Are you sure about this?
Pardon my sceptics here, But what kind of wing loading do the Mig-31BM have. How much weight can it mount on its wing pylons.. you say the outer wing pylons can mount 2500L ET! i highly doubt that.Sources pls.
Fuel tanks on outer pylons plus 2x R-40RDs on inner pylons and it should easily make 5+ tons.
TBH, I have never seen such config, but common sense suggests its possible. 1- Inner pylon in this image is for R-40. 2- Outer pylon on original MiG-31 was only for fuel; it could not carry any missiles, and inner pylon is only for missiles it cannot carry fuel tank. If the wing can’t structurally carry 1x missile plus 1x fuel tank, why put two specialized pylons in the first place?
so su-35 able to past mach 2 with 2 r-73 and 2 r-77 🙂
Possibly new stations 11 and 12 will behave similar to 3,4 and R-77 should cause a lot less drag than R-27RE. R-73 on 5,6,7,8 and R-77s on 3,4,11,12 is very possible. If ECM pods are used it would be 6 missiles.
su-35 have less top speed than f-15 = more drag ( if it have more powerful engine => this even more true ) ,
22,6m long 46 ton MiG-31M with 0,67 T/W can reach higher speed than either. How does that fit in? You are neglecting dozens of factors that contribute to top speed. If you really want to compare Su-27 and F-15 in terms of top speed;
Su-27 can sustain M2.15 top speed indefinately. M2.15 to M2.35 is temporary and restricted to 5 minutes.
F-15C can sustain M2.25 top speed indefinately. M2.25 to M2.5 is temporary and restricted to 1 minutes.
BOTH aircraft are limited due to overheating of cockpit glass.
mig-29 dont have better acceleration or sustain turn than F-16
http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/swing-role/mission-effectiveness/acceleration.html
http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/swing-role/mission-effectiveness/sustained-turn-rate-supersonic.html
You know, all three of those graphs are pretty much laughable according to F-15/16/18 MiG-29 and Su-27 flight manuals?
For example it says F-16 has worst subsonic turn rate of those fighters. On the contrary, with 23 deg/s STR, F-16 blk30 has the greatest subsonic sustained turn rate of all 4th gen fighters. With 50% fuel load, Su-27 has 21,75 deg/s STR. and F-15 has 20,5 deg/s.
With both types at %50 fuel;
MiG-29 accelerates from 600km/h to 1100 km/h in 13,5 seconds. If you interpolate the F-16 MAX AB acceleration graph, it does so in 15,75 seconds.
MiG-29 accelerates from 1100km/h to 1300km/h in 8,7 seconds. F-16 does so in 10,5 seconds. Higher the Mach number, more inefficient F-16’s inlets become, and MiG-29 gains more and more advantage.
[ATTACH]213005[/ATTACH]
but gattling gun is less affected by overheat :confused: and also air to air you dont need very big bullet
That depends. Overheat is not really an issue as in order to hit a maneuvering aircraft, pilot would fire in short bursts as window of opportunity is small. Thats why aircraft carry such minimal ammo compared to the gun’s rate of fire; most would deplate their ammo in ~10 seconds, long before overheat becomes a problem. Big bullet is always an advantage as it would always require less bullets.
i mean F-15 have much higher T/W than F-16 , it also have lower Wing loading but F-16 quite superior to F-15 in gun dogfight , any body have any idea why
F-16 has LERX body which creates two powerful vortices that makes airflow remain attached to the wing. That both creates some vortex lift, and prevents wings from stalling at greater AOA. With higher AOA wings can make greater lift to make sharp instantenious turns.
F-16 has negative stability, and small wings/high wing loading actually helps in energy efficient turns at low altitude, as small wings themselves cause less drag. However at higher altitudes (or at low altitude with larger payload), wing loading becomes a problem, as F-16 could not create enough lift -efficiently- from small wings, and its design allows 9G only below 15deg AOA. So at higher altitude F-16’s performance diminishes quickly, and F-15 actually becomes a slightly better dogfighter.
F-15 vs F-16 pretty much the same, by using the right tactics, the F-15 should win almost every time (both pilots being equal), the advantage of high thrust installed helping to dictate the fight for as long as we stay with canon only
as for your comparison, the F-16 would be an “angles fighter”, “while the F-15 would be an “energy fighter”… the first will try to turn tight and get on the other’s guy tail as fast as possible, while the other will do his best to milk other’s guy energy down to a level where he can’t keep maneuvering as well anymore…
it’s about tactics… so a well flown F-15 will dictate the fight and, normally, win against an F-16, while an F-15 that tries to play f-16s game will be eaten for breakfast…
Only condition that F-15 can dictate the fight is where it can use its superior acceleration and fuel capacity to break-off and run away if something goes wrong.
At lower altitude F-16 is a way better “energy fighter” as it has higher specific excess power most of the time, it can make high yoyos to maintain same airspeed but at higher energy state, preventing F-15 from using its superior climb rate and acceleration, thus dictating the terms of engagement.
So with both pilots being equal, conditions of the merge would dictate which one will win. Merge at sea level, guns only, 50% fuel = F-15 has exactly zero chance of winning. Merge at 45k feet with 6 missiles and full fuel load, it would be just the opposite.
@moon_light, you are thinking too simple. MiG-21-93 has 304kg/m2 wing loading, and close to 1,4 T/W ratio in overboost mode. In theory it should far superior to anything out there, but its not even close to the performance of F-16. of the 4th gen fighters, most maneuverable F-16 and Su-27 has neither the highest T/W nor the lowest wing loading. Its all in the aerodynamics design.
it also have delta wing so may be it will have good instaneous turn rate like mirage
No, because they have Mirage has additional vortex generators, totally different -and larger- leading edge flap and slat design, higher G limit etc etc. Its like saying MiG-25 can turn same as F-15 because they look similar.
better T/W give better acceleration => better zoom and boom fighter 🙂
MiG-29 has worse T/W than F-16 yet it can climb and accelerate better at supersonic speeds. Given the tech advancements made from 50/60s to 80s I would bet Mirage 2k has better acceleration than F-4E.
one more thing aircraft like f-4 , f-8 , f-106 have much more rounds for their canon ( 600-700 rounds ) compared to modern fighter like mirage 2000 (125 rounds )
Thats not related with modern/obsolete but the type of gun used. Even on same generation F-16 has 511 rounds Mirage 2k has 250 rounds and MiG-29 has 150 rounds. Thats because,
a) F-4E, F-16 etc uses a gattling gun with less accuracy but higher rate of fire, whereas single barrel chain guns on Mirage 2000 or MiG-29 have less RoF but more accurate. b) M61 Vulcan on F-16 uses 20x102mm rounds, DEFA 554 gun on Mirage 2000 uses 30x113mm rounds and GSh-30-1 on MiG-29 uses 30x165mm rounds. For given limited space within the aircraft #of rounds decrease when the size increases.
See how different their munitions are:
Sign In
