but for MiG-29s are in Russia 😀 and for JAS-39s in Sweden 😉

Do you never learn something from postings?!
The given G number is the allowed one for an aircraft to achive the designed life-time and the related safety margin is 1,5 in general.
A fighter with a given G number of 8 can go up to 12 with out breaking.
Maybe the aircraft can do so, but the pilot or crew will become unconsious and may be killed after a few seconds, when doing. Nearly all pilots do face a grey-out close to 9 Gs, what is the ‘red-light’ to relax or black-out in short notice. The USAF lost several F-16s, just to that cause, so the allowed limits were lowered further. The F-16s were built for a lifetime of 4000 hours, but in the meanwhile that is doubled. Those F-16s have still there >9G capability, but were flown in peace-time operations below that. To conserve lifetime of the Kfir in IDF-AF service those were limited to 7,5 Gs at first and were reduced further to 6,7 Gs. Just to bring down the Israeli pilots, which had to explain their superiors, why they ‘locked’ the G-meter at that set limit and may have passed it their. Much to the relieve of the maintenance people, which had less work and related costs by that.
Despite that I posted it several times before.
The bank angle and related rate of turn hits a limit at around 6 Gs.
6 G it is 81.4°
7 G it is 81.8°
8 G it is 82.4°
To that you can add, that most fighters run out of ‘steam’ and lift under that forces very quickly.
When looking into the performances charts of every modern fighter, you will see that the 9 G performance envelope/corner is very small.
In the 70s it was a advertisement highlight, because the performance envelope of AAMs of that days was limited. That situation changed in the 80s and the AFs scaled back the allowed Gs to more reasonable 7 Gs.
Loaden fighters were limited to ~5 Gs in general. (78.5°)

For the attacker the Gs are less important than for the attacked one, because he is in need of less Gs in a limited period to keep his target in aiming-sight and there are many more reasons, why the thoughts about modern air-combat had changed again.

Your examples given just show, that you are unable to differ between nominal and practical values. Of cause the fighter with the higher performance envelope in all important arenas has some advantages. To that you have to add the performance of your pilot, the sensors, EW-suit and the weaponary.
Even when that package seems superior it is still not asshurance for success.
When your adversaries do manage to stay outside your threat-envelope or manage to gain themselves a tactical advantage situation.
See our SH/Dagger example about that. To reach their naval targets at all, the Argentine pilots had to place themselves in disadvantage and were unable by that to exploit the superior height and speed performance of their Daggers.
Reading data from books can do even a child, but to put it into a perspective to the related missions is something different. Even facts are misleading sometimes. Reaching peak values under test conditions, does not saying much about real flight behavior of that very aircraft. Little control and no smooth flight may not allow aiming at all. When such vices may be overcome by exceptional pilots, that is no help for ordinary ones. No problem for FBW-fighters any longer by the way. Flying a MiG-23 successfull you have to be a very good pilot at least and may it just be not to loose controlled flight only, when the F-16 is much less demanding in that.

Sens

Any aircraft can overrule it`s G overloads limits and this won`t mean it becomes super agile or an F-22.

Agility is a result of thrust and lift versus drag, inertia and weight, in both areas of agility and lift the Kfir C7 for example is not exactly a super fighter, it`s thrust to weight ratio is barely 0.81:1 way below the unity and little bit less than the MiG-23 and AJ-37 Viggen to cite an example and it`s wing area is also small even including the canard less than that of the MiG-23 or SAAB AJ-37.

Of course over ruling the overload G limits will meant some kind of structural damage.

The F-16 is better in agility than any third generation fighter because it has better thrust to weight ratio and has a better structural design allowing it to absorb 9Gs without structural damage.

The MiG-23, JA-37 and Kfir also are stable designs unlike fighters like the Su-27, F-16 or JAS-39 which have some degree of aerodynamic instability.

In few words even despite of good pilots, they won`t be a decisive factor when an inferior aircraft is flown against an advanced design.
The Kfir C2 can be flown by good pilots but it won`t make it a super machine, it`s true a good pilot will avoid all the Kfir weakness and exploit any advantage if any against a more advanced design, a good pilot knows how to take advantage of the unability of taking advantage of any good characteristic of an aircraft and the unawareness of an unexperienced pilot of the better weapons and flight characteristics his/hers aircraft has.

Flogger, while I’ve seen tons of figures, theres really no way to be sure of their accuracy, especially when you don’t have the corresponding figures for speed and weight. What I know from SHAR pilots who went up against MiG-29s in DACT, is that under an optimal speed for both aircraft, the MiG-29’s STR is slightly higher. It is standard to get two aircraft together at the same speed, and get them to start turning, on command from GCI, so as to compare them. I don’t know whether vectoring was used or not but I do know that it helps doing certain manuevers hoped to overcome the MiG-29’s close in advantage. Of course, the SHAR is not capable of sustained 9 G turns like the MiG-29. 6.5-7 G is more common. Yet it is capable of trashing the MiG-21bis and giving the Mirage-2000H a run for its money.

The MiG-23MF was only obtained as an interim solution and eventually used exclusively for BVR training. Only 2 sqns worth were obtained and the single remaining squadron has been doing little more than chucking flares or target towing. The MiG-23MF would have made a nice testbed though.

Harry

I just have those numbers and are from a relatively good book, we need more official information to confirm it but i feel this book is more less reliable

What is the harrier’s sustain turn rate while “Viffing”?

The Thrust vectoring nozzles in the Harrier are far far away from those in the MiG-29OVT system, first it is only a 2D system and it only swivels at pitch all the four nozzles and it only angles down the nozzles from 0 deg to close 270 deg, VIFFing mostly disaccelerates the Harrier quit similar to the Cobra, however the Harrier is quit limited in combat use of it`s thrust vectoring because these were designed for V/STOL and not for maneouvrability as in the MiG-29OVT case or even the ones seen on the F-22..

VIFFing is good to follow a sloped angular up ward trajectory with respect the horizon, but this bleeds speed and lift. The Harrier has small wings and limited thrust in each nozzle, this makes the aircraft not as agile as the MiG-29OVT or F-22, the later have nozzles that can swivel up and down contrary to the Harrier that it`s nozzles only swivel downward.

If the Harrier swivels it`s nozzles on a -45 deg ( 315 deg ) from the horizon simply will bleed so much speed that will simply almost hover see the videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDCHKp9bInE&search=Sea%20harrier in a turn bleeding energy means bleading lift and stalling the wings

Up to what i have read the AV-8B only can a Max sustained a 15 deg/sec turn rate and the Sea Harrier even less only 14 deg/sec, their max instantaneous turn rate is 20 deg/sec.

This is more less in the class of the MiG-23MLD, a Harrier armed with AIM-9L will be therefore more likely to beat a Shafrir armed IAI Nesher even despite good pilots fly them