SchorschSchorsch I want to ask you why a fighter with an overlaod limit of 7.6Gs can defeat another one of 8Gs, according to what I have read the MiG-23M was more agile in the region between 800km-1000km at medium and low altitudes, also it is little bit weird to think a fighter of 7.6 Gs like the F-4 is, it was going to be better than a fighter stressed to more Gs at the same speeds and altitudes.
If the 7.6Gs holded by the F-4 mean the MiG-23M`s 8Gs mean nothing then the Su-15 should be better than the F-4 with its 6Gs it can hold
And I answer you, so you may learn:
The instantaneous turn rate is depending on the maximum lift and the maximum overload of the airframe. Both are set limits in practice (flight manual!), but are variables in reality (an F-4 can be stressed beyond 10g). At or close maximum lift both MiG-23 and F-4 will experience severe buffeting. The instantaneous turn rate depends on other, less obvious design criteria, which are maximum g onset and maximum trimmable flight condition (most conventional supersonic aircraft do not have enough control authority to pull more than 3 to 5g beyond Mach 1).
The other is sustained turn. Overload and maximum lift hardly influence this parameter, but the drag and thrust. Here the slatted F-4 wins against the MiG-23 due to better drag/thrust characteristics.
For practical considerations a mixture of both makes a useful benchmark. And the F-4F has about 1 or 2 G more sustained at most altitudes in the M0.7 to M1.2 regime than the -23ML, not to talk of the -23M, while it does have a nearly similar instantaneous load factor.
Also note: I didn’t say “defeat”, but …
loses against an F-4F in most speed/altitudes in terms of sustained G-load.
Note: Turn rate, load factor and radius are all closely related, effectively it makes sense to talk of the load factor.
SchorschInteresting is that the Draken slightly rolls left or right before executing the manoeuvre is there reason known why? And so far about the claim “no western fighter can do the cobra”.
I guess it is because of lateral stability. But don’t request details. From the pure aerodynamic/mechanical point of view the aircraft is not controllable at these attitudes. One Draaken apparently makes some kind of Cobra roll or speed vector roll.
SchorschBut was a Mirage better than an F-4?
Dividing the performance by the price, yes, the Mirage was much better than the F-4. For a given amount of USD an air force could afford much more Mirage. BVR and Sparrow were even more expensive then than today. And unreliable. Pretty much sunk costs.
For fighter to fighter combat the Sparrow was of no advantage in the 60ies. Hence you should rate the F-4 for its ability to win turning fights with rear-aspect IR-AAM (F-4B/C/D) and gun (E). Until arrival of the F-4E slatted, this ability was severely limited. An F-4F with AIM-9L is a completely different weapon system and would win 10-1 against F-4B of 1963 in WVR conditions.
If I need to choose a fighter in 1960s, I would go for the Mirage.
SchorschAah Rocky, I’ve been prowling this forum for going on 18 months or so, and I must have seen this topic for a thread crop up at least twice, and it’s usually Flogger who starts it… and you don’t want to end up imitating Flogger now do yeah?? :dev2: :dev2:
And I’m going to have to repeat the same question that’s always repeated when this topic is repeated – how do you define the parameters which would single out an aircraft as the “best” air superiority fighter?:confused:
And comes out as “Best Fighters are American”. Just interesting half of the world air forces would disagree when seeing the price tag or the operational requirements.
I differ with you from the 1971 to 1975 the best fighter was the MiG-25 Foxbat. It was better than any thing the west had.
And for a brief period from 1972 to 1975 the MiG-23M was an oustanding aircraft much better than the F-4E as a tactical fighter, the F-4 was the best perhaps only from 1967 to 1971
From 1992 to 2006 it was not the F-15C, since 1997 the Gripen entered service and we can say the Gripen is far more agile than the F-15 and has more modern avionics.
So perhaps the F-15 was the best from 1992-to 1997.
The MiG-25 never was a real “fighter” but an interceptor. It was never deployed as fighter, and if, it was for pure lack of suitable alternatives. Rocky at least omitted the F-106 or F-102 from his list.
