The Americans got stuck with a ‘clipped delta type’ wing on the 22 that is very efficient when it comes to high speed and supersonic maneuverability.

A clipped delta wing with 42 degree sweep, no fck way!! :rolleyes: The wing is a trapezoidal planform, calculate the AR for your self AR = 4/tan(LE sweep angle). BTW the same as the Su-27 has got. So, definitely not as efficient as wings of the Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale at supersonic(Cx,L/D). Not to mention the F-22 wing is cambered with tip section twisted downward which is causing further drag penalties at supersonic. The F-22 wing is quite a compromise.

Couple that with huge control surfaces and TVC. It may be an aft-tail delta design, but its Horizontal Stablilizers(Huge, size of an F-16 wing) are far from its c/g, c/l/p; by the law of moments the Hori Stabilizers will offer a lot of force in turning the jet.

When manuevering at supersonic, canards deflect better anytime and they do handle that with a smaller size when compared to aft-tail. Realize the F-22 hor.stabs have to be that huge because of loosing effectiveness due to main wing wake. It is getting worser with higher mach numbers. Also,the F-22 is going to be static stable at supersonic anyway.

The only source that comments on this all important supersonic maneuverability claims the Raptor has better sustained supersonic turn rates then any Typhoon, Su, Rafale, Gripen, Mig.

Having the best T/W ratio among those fighters, it might be true. The F-119 engine is probably a variable by-pass cycle, when flying supersonic the engine acts like a turbojet(low by-pass) and when subsonic vice-versa(turbofan with higher by-bass). The engine thrust to speed/altitude characteristics then look more promising.

Whereas the Typhoon has better instantaneous supersonic turn rates.

That`s coupled with delta wing itself, which F-22 does not have one.

M

The RA-5C was American, duh! 😀

😀 😉

The actual story is that Mikoyan came back from the 1959 Paris Airshow and told the PD section to draw up an interceptor along the lines of the Vigilante but without the all-too-complex boundary layer blowing system.

I`m currious what is the source of that story? Hmm, generally designers from military facilities were not allowed to cross the border for safety reasons, neither for bussines nor for a “stupid” vacation. That`s how it worked here during that time too.
Please correct me if I`m wrong but the boundary layer blowing system called in the Udssr the SPS(systema sduva pogranicnogo sloja) has been installed on Mig-21PF since 1958. Thanks.

The story about the MiG-25 and the A-5 is quite popular, probably because it fits the prejudice that Russians were unable to develop anything useful on their own.

No, it has helped to retain your ego, thinking that you were still ahead of soviet union during that time in aerospace technology. :diablo:

I guess Mikoyan started with a clean sheet when we got the assignment to make a Mach 3 interceptor. The Vigilante used some very useful concepts, especially the air intakes. No Soviet fighter had similar intakes, their technology was not able to deliver the performance needed.

So, wedge-type inlets were the only solution to fly faster than Mach3?? Geez, anytime you write something about this, it`s even more dumber than dumbest.

Don’t bother.. The Ye-8 was nothing but just a rip-off of some American design, anyway..

Damn, I thought so…. 🙁

why doesn’t Slovakia reproduce simplified F-35s today

Are you kidding? I`d never let them to reproduce such a crap, we will produce something what is light years ahead. Mark my words, buddy. 😉

M

Which would be a particularly useful advantage, given the NVA propensity to try and hit them with SA-2s. There’s one hilarious snapshot from a Vigi that actually shows clear as day an SA-2 that was fired at the jet whizzing by underneath it.

however it did not help much, from link
” 18 RA-5Cs were lost in combat during the war, giving it the highest loss rate of any Navy aircraft in the conflict. 13 Vigilantes were shot down by flak, two were shot down by SAMs, one was shot down by a MiG-21, and the other two were lost to unknown causes over enemy territory.”
I recomend to read at least that web page. According to that site the Vigilante has been rather a pain in the a$$ than an exceptional fighter/bomber/recon platform. The problems mainly caused by technical imperfections and maintenance issues. On the other side I agree the Vigilante being advanced in some areas (aerodynamics, FCS, electronic equipment) considering the time period. Personally, I admire the Vigi too. 😉

Mikoyan was impressed enough with it that he told his designers to use it as a starting point when developing the Mig-25.

