dark light

firebar

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 644 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2486699
    firebar
    Participant

    One Israeli F-15 destroyed by Syrian Mig-25:

    “Syria obtained 30 MiG-25PD interceptors, along with five MiG-25PU trainers and eight MiG-25RB reconnaissance machines. Two Syrian MiG-25s mixed it up with two Israeli F-15s on 13 February 1981, both sides losing an aircraft. “

    http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig25
    “Foxbat in foreign service”

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2489016
    firebar
    Participant

    And the SR-71, YF-12, and A-12 are the SAC, ADC, and CIA versions of the Lockheed OXCART design. Either they’re both multi-role or they both aren’t.

    Had the YF-12 entered service, the Blackbird would have been a multi role a/c.
    But great technical problems prevented the YF-12 from entering service status. I said earlier, its alert time, as interceptor, was awfull. As well as its inability for any normal maneuvering (loops, zooms, rools, split-S, sudden dives, etc).

    People often don’t realise one thing about Blackbird: all phases of its route must be carefuly prepared before flight. The improvisation is not allowed. It is very sensitive to any disturbance of preplaned route.
    That is the reason why it was only usefull as strategic high altitude reconnaissance.

    If you count multiple types of reconnaissance as different roles, as you did above, then the SR-71 was multirole. It could perform significant SIGINT, ELINT, and IMINT collection, battle damage asessment, strategic reconnaissance, post-strike reconnaissance…

    No,no. It was not flexible enough for tactical, low and medium altitude reconnaissance.
    Only high altitude reconnaissance was the option for Blackbird. It had no enough airframe strength for lower altitude flights.
    It was in fact high altitude gas tank. Very fragile.

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2489019
    firebar
    Participant

    How many Foxbats have been shot down vs. SR-71s?

    Firstly, the Mig-25 was used in combat and SR-71 was not.
    Secondly, all Mig-25s lost in combat are downed during descent or climb. At its combat altitudes, above 20 km, and at its cruise speed, it is untouchable.
    There was at least 10 Phoenix missiles launched on Mig-25 in Iraq, and all in vane. The Migs were too fast.

    The Israelis downed a few, but all at lower levels, and with carefuly prepared traps.
    Imagine how many Me-262s are downed by Spits, T-bolts and Mustangs.
    When you have great numerical advandage, you will down much better fighter.

    And third, one A-12 has been damaged over Vietnam on 30.oct.1967 by SAM-2 missile. It was lucky escape. The peaces of missile warhead were found imbeded in lower wing area.
    The SR-71 routes are carefuly prepared before each flight, to avoid any SAM missile sites.

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2489043
    firebar
    Participant

    Nonsense. 😮

    Not at all.
    In ordinary jet engines, such as J-79, F100, J-57, etc, (in any 2M engine), there are no shock wave which enter intake duct. The normal shock wave form and stay at intake lip. So there is no normal shock wave which can pop out the inlet, (unstart).
    On the other hand, the mixed compression engines (J-58n and J-93) use normal shock wave which is formed and which stay in intake duct.

    But the problem is that, in case of any slight airstream disturbance in intake, this normal shock wave pops out of the inlet, and great loss of thrust occurs.

    A big disadvantage in combat.

    The solution used on Mig-25 is much clever, without this vice.

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2489635
    firebar
    Participant

    You’ll have to tell that to the people who built the F-4 and XF8U-3. Apparently they imagined it all. :rolleyes:

    The F-4 and F-8 both have external compression propulsion systems.
    Such propulsion systems do not suffer from unstarts.

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2489652
    firebar
    Participant

    If the MiG-25 was a “multi-mode” aircraft, you’d be able ot use the same jet for both intercept and reconnaissance. You can’t. Just like the Blackbird, different variants existed for different missions.

    I say, the Mig-25, as aircraft, is multi mode platform.
    The Mig-25RB and Mig-25P are versions of MiG-25 !!!

    If you think of one particular plane, note that RB version can be used for:
    -Low and medium altitude tactical reccon.
    -High altitude strategic reccon.
    -Bombing from low, medium or very high altitudes.
    -Stand-off attacks with antiradiation missiles.

    A multi role by any standard.
    The SR-71 was capable of only one of these roles.

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2489667
    firebar
    Participant

    You obviously know nothing about it. They both had problems as anybody who’s made a passing glance at the history of either aircraft knows.

    Sferin, Sferin, these are ABC in theory of jet engines. You should know this if you want to discuss about this matter.
    Only mixed compression engines are susceptible to unstarts.