The MiG-23M never came in top. It had worse radar, weapons, range and maneuverability than the slatted F-4E and especially the F-4F (which of course lacks BVR (not too important for its role)). It was faster and had better field performance.
The MiG-23M is more or less as good as the F-4E slightly more agile at some transonic speeds and cheaper, but its reign was very brief by 1977 the F-15 took command of the situation.
Which would be quite tough to prove for you. The MiG-23ML loses against an F-4F in most speed/altitudes in terms of sustained G-load, except for speeds beyond Mach 1.3 and below Mach 0.7. The -23M is considerably worse, still carrying the heritage of the pure high altitude and high Mach number ground guided frontline interceptor.
In contrast to single mission MiG-23 the F-4 (all versions) were quite capable fighter bombers.
SchorschLatest news suggest all F15s have been grounded, not just non-mission-critical ones. ‘we want more raptors’ camp will have a field day over this.
The “you get structural upgrades” camp will have an even better field day.
SchorschThe word “overshoot” sounds dynamic and dangerous, when actually the aircraft left the taxi-way at low speed due to either a malfunction of misjudgement of the pilot. Fear Of Taxi once again.
SchorschIts ferry range – hi, subsonic, max tanks, no weapons, whatever flight profile gets the maximum range possible. No doubt the MiG-27 would fly much slower than the F-104.
You are overstressing the aerodynamics. In clean forward sweep the MiG-23 has an L/D of possibly 14. But with tanks its less. It cannot drop the wing tanks, except in emergency conditions (so it will have the drag even when the tanks are empty). Although it carries 3 tanks (800l each), the overall fuel volume still isn’t great. The fuel fraction of the clean MiG-23 isn’t that great, either.
In the end many details come into action, of which only few really have to do with swing wings.
The L/D of a Starfighter is less bad than some might think.
Range of the F-104 is possibly with tanks dropped when empty. In these conditions the amount of fuel determines the range as an aircraft will fly at its optimum altitude/speed (which differs significantly between fighter aircraft types and configurations).
SchorschCountries that can afford to AND are in the West’s good graces will buy from the West. But if not, there is always China.
Instead of grandstanding on and on about the “West”, it’s not Holland, Germany or Sweden selling these superb aircraft. It’s mainly the US, France and to a lesser extent, the UK.
That’s three nations in the UNSC P5 and two of them are hostile to a very large chunk of the non-white world. Again, that is where China comes in. Russia is/was a superpower and another P5.
Outside of the P5, there is no aircraft industry remotely close to China’s. So Chinese aviation might fellow the other four members of the Permanent Five but it is sure as hell better than any other not in this circle.
As for Chinese exports, they are not new either. China had been exporting aircraft since the 1960s.
The Y-12, MA-60 and the NH-5 are all mainly civilian projects. The civilian part is the great growth portion of Chinese aviation.
They’ll run because of the Chinese market. The ARJ-21 will sell because of the Chinese market. Unlike the Y-10 when China had thought it had free access to Western technology, the China of today will mandate its airlines buy the ARJ-21.
It’s a product that China needs. There are 3500 Chinese to be bought in the next two decades. Now China has a product that can return some of those billions back into China’s aviation industry.
Saying the ARJ-21 is not needed is the same is saying that Airbus was not needed. Both are subsidized projects to retain resources in the home countries.
That is enough. Far better to have a product than none. With a product, you can create cash flow and turnover to create better product. Without any, you stay where you are. Airbus shows that you can get better by subsidizing and capturing a portion of your home market and then moving outside over time.
Funny. That’s the same attitude towards the Japanese in the 1960s. “Made in Japan” was a mark of inferiority until the 1980s (just as “Made in Germany” was a mark of inferiority in Great Britain circa 1900.)
And stop it with the “European” crap. The nations superior to China in aircraft are the US, Russia, France and the UK. After that, there is no European nation that can create a homegrown fighter from scratch — nuts to bolts, no outside parts — that can compete with China (with all due respect to the Swedes.)
A text-based discussion forum always asks for brevity, so let me outline my position a bit more detailed.
