That is correct, but the most substantial change between the Mig-15 and Mig-17 was the increase of wing sweep. Basically the Mig-17 had identical airframe with the Mig-15. Why build another doubleseater version, where is the logic?

It is interesting to note that the MiG-17 really made a step into being a transonic fighter, while F-86 and MiG-15 were subsonic.

A typical statement….:) When I say the Mig-17 is always in advantage when using its subsonic triumph cards correctly, would you agree?

Actually, yes. Just that the supersnoc fighter often has the option to leave the engagement, especially if his opponent is not equipped with missiles.

Very nicely put, I hope you applied the same to the success of all Israeli fighters in wars against Arabs.:D

Basically yes, but I think the technology gap in the Israel-Arab conflicts 1967 to 1973 was smaller than it was in Vietnam.

As quoted before, there is not much sense to go behind 30° really, except to kill yourself more quickly.

And I think no designer ever intended his aircraft to fly there on a regular basis. To have acceptable handling capabilities at AoA up to 25° you sometimes get positive yaw and roll stability up to 90° AoA. Aerodynamic coefficients change often monotonic. When ones looks at the shadowing of the vertical tail by the wing’s and fuselage’s airflow, which has great responsibility for control problems in lateral motion for most aircraft, this effect actually diminishes with AoAs beyond 45°. That suffices for a test pilot with good simulator briefing, in good weather conditions, but are not tranferable into actual operations. I guess a test driver could squeeze out much more performance out of my Golf, too. I, however, just wouldn’t dare.

accoring to Air International, MIg-17 despite her primitiveness,was one most manuever aircraft,during the Vietnam air war,Fresco got far better respect than supersonic Mig-21. When USAF finally got there hand on MiG-17 in the late 60’s (via israel) USAF personel discover the aircraft could even out manuever USN lightest single engine aircraft- A-4 skyhawk.
In fact One North Vietnamese MiG-17 sport 6 killed against USAF/USN aircraft.

Depends highly on the speed and altitude. If a MiG-17 meets a Phantom at M0.9 and 30000ft, the MiG-17 is pretty much on the edge of its envelope and will make curves like a supertanker, as while the Phantom is quite sporty. Different thing at M0.6 and 5000-10000ft (where Vietnam era dogfights often took place). Here the Phantom (and the MiG-21) is scratching heavily on its maximum lift limit, while the MiG-17 can fly quite unrestricted.

The success of the MiG-17 is based largely on the inability of the USN/USAF fighters to use their advantages to best profit (due to restrictions and shortcomings in training and in equipment), and the Vietnamese ability to pick their engagements with care (most time the North Vietnamese airspace was empty, MiG encounters were rare). In other theatres, where the MiG-17 needed to fight to different rules, it quickly turned out to be inferior to most supersonic jets.

Schorsch

All the literature i have read, says basicly the MiG-29 has an excellent rate of climb, either Rusian or western, the MiG-23ML to put you an example it is said to have an initial rate of climb of 240 m/s, 14400 m/min or from the manual 220 m/s at 1 km of altitude and at 1100km/h carrying two AA-7 and weighing 12000 kg
Now many books claim the MiG-29 can reach easily 330 m/s o 19800 m/min.

Check the MiG-23 achieves its max rate of climb at almost Mach 1, if you say to me the 240 m/s are one of the best rate of climb in fact check that then the F-16 and more fighters should have mediocre rate of climbs, check they say the Su-27 has a max rate of climb of 330 m/s too and some books 18300
m/min.