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2489748
    firebar
    Participant

    Don’t forget, that’s at 123,000 feet while pulling 11Gs. :diablo: :cool::cool:;);)

    How many a/c types can climb to 123.000 ft ?
    How many Mach 3 types can endure 11G without breaking apart ?

    Comparing to multi mode Mig-25, the Blackbird is mere fragile fuel tank, with max allowed g loading like ordinary airliners.

    The Mig-25 is limited to 5 G at 2.5 Mach at 30 t weight.
    http://www.sergib.agava.ru/russia/mikoyan/mig-25/records

    It is the highest G limit by any figher, even today, at speeds over 2 Mach.

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2489758
    firebar
    Participant

    Lot’s of planes had the unstart problem including the XB-70, the Blackbirds, F-4 Phantom, and Crusader III. In none of them was it the engine’s fault and in all of them they eventually got the problem resolved.

    First of all, the F-4 and F-8 had no mixed compression engines and, so, they had no experiences with unstarts.

    The F-4 and F-8 had ordinary external compression engines, where normal shock wave never entered inlet duct, so there was no unstarts.

    On the other hand, the mixed compression engine experience unstarts by its nature. It can not be avoided. Only its magnitude can be reduced to lower level.

    See SR-71 Manual: Even with DAFICS digital inlet control, the unstarts are frequent.
    The slightest air density change can trigger unstarts. it is very sensitive.

    Because of that only two a/c used mixed compression. The Blackbird and XB-70.

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2490561
    firebar
    Participant

    Comparing to the above mentioned Mig-25 records:

    YF-12:
    -1965, closed circuit over 1000 km, with 2 t payload, 2718 km/h.
    -1965, closed circuit over 500 km, with, 2 t payload, 2644 km/h.

    Note that it is far below that of Mig-25 achieved.

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2490564
    firebar
    Participant

    These are Mig-25 records which still stands:

    -1967, speed over 1000 km closed circuit, with 2 tonnes payload, 2920 km/h.
    -1967, speed over 500 km closed circuit, with 2t payload, 2982 km/h.
    -1973, speed over 100 km closed circuit, no payload, 2605 km/h.
    -1973, max altitude, with 2 t payload, 35230 m.
    -1973, max altitude, no payload, 36240 m.

    These are achieved with standard engines R-15B-300.

    In 1977 it achieved even more with R-15BF2 engines:

    -Max altitude , with 2 t payload, 37080 m.
    -Max altitude , no payload, 37650 m.
    There are also time to climb records which still stands.

    Which other a/c can boast with such array of records?

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2490567
    firebar
    Participant

    The enormous power of Mig-25 at high altitudes reveal this fact, from manual, of course. And that for the first version entered 1970:
    -At 18 km altitude, its rate of climb, is 100 m/sec !!!

    Compare this with service ceiling of 16 km for F-14A. Or 18 km for F-15A.

    The difference is huge.

    Or look at the speed:
    -Mig-25: 2.83 M with 4 x big AA-6 or 4x 500 kg bombs.
    -F-15C: 1.78 M with 4x Sidewinder

    Bear in mind that the F-15 is the fastest and highest climbing american fighter.

    Even Mig-23 has much higher speed:
    -2.35 M with 2x big AA-24.

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2490573
    firebar
    Participant

    For the benefit of the others.

    Do you know what the Mig-25 inlet picture reveal?

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2490576
    firebar
    Participant

    I;m sorry but the article doesnt provide further explanation. What if the MiG-25R which was tracked flying over Israel at Mach 3.2 was indeed the one fitted with the R-15BF2-300 engines.;) Very good assuption, but do you have any proof for that, or is it just your personal opinion?.

    Its engines were R-15B-300. Of course. In that time the R-15BF2 did not existed yet.

    in reply to: F-15, F-16, F-14, Su-27 and MiG-29 aerodynamics #2490589
    firebar
    Participant

    What, like it is well known and documented that the radomes of the YF-12s melted off?

    You did not read anything about XB-70 unstarts? Its odd because there are many sources. Here is one:
    http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/02/a_kludge_1.html

    This problem was never solved in XB-70.
    In fact, every a/c with mixed compression engines has this problem.

    It was the Blackbird’s J58 that often encountered unstarts, not the J93, but it had nothing to do with the engine and everything to do with the intake system. The unstarts were largely corrected with the addition of a computer control system to control the translating spike in the intake. Before that the spikes were controleld manually and failing to oeprate them within a very tight tolerance would lead to an unstart.

    These are good wishes only.
    Even SR-71 with digital intake controls, introduced in 1983, had this problems.
    See SR-71 manual.
    According to Manual, even with this digital system the problem persisted.
    You can only imagine the magnitude of this problem before this.
    It was surely awful.

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 644 total)