I am not saying that
– China is inable of producing a civilian aircraft
– China has an established aviation industry
– the “West” does not count on China for some profits
– China has produced aircraft aimed on the civlian market
but I dispute that:
– China can produce a competive civil aircraft without western help (and I neither said that Germany could do it, you just implied that by adding my negative statement to my country of origin, which you, buddy, don’t even provide, so just stop it!)
– China is on eyesight with other established aircraft manufacturers
By the way:
Germany can indeed create a fighter from scratch. Capabilities are present. Just the associated cost would be too high and the product would probably not be competitive. The technologies (control, aerodynamics, engine, avionics) are all established within borders.
SchorschBesides, the BS6 is an entry level product designed to be as cheap as possible. There are other Chinese cars that are higher priced and will easily pass any safety test you put them through. To use that as some kind of proof that the J10 would also be cheap and crap is plain nonesense and smacks of willful ignorance and self deception.
I would hardly compare cars and aircraft, especially not military aircraft. But the lack of information about the J-10 is filled with speculation. The strong growth in Chinese economy along with some hype around it leads to smoke-screen of misinformation and hyping. We will learn when the aircraft is first offered to countries that request new fighters, and as the J-10 is basically similar sized as F-16, MiG-29, EF2000 and Rafale it could basically enter most competitions. China is also a huge economy by now, so they can offer the political and economical side of such deals, too. But I guess we will hardly find the J-10 in the inventory of any air force in the next years, except for those that cannot/may not afford Western or Russian aircraft. Basically not a shortcoming, China is a relative newcomer in the business and achieving the standards takes a while (especially as the standard approach of reverse engineering becomes increasingly difficult).
SchorschYou’d be suprised. Go have a browse at the Chinese exports thread some pages back.
Sorry, I checked wikipedia for that and didn’t find much information about exports. Maybe you can support your point by giving me the missing information.
China actually made a flying jetliner, the Y10, decades ago, but scrapped the project in favor of buying off the shelf. Many beleive that to be one of the biggest errors of modern Chinese avaition. The only thing foreign the Y10 used were American engines, and now or in the near future, even those can be home made.
The Y-10 was basically a reverse-engineered B707-120. The part they couldn’t improvise were the engines (although JT3D weren’t exactly state-of-the-art). They were taken from other B707s. The only flying prototype made 170 flight hours in 130 flights, so basically proving it could fly. The Y-10 was severly outdated even by communist economy standards. Development period of 10 years indicate the real intention as extended technology&learning program.
Chinese avaitiong industry will never be 100% military. If there is a demand then there will be a supplier, especially since China now have the capability to meet the demand. If there suddenly were no more Boeings, then the ARJ21 will no longer be a niche product now would it?
Chinese airlines (the only customers so far beside the shaking 3 aircraft order from Laos) have to take the airliners they get from federal government. Not unlike India actually. Anyways, the ARJ-21 is a derived from the MD-90 with which it shares general layout and fuselage cross section. The wing was designed by Antonov. Avionics are delivered by Rockwell Collins (American), engines by General Electric (American) and the landing gear is from Germany. The ARJ21 is the prototype for future plans and will be the first aircraft China is seeking FAA/EASA approval for. It will hardly score any export orders against Brazilian and Russian designs, which are much more advanced.
There is nothing revolutionary the Chinese BS6 lacks.
It especially doesn’t lack design heritage to current German cars, like some other “Chinese” designs.
If they went nuts and used super strength alloys, composites and titanium etc to build a car to military specs, the thing can probably drive through a brick wall and shrug off small arms fire. But how much would it all cost?
You can achieve very good results in crash tests without any of such materials. Crash safety is not armor-plating. Economic French compact cars regurlarly score very good ratings, nothing to do with excessive price.
SchorschThe Europeans have one of the best aviation industries in the world, do you not agree? If they wanted to, they can easily and quickly replace all American parts in Airbus aircraft with European content. For a market the size of China’s, its well worth their while to invest in some engines and other parts to capture such a huge market.
Of course I agree, I am part of it!
