Page 44 – Key Publishing

Levsha

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 646 through 660 (of 2,665 total)

← 1 2 3 … 43 44 45 … 176 177 178 →

Author

Posts
February 5, 2015 at 1:45 pm in reply to: MiG-21 upgrades versus F-5 upgrades #2225955

Levsha
Participant

And the specific fuel consumption of the R-13, R-25 and the J-85 in dry thrust is pretty much the same, with the R-13 and R-25 actually being marginally better.

Better SFC, were did you get information for that?

February 5, 2015 at 12:36 pm in reply to: MiG-21 upgrades versus F-5 upgrades #2225967

Levsha
Participant

Doesn’t the J-85 have more stages than either the R-13 or R-25?
That alone means it is far from being “far simpler”.

Having more stages wouldn’t stop the J-85 from being cheaper and simpler to operate – specific fuel consumption, time-between-overhaul and overall operating life would be the key indicators.

February 5, 2015 at 12:27 pm in reply to: How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs #2225992

Levsha
Participant

Was there really much difference between an East German MiG-29 and a Soviet air force example? To what extent were they downgraded?

The radar on the MiG-29 was not that impressive compared to its mid-1980s contemporaries in any case – APG-68 on the F-16C, etc.

February 4, 2015 at 12:37 pm in reply to: How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs #2226319

Levsha
Participant

A great read indeed. A lot of info and hard facts to chew on. He wasn’t very impressed with the IRST on the MiG-29 – “next to useless” according to him. He was very impressed with the HMS and R-73 though. He didn’t think much of vectored thrust either (I suspect he is correct).

February 2, 2015 at 9:59 am in reply to: SU-24 vs Tornado vs F-111 #2226844

Levsha
Participant

Makes me wonder how effective the Su-24 would’ve been as an interceptor, if the MiG-25 had not existed. It’s the only one of this group that wasn’t developed with an envisioned interceptor role.

It would not have been too effective at at all. Su-24 had fixed ‘gaping hole’ inlets for its engines, it was restricted to a top speed of no more than around mach 1.3+ or so. The MiG-31 easily does the air defence job much better than any Su-24 variant would.

February 1, 2015 at 4:27 pm in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2227060

Levsha
Participant

Thai air force museum Dec 5th 2014.

You mean there are Thai JA 39s in a museum? Is it some sort of temporary exhibition or something? How many of them are in a museum?

February 1, 2015 at 3:48 pm in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2227079

Levsha
Participant

How come I have a feeling Viggen was the best AC in its time for air superiority…am I wrong ?

F-4, F-15? F-14?

February 1, 2015 at 12:19 pm in reply to: Russian near incursions #2227135

Levsha
Participant

That is a very good question, considering that Crimea as a matter of fact has been looking something like this ever since the fact:

I never made it to Crimea, so I can’t speak from first hand, but I would have thought that Crimea always looked like that. Most Russian, and I guess Ukrainian, provincial towns and cities are very pleasant, friendly and relaxed in the Summer time, especially on a Sunday.

January 31, 2015 at 12:15 pm in reply to: Russian near incursions #2227669

Levsha
Participant

Русские не сдаются! (Russian do not surrender!) :Р

January 30, 2015 at 8:26 pm in reply to: Best Fighter of the 70s #2227897

Levsha
Participant

Mirage F1 were easily ‘bagged’ by F-15 in 1990, 91. Lots of Iraqi F1 were also shot down by Iranian F-14 in turn.

January 30, 2015 at 7:39 pm in reply to: Best Fighter of the 70s #2227929

Levsha
Participant

Well is there then a question about it ?

:eagerness:

Err, no. F-15 entered service with USAF in 1975.

January 30, 2015 at 6:35 pm in reply to: Best Fighter of the 70s #2227988

Levsha
Participant

If I were to build an airforce in 1970, there would be only two aircraft on my list; F-4E and MiG-25.

MiG-25P was not available in 1970.

I like F-15, but without AIM-120, and immature as it was, and all the lack of A-G capability, it wasn’t a better option

F-15A/B had A-to-G capability – unguided munitions only though, (dumb bombs and HVAR, typically)

January 30, 2015 at 6:28 pm in reply to: Did the Luftwaffe make the right choice with the F-104? #2227992

Levsha
Participant

But entirely relevant for operations over Central Europe & the Baltic, where the chance of a tanker living long enough to offload was negligible. We’re discussing aircraft options for the Luftwaffe, not the USAF.

The Buccaneer was hardly a candidate in the Luftwaffe fighter competition of the late 1950s?

J75 was a pretty powerful engine and like I was getting at, there was no suitable turbofan engine to replace the J75.

An afterburning version of the JT8D motor could have been made available for the F-105 very early if there was a demand for it – indeed, it was eventually developed into such an engine: as the Volvo RM8 for the SAAB Viggen.

January 30, 2015 at 6:17 pm in reply to: Best subsonic fighter of the 50's #2227993

Levsha
Participant

Remember the engagement of a F-86 and a PO-2 in Vietnam ?

No, I don’t, enlighten us!

January 29, 2015 at 12:32 pm in reply to: Did the Luftwaffe make the right choice with the F-104? #2228594

Levsha
Participant

Because production was only over a short seven year period, the F-105 didn’t enjoy a re-engine program like the Buccaneer. There really wasn’t a good candidate turbofan to put into it anyhow. The Buccaneer, using two much smaller engines was much easier to upgrade its design.

Indeed. The F-105 was quickly replaced with the F-111 in USAF service. The Buccaneer arrived in between the F-105 and the F-111, timeframe wise.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 646 through 660 (of 2,665 total)

← 1 2 3 … 43 44 45 … 176 177 178 →