Well, Harry Hillaker the father of the F-16 was impressed with Mikoyan`s test bed the Ye-8 and based the whole conceptual design of lightweight fighter on it. But I assume you have heard of that already.

M

Why is it even some of the newest designs (Su-34 Fullback) bear striking similarities with designs from the 70s and early 80s?

The Eurofighter looks totally different from the aircraft it is due to replace (Tornado), and the JSF from the F15 and F16s it will replace in America.

Is that general design really that good?

This is my “two cents worth” opinion. Designers have been constantly looking for ways to better the L/D ratio which is the most important factor affecting aircraft maneuverability during turning. Someone had to realize that most of air to air clashes in 60-s,70-s were carried out at speeds below Mach 1. They found out that by putting a curved plate in front of the main wing or by extending the delta shape with a high swept angle forewing known as a double-delta the lift continued to increase nonlinear at higher positive angles of attack. Therefore the seventies in aerodynamics were affected by non-linear lift theories. From this point of view I think the su-27(27M) has got one of the most advanced aft-tail designs ever built. The only one which outclasses it by now is the canarded FSW layout of the Su-47 Berkut. There is no wonder why the flanker familly is still growing while “non-experienced designers at the current Sukhoi bureau is endlessly tinkering the old design from seventies” at whatever conditions. Thanks God that we do have here such experts who know the designer stuff at Sukhoi and what they are working on. 🙁
Contrary to the seventies the projects which rolled out in 80-s and later were totally different. Their main assignment field was to operate at supersonic where choosing the right wing shape is no brainer at all. They were focusing on delta wings used in initial ATF studies, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen, Lavi and the soviet MFI while drawbacks of deltas at subsonic have been reduced with help of canards. The US designers quickly realized that by applying canard-delta design, they will have problems to fullfil the stealth requirements(RCS), what explains why they got stuck with a common aft-tail design. The F-22 inherited less design features from seventies and eighties, basically it is a tweaked 60th design. No blended wing-body design, no real LERXs exploiting the non-linear lift as on the F-16,F-18, Mig-29, Su-27, no delta wings with sweep angle around 60deg suited for supersonic flight and maneuvering as Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen.. etc. When lacking the TVC the aircraft would be almost considered as the F-15.

M

I read here: http://www.f-117a.com/Javaframe.html that he did eject, but at mach2, and his chute got ripped apart

I suppose the USAF general was not that stupid and read the pilot instruction manual at first. Then he knew that ejecting at Mach 2 is giving him any real chance to survive. Literally, he tried to play the Russian roulette.
copy&paste from Mig-23ML pilot instr.manual.

The aircraft emergency escape system KM-1M ensures safe ejection when:

1.at speed range 140-600km/h, without altitude limitation
2.at speed range 600-1200km/h, at altitude above 30m.
3. when descent at altitude when its value equals the vertical speed component times four
4. according to life-support element used(suit, helmet)
a. with the Gsh helmet and highaltitude suit, up to 1200km/h
b. with the Zsh helmet with oxygen mask , up to 900km/h
c. with the Zsh helmet w/o oxygen mask , up to 600km/h

warning: if ejection from the aircraft is necessary, all possible measures must be executed to drop the aicraft speed within limits for safe ejection.

Emergency canopy jettisoning is allowed:

when straightforward flight: at speeds 400-700km/h at altitudes less than 5000m.
flying without canopy: up to 900km/h with the Zsh helmet with oxygen mask
flying without canopy: up to 1150km/h with the Gsh helmet and the highaltitude suit.

Please let me ask you something. Is it a normal practice in the USAF that Lt. Generals were allowed to fly communist-built fighters, probably poorly maintenanced as Mr. Djcross have stated? Why deliberately jeopardize a life of a USAF Lt.General like that? thanks

M

surely it applies to the Mig-23BN demonstrator

Seems to me like you’re coming to conclusions that support what you want to believe as well.

I suppose you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

Well, I`m not bound to come to any conclusion, that`s the difference between us. I`m telling you how these things really worked.