But they still sell well. 😉
To Tschad, Benin and Kookonistan. Great mark.
The countries that can afford buy Western technology, if they cannot afford they switch to Russian, if it doesn’t suffice for that they go to China. If everything breakes loose there is still North Korea, while they don’t sell much.
Also, do you not realise you are supporting my point with that remark? Since the Chinese sell so few civilian aircraft, and none to the US market, loosing the US market will mean next to nothing to them. The loss of Boeing airframe contracts would be more then made up for by Airbus or domestic contracts.
Without Boeing or Airbus subcontracting business to Chinese industry, it be would 100% military. The projects running are not working without American/European support. The ARJ-21 is for example a product the world doesn’t need. Hardly competitive, it will remain a niche product for domestic market and third world countries (like Laos).
It is America who stands to loose out with such an unwise move, plain and simple.
Boeing would lose a maximum of 1 billion of business a year, easy to compensate by 4 additional C-17 per financial year. 1 billion is less than 5% of civil airline turnover by Boeing and less than 1% of total US aviation industry turnover. Still, 1 billion is lots of money and Boeing would lobby a lot to keep it. Boeing would
China have been making tanks and armoured vehicals for decades, so I say its safe to assume they can make a car that can pass a crash test.
Then I can safely assume that you don’t have much idea about crash safety.
The company did not do so to save costs. If safety is such a big concern, people will stop buying that model and car, and so it will be in the company’s interest to make a safer model at a higher price.
It takes lots of time to arrive at the standards other industries already have achieved. That doesn’t happen over night. “Saving costs” implies they could do if they wanted, truth is they don’t have the capability.
Neither a J10 nor a BS6 can compete on equal terms against European/American/Japanese industry products. China invests a lot into space and aviation industry without really earning through it, comparable to industry in the 1950s in the West and USSR.
SchorschSo the US is going to stop buying all Chinese aviation products via sanctions on the one hand, but still expect to continue sellings tens of billions of dollars worth of airliners on the other? That is the threat to Boeing.
You are overrating the Chinese global influence a bit. “China-syndrome” is occurring around here quite a lot recently.
Airbus aircraft all have American content, you will not find a single Airbus aircraft without parts made in USA. Although many parts are actually sold to the manufacturer and then to the customer, giving the OEM a legal option to sell its parts to China. Not so with some key technologies and spares. Engines for examples. Just look how Iran ended up with its Airbus and American embargo.
There are actually serveral Y8 passenger versions (and others) that are selling reasonably well and have been for some time, but thats just nit picking.
Thanks for supporting my point: the Y-8 is a An-12 derived non-commercial design. It is neither FAA nor JAA/EASA-certified. Neither Y-9/10/11/12 have gained FAA-approval, the ARJ-21 is actually the first.
The total USD value of all Chinese non-military aircraft exports should be comparable to that of Boeing of one day.
Not only is Airbus a perfectly viable alternative to Boeings, the Chinese avaition industry itself has come a long way already. It has already mastered the WS10A turbofan engine, which is very smiliar to the US F100/F110 etc serise of engines. And guess what the core for US CF53(? can’t remember the number ottomh sorry) engines used to power most Boeings are derived from. Yep, the military F100/F110.
Also, the reason Chinese airliners use western avionics is more to do with customer preference and keeping on eye on export sales then because China can’t come up with avionics of a similar capacity itself. In fact, the US ban the sale to China of any avionics equipment it views as too advanced (ie, what China can’t make already).
So, when I read correctly China could build everything tomorrow, just more capable and better quality, the only reason not doing it is that the are not up to it at the moment. Strange that Airbus kicked them out late 1990s because they were stealing technology, and actually still do.
Maybe they built equally good aircraft as they build cars, like this “Chinese copy” of a BMW 3er series. Looks similar, but it isn’t. Standard crash test shows it gives you equal survival chances as 1980 VW Golf II.
[ATTACH]158313[/ATTACH]
Oh I forgot: aircraft are less complex than cars! My bad.
