firebarWhat maybe still in question is every final weapon, what brought a single F-4 down really?
What hit your F-4 really ?!Shrapnels from a SAM blast or 37/57/85 radar-guided AAA?
An Atoll/Igla which homed in?
GSch-23 rounds from MiG/Schilka or other AAA?For the IDF-AF it will change nothing about total numbers lost.
For the 1967 war the historic branch of IDF did a thorough review of all AF losses and corrected number of A/A losses up to twelve.
That is the point. What was the final weapon which brought down the aircraft ?
It is not the same whether it was AAA or Air-Air missile.
Earlier, I presented here some pictures from gun camera of Arab Migs depicting brought down Israeli fighters, which Israel officialy stated were downed by AAA !!
Statements that a few Israeli pilots were downed in dogfights with adversary pilots tends to boost morale of its pilots.
And that is very important for security of Israeli state, so it is used to enormous proportions.
firebarGenerally isn’t good enough, as it doesn’t aim to the Lebanon war.
Do you think that IAF, which is famous for its lack of information about own losses in any war, could reveal its true losses in any particular war ?
Could you tell us, who are the 5 best scoring Israeli pilots in 1982 war ? Their names, please. And in which publicatios we can find it ?
firebarOSPREY AIRCRAFT OF THE ACES 60
ISRAELI F-4 Phnatom II Aces
Shlomo Aloni
Oxford 2004
ISBN 1 84176 783 2gives the numbers from 1969-82
Are you sure there are correct numbers ?
firebarIn which war?
Generally.
firebarIAF lost fighters
“IAF will not reveal number of F-4 lost out of 216 supplied by US.”-Phantom in combat- Boyne, 1985, page 17
firebarThe engines are buffed up in the later Chinese versions and had longer life (WP-6A), though still short.
It is true that engines of F-6 had longer life, which is understandable regarding that F-6 is newer built aircraft, but caracteristics of both engines in combat are the same. The same thrust, air mass flow etc.
Aerodynamic caracteristics are also the same: lift coef., drag coef., moments about all axes etc.
Life of WP-6A is about 300 hours which is not so bad for the time. J-75 engine of F-105 had life of 225 hours.
firebarUSAF about Mig-19
“Current USAF opinion considers the Mig-19 to be a very tough oppenent.”- Phantom in combat-Boyne, 1985, page 111
“Chinese version required more maintenance than russian built aircraft.”-page 112
“IAF will not reveal number of Phantom lost out of 216 supplied by US.” -page 17
firebarStill no real source given to verify idependently. But I agree, the later built Chinese ones were much better than those from the 50s.
At least those got better hydraulics and engines to make the best from low wing-load and good thrust/weight-ratio. The limited aerodynamics did not change and the drag was/is still high, despite some better finish.
Like the F-4 it demanded/s a very good stick and rudder jockey to stay within controlled flight envelope.
But those better ones are late F-6s with chute-cone above the engines from the 70s. 🙂
Russian fighters are built from the start to have excellent maneuverability.
That includes Mig-19 also. There is no any reason to believe that Chinese version is better in any category. Hydraulics and engines are the same.
We have only unconfirmed reports that there is some difference. Who can say that ? Is there anybody who has piloted both versions ?
What is the difference in engines ?
In reality, only difference is in paint camouflage.
Drag is high, that is true, but only above 0,8 Mach, and that is why Mig-21 is better in transonic and supersonic speeds.
But as dogfighter below Mach 1 Mig-19 is very dangerous adversary with almost no vices.
Official USAF oppinion of Mig-19 as dogfighter is very high.
See “Phantom in combat” Thornborough
firebarJust old sources data?
The Israeli pilots, who shot down several MiG-19s described those as easy targets. “A clumsy fighter”.The refined F-6s in Pakistani hands may have been faired better.
I have many old sources of Mig-19 and all of them say that R/c is 115 m/s, that is true.
Read new sources ( after 1990 ).
Quoted Israeli pilot probably have encountered inexperienced adversary.
American and Pakistani pilots have very high opinion of them. They say it was highly maneuverable. And this is understandable regarding it’s very high T/W ratio and low wing loading.
Do you think that russian version is different from chinese ?
firebarBefore doing any tall statements, please give the source or link to your data.
There was no such test-report from Israel. 😮
Max initial climb-rate is always given with max thrust and combat weight! 😉
Of course that report exist. Every Israeli pilot know this.
Regarding R/c data, 115 m/s for Mig-19 can be found in old sources.
firebar[QUOTE=atc pal]
F-100 – very honest. Good buffet aerodynamic warning. In the landing pattern with buffet from gear, flaps, speed brakes and slats this could be “overheard”. If your speed got low the only sensibly thing was to “un-load” and “go around”. (Many, many pilots have died when they didn’t “swallow their pride” and “went around”.)
(These impressions are from very experienced F-100 – (and Hunter (etc.-pilots) – 1.000 – 2.000 hours))
Best regards
QUOTE]
That is correct. But interested is also opinion of american F-100 pilots in Vietnam.
One of them say:” We were forbiden to enter combat with Mig-17 Fresco. F-100 losses to much energy in turn. After a while we would be at low level and with no much chance to escape.”
That is good example of underpowered fighter. Nothing helps that it had higher speed than Mig-17 on paper.
firebarUsing empty weight figures (all I have to go by), I calculate:
MiG-19SF 1.06
F-5A 1.01Not much difference here.