See that both the Su-27 and MiG-29 have better thrust to weight ratio and are as fast as the MiG-23;) see that all the literature you read says The F-15 can reach an initial rate of climb of 254 m/s (50000ft/min) or 15240m/ min and every body knows the Su-27, Rafale, Eurofighter and MiG-29 have better rate of climbs than the F-15

You mix specific excess power with climb rate. To achieve the infamous 330 m/s, the MiG-29 needs to accelerate to Mach 1. That takes some time. When he pulls up at M1 he will achieve the 330 m/s possibly, but it won’t give him any advantage. He is at altitude faster when climbing initially with high subsonic speeds.
By the way, the F-16 a comparable rate of climb at those conditions. Aircraft with comnparable thrust-to-weight and lift-over-drag will have comparable climb. The equations are dead simple, there is no special gimmick about climb performance.

Here is a nice article that Proves you canards do affect the wing an generate drag even proportionally more than a tailplane and do affect the wing lift

Which is quite obvious, how should a tailplane have a big influence on the wing in front of it. More interesting is total drag of the configuration with comparable performance. It will turn out: the tail needs to be considerably larger than the canard, adds friction, pressure and wave drag besides weight.

Because of the unfavorable interference of the canard on the wing, asymmetries appear in these curves. The best aft-tail designs achieve 2% to 3% lower drag than canard designs, and although in each case relatively high aspect ratio tail or canard surfaces are preferred, the drag is insensitive to the aspect ratio of aft-tail. Canard designs suffer large penalties in drag with low aspect ratio canard surfaces.

The people who did the study forgot to mention the airspeed at which the data have been collected. 3% more in subsonic is quite OK if you save 10% in trans- or supersonic.

Wing/aft-tail combinations achieve generally lower drag than wing/canard systems of equal weight and area. If the section CLmax is constant over all sections, aft-tail configurations exhibit greater maximum lift capability than canards of moderate aspect ratio. Relaxing static stability results in canard and aft-tail designs with very similar performance.

Three-surface configurations with small canard and tail surfaces do not experience the penalties associated with canard designs; however, unless restricted by limited tail length or other configuration dependent constraints, no obvious performance advantages apply to three-surface designs.

The non-linear nature of fighter aerodynamics, especially in the region of max performance, makes such studies interesting but unable to give any clue about +/- 10% differences.

Since then it has been reports on tests with up to 110 degrees controled alpha, but that’s with a Gripen with unlimited FCS. Normally AoA is limited for safety reasons, you will not see anything like that at an airshow.

And AOA is limited for other reasons: drag is increasing drastically and the lift-drag ratio is nearing unity. No desirable state in a turing fight, actually when increasing the AOA beyond a certain point the lift (and with it the load factor) does not increase, it even drops slightly. An F-16 has best lift at 15-25° AOA, beyond that lower CL. But drag increases.

I agree, it isn’t going to replace all the C-130s out there. I’m just wondering if it has a chance of being a serious competitor for the J.

Probably has a better chance of selling than the C-1 did, as it’s a commercial programme, likely to be very competitive on price (the C-1 was a political programme & expensive), & Embraer has a pretty good track record. But Schorsch raises some interesting questions. Trade-offs there between keeping down development risk & cost, & optimal performance. You see one end in A400M (new engines – the works), & the other end in this project, where Embraers aim seems to be to do it with the absolute minimum risk & cost, everything possible off the shelf.

Ah well, we still don’t know if it’ll be launched. But still, interesting to speculate.

Key requirement for A400M, C-130 and C-17 are very good field performance, including short take-off, landing, handling on the airfield, usage of low quality airfields and partly grass fields (C-130, A400M). These requirements more or less design the airframe and put lots of additional weight on the aircraft.

Another factor is the design mission: A400M for example is designed for low level flight at useful speeds. That requires much stronger wing. The requirement for low level gravity drop of goods is another requirement. The jet engines prevent going backwards on soft field, jet engines are generally a pain in the a$$ for ground handling. The C-17 is like a vacuum cleaner for its own airfield.

Says: It may look like a real military transport, but only details will unveil if it really is a military transport. If it requires normal concrete runways, has undesirable field performance but good cruise speed, then it would be like a downsized C-5A (which lacked many characteristics of a true military transport).