P.S.: Obviously not for American market, how can you name a car BS6 like B++#Sh##. 😀
SchorschAlthough Schorsch is also wrong about the effects of a US boycott of Chinese aviation. Firstly, the US has never bought much aviation products from China or invested much in China, nor is it forecast to in the future, so where is the threat from stopping the order of a few composit parts per plane? The Chinese aviation industry is self-sustaining in both military and commercial fields, it is domestic investment and demand that is critical to Chinese aviation, not the US market, which is already mature and has very limited growth potential.
If anything, the US avaition industry is far more dependent on Chinese orders that vice versa. Boeing is basically banking its future on China, and even chose the name for their dreamliner to best suit Chinese tastes (787, 8is considered lucky in China).
Wait a minute: what is the actual relation of US aviation industry exports to China compared to overall exports, and what is the total (export plus domestic) aviation turnover? Which programs are endangered if China discontinues “support”? As you pointed out, the few parts China is delivering are not so challenging. The USA could built them theirself.
When I look at recent Chinese aviation products like the ARJ-21 (BTW the true first commercial airliner ever produced in China), we see that the program can basically be scrapped without engines and avionics. China cannot produce them, and could only procure them from Russia if at all (please show me comparable engines to CF34).
Let’s not exaggerate the capabilities of Israeli strategic thinking. In 80s they got a chance to earn some buck with covert help to China, so they, still pretty mad at the US for canceling their beloved child Lavi, did it. What comes after 20 years is just another coincidental situation that might well suit their needs.
I see, you are getting yourself in some kind of conspiracy here. Truly, how can one reason a danger towards Israel from 24 fighters of limited effectiveness and range that brings it at best to the borders of Israel. The only real threat would come through missile technology, which China has plenty, but apparently does not export.
SchorschBut you hit the point by that. That is one main reason why the MiG-17F was kept for the CAS role later. The slow firing gun was limited to slower flying barn-size bombers. Of cause they will not resist to use that against “sleepy” fighters, when they do manage to close in undetected to short range.
By the way, radial-jet-engine fighters are the least fuel-efficient examples close to ground level.
Like to be seen here. SFC of MiG-15bis over indicated airspeed.
Note that this is 1st generation engine. This is dry thrust.
SFC for low altitude is comparable to Max A/B SFC of J79 or R35 for supersonic flight.
[ATTACH]158300[/ATTACH]
The Have Drill evaluation document gives the MiG-17F a 115nm radius and an endurance of 25 minutes.
SchorschYou raised some good points, but things are not so black and white. The same logic could be applied for India and Russia, where Russia should fear a boycott of aviation products from India in case they supply things to their enemies. Yet we still see Mi-17s in PAF service, RD-93s mounted in FC-1s, Su-30MKKs in PLAAF inventory or Al-31F on J-10s without any devastating blows for Russian aviation industry. US would not risk tensions with China for some meaningless two squadrons of fighters for IRIAF, unless they shift the balance of power (which they don’t).
You have a bit unrealistic view on Sino-American relations – you tend to overexaggerate US influence while underestimating their dependance
I am just taking into account the much more important side of civil aviation (hint: that are these aircraft which don’t drop their payload halfway down the mission).
China is actually working on several civil airliners projects, all of which have strong American parts-count. Avionics, engines and expertise, all stuff China maybe can produce by itself, but not on a foreseeable time-scale or with competitive performance (even big big mighty Russian aviation industry is unable to do that).
China’s biggest commercial deals at the moment include parts production for Boeing and Airbus. All these deals are not worth billions, but risking them would definitely be a huge roll-back to the times China only was allowed to produce the trash bins of commercial airliners.
So, surely there are relations the other way around (China buying aircraft from Boeing), but the general question remains: does it pay off for China to sell its fighters to Iran? I mean China does not need to please the Iranians. China has a seat in security council and one or two favorable votings for Iran and they did much more a favor to Iran then selling fighters (if there ever was a bill to pay, I mean the Chinese pay their barrels with USD and if Iran doesn’t sell, they buy somewhere else).
Some people here seem to be the 21st century equivalent of the battleship lobby, measuring the state of a country by the number of its fighters/battleships.
Sign In