Top speed: F-5A; Mach 1.4, MiG-19; Mach 1.3
Initial climb: F-5A; 28,700ft/min, MiG-19; 22,640ft/min
Service ceiling: F-5A; 50,500ft, MiG-19; 58,725ftThe roll rate of the F-5 is supposed to be amazing, but I don’t have numbers.
I still say they are a close match.
Mig-19S had T/W 1:1 for combat weight and that is excellent even today.
You stated initial climb with dry thrust for Mig-19.
F-5A has far lower than that, 0,75 :1
F-5E has a little more. Tigers are generally underpowered fighters.
Mig-21 MF has T/W of 0,92:1 etc.
It is very important to compare them on the same condition.
firebarNothing learned from the postings before? The T/W ratio tells nothing without drag. You need the excess power value. A first glimpse gives the initial rate of climb.
MiG-19 : ~115 m/sec
F-5A: ~146 m/sec
F-5E: ~161 m/sec
MiG-21F : ~150 m/sec😉
Your data are not correct. Mig-19 had R/C of 115 m/s at militay power.
Also data for F-5 are exaggerated. Mig-21 has far higher R/C than 150 !! This is R/c at max weight.
From test reports in USA and Israel, it have better acceleration than F-4E.
Regarding drag, I need not have to learn from postings. I am aeronautical engineer. I know what I say. Do you know what is Drag rise speed ?
firebarThe MiG.-29 had its first operational units in Frontal Aviation in 1986 but, it wasn’t until about 1988 were there several squadrons of them.
As for missiles the Soviet missiles were behind until the AA-11 Archer but, since only a few aircraft had that weapon system its impact would not have been major.
> firebar
> In close range, also, R-60 and R-73 are much better than Aim-9L
These two missiles were not available in the early 1980’s and the mid to late 1980’s when the MiG.-29 and Su-27 started becoming operational the R-73 also became operational. Intially the MiG.-23 did not have access to this weapon system. The AIM-9L started operation around 1980. Its first combat was in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.> F-16 had advantage in close combat, but only below tropopause.
> Above that Mig-23 is better
That is incorrect! Any aircraft that is competitive with any version of the F-4 Phantom is no maneuver match for the F-16.
I don’t know where you read that the F-100 engines did not perform well at high altitude but, these are the same engines that power the F-15 Eagle. Both of these two aircraft are designed for the high speed dogfight at altitudes of thirty to thirty-five thousand feet. Now the F-15 can operate at a higher speed range than the F-16 can. The F-16A had the highest T/W ratio -1.4:1 of any aircraft until the F-22 came along -1.55+:1! Towards the end of the mission when the fuel load is lower, the T/W ratio can go above 2.0+:1!!!!The Mirage 2000 does have have a larger envelope than the F-16 but, within the F-16’s envelope, it is truely an outstanding aircraft.
Against a Mirage 2000 the F-16 should not try and fight it above 450 knots and about 25,000 feet. Against a MiG.-29 or F/A-18 the F-16 should try and keep the altitude up and the airspeed between 325 and 450 knots. These two opponents are exellent at handling below 300 knots and lower altitudes. The F-16 should always try to fight an opponent in the verticle plane not, the horizontal plane.
Adrian
Mig-29 have entered operational squdrons in 1983. Russians say so. And by 1988 there were about 700 built.
AA-8 Aphid (R-60) was also better than any Sidewinder. It entered in 1975 and was first missile especially designed for dogfight, for high G targets. It is designed for 9 G targets. Early in 80’s entered R-60M which has all aspect capability. It is, also, connected to HMS on Mig-29 and on later Mig-23.
Regarding F-100 engine, it can be said that it is a real bad engine for high altitudes. Compressor stall ad surge are regular in any maneuvers above about 10 km, and even in medium altitudes it must be treated with utmost care. Also, RPM changing have to be real slow.
Problem was of such magnitude that American Congres had to discuss about it.
Solution was found in another engine: F-100 PW-220. It entered in 1986, but all problems were not solved even then.
If you know something of jet engines theory you will get the picture. Thermodynamic cycle of that engine is not good.
Regarding F-16 T/W, you exaggerate it. F-16A had T/W of 1,01:1 in normal T.O.W and 1,2:1 in combat weight. End this was the best F-16 of them all. Had the best combination of T/W and wing loading.
Mirage 2000 is a very good dogfighter, but, as I said earlier, it have enormous induced drag because of tailless delta design. That render it insuitable for sustained turning against modern fighters. It best quality is instant turn, but to be in the best club, fighter must have excellent both instant and sustained turning.
Mig-29 and Su-27 have T/W ratio like the best of F-16 and far lower wing loading.
Also in controllability at high Alpha, difference is enormous.
German commander of JG-73 said: ” In Mig-29, I can not be beaten by any adversary within 20 km.” That was experience from exercisses.
firebarI seem to remember that the F-16/J79 was actually better than a F-16A at high altitude. I’d still prefer the F-16A. The fighting is going to be at lower altitudes where the bomb haulers fly. The French seem to think differently. With its turbojet engine and delta wing, the Mirage 2000 is optimised to fight at high altitude. I believe that it would beat either the F-16 or MiG-23 up there.
It is true for F-16/J79.
Mirage 2000 had one big vice compared to other modern fighters. Because of tailless delta wing it has very high induced drag, so sustained turn suffers.
Sign In
