SchorschGuess that means they never launched D-21s and AIM-47s from YF-12s and the SR-71’s cameras were weightless then I suppose. Didn’t know they had antigravity built in. :rolleyes: Also you could add the B-1A to the list. It would have done just fine at Mach 2 with a payload, and never mind the XB-70.
Both test aircraft and the in case of the B-1A the maximum speed is paper thing. I don’t believe that the design was supposed to cruise prolonged times at M2. Rather M1.8. The Hustler is the only true supersonic bomber which ever entered service outside Russia. It demonstrated that supersonic bombers have doubious relation between cost and benefit.
SchorschTu-160, Mig-25, Mig-31.
Then add the Hustler and the A-12/YF-12/SR-71 for completness.
Still, no tactical fighter aircraft can practically achieve M2.
SchorschIn some occasions, DURING the Middle Ages people knew the earth wasn’t a disk (but a sphere). However, only the scholars kept that information, and for whatever reason, they hogged knowledge from the people and left them to skeptical conclusions (one such being that the world was laid out on the back of a giant turtle, and it was turtles all the way down into eternity).
That is right according to my information. But Sens had a message in mind, and I can read it.
SchorschI think Garry B has a point. What does Distiller mean by “knuckledraggers”????:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: 🙁
I think GarryB sensed contrarevolutionary agitation and intervened in the support of the revolution. Still we haven’t figured out how to increase helicopter survivability.
SchorschIn a real war between nations the confrontation of two aircraft on equal terms is the most unlikely scenario. And the air force that flies the less maneuvrable aircraft will not recomment its pilots to enforce such engagements. And Indian pilots are surely considered more “well-picked” than American, just given the number of people per fighter.
SchorschWhen looking at that picture the careful evolution becames apparent. From this picture the aircraft looks like a MiG-21 with side inlets. Kind of lets assume where MiG has started and which was the objective.
I agree that lift engines would have been an inferior solution.
SchorschOne thing is sure. Nobody can go into a bushwar with a 100 mio USD machine like the V-22, or a 40 mio USD machine like the Longbow. Loosing even just one of those per month (and that is nothing) in a multi-year colonial campaign akin to the Mesopotamian war is unacceptable.
I am sure no expert on those issues, but I always ask myself why helicopters became so insanely expensive. Generally a helicopter is a front item. It works where the fire is most intense. Unliky fancy supersonic fighters, it is object to other dirty things like front bases, electrical wires and lots of terrain. Should the ideal helicopter be designed to be rough, simple and to be provided in large numbers? Of course, body-bag anxiety doesn’t go well with a robust attitude towards combat losses.
One of the evils Marxist’ weltanschauung inflicted upon the world during the Cold War was giving medival bushwarriors the means to inflict damage on (Western) high-tech troops. That was different before WW2, when up-to-date weapons were not given to knuckledraggers. Anyway, fast forward to the topic.
I liked that sentence, and I think you don’t meant it as political statement. Especially as Marx would have written a second, less anticapitalistic, book when had to live in the city named after him (ever been to Karl-Marx Stadt when it was named so?).
SchorschI know one that could (from Dec. 2005). Guess?
The MiG-25?
SchorschThe acceleration in after-burner seems to build with airspeed, and it’s really a kick! The faster I go, the faster I go; this is primarily because of the fixed-geometry inlets that become more efficient as airspeed increases. Canceling afterburner (AB) at 300 knots and 2,000 feet AGL does not stop the amazing acceleration. Even in military power, the Viper easily slips above the 350-knot climb speed in a 15-degree climb
I love these pilot talking: he finally found out how a turbo-jet works (the bypass doesn’t really matter when in burner). The fixed geometry intake will hurt at M1.5 and above, with variable inlet the F-16 would most likely achive M2.2 – M2.4 like most other fighters (which are mostly Mach-limited at clean config, means they could theoretically go faster but that is unhealthy for engine and airframe and may lead to control issues also). Still, nearly no aircraft will get to M2 with any worthwile payload. It is stated that the MiG-23ML can do this, while the circumstances are somewhat theoretic.
SchorschNot all the programs follow the same pace of progress niether evolve in the same way, the MiG-29 for example was designed on time and without major problems
Ha ha, that is funny. The MiG-29 was years behind the originally planned IOC, its radar was not really working as supoposed. The version that entered service in ’82 was somehow preliminary. As often with Russian aircraft, the first real version is that with the M. (never buy the dash 100!)
The only way to keep the MiG-29 somehow on schedule was to take out some technology challenges, for example the relaxed stability thing and FBW (which were both incorporated on the Su-27). Russians and Americans (and the Europeans are also quite good at that) failed in each fighter program since the late 50s to introduce the aircraft somehwere close to its planned IOC.
SchorschThat is not true, in range the R-37, R-77, R-33, R-27ER and SD-10 are as good or better than the AIM-120, the only problem is the R-37 is a huge missile it is only for the MiG-31 and Su-27 derivatives, the R-33 is only for the MiG-31, basicly what i like about the Meteor is even the tiny Gripen can carry it, with little drag, weight and probably the best kinematics available for a light missile such as the Meteor, other missiles are also light and have good range and compete with the AIM-120 but are rather large or in the same range of capabilities, the Meteor makes the Gripen a Tomcat with the agility of an F-16;), the ASRAAM makes the JAS-39 a MiG-29OVT without thrust vectoring;)
When he said “better”, he did not imply better range, but better overall performance including weight and impact on flight performance. Given the continuous improvement in the AMRAAM, I am pretty sure it is the best MRAAM at the moment. Missiles are mostly electronics, which are highly confidential and nobody really has insight. The claims of missile manufacturers are chronically unaccurate, test results are either meaningless or not published.
SchorschSchorsch, the Viper is considered a rather high speed plane. I posted a while ago an article by a Navy pilot (Hornet) flying the Viper. he was extatic about two things: the lateral joystick and the speed (of course the Hornet is not a good yardstick regarding speed). he said the Viper could go for 450 knots for hours, while in Hornet you are limmited to ~ 350 knots.
I consider pilot stories sometimes not as the most acurate, but his message is undoubtedly true. Reason may be that the F-18 has in general more drag and that the straight wing will cause an earlier rise in transonic drag. He gave indicated airspeeds, which he is used to, but which excludes anybody from really reenacting what he meant.
The Hornet also suffers from less efficient intake, which may need a higher thrust setting and hence a higher SFC, but with sufficient distance to Mach 1 this shouldn’t too much of an issue.
“Moderate speeds” are meant in fighter terms. In this case it means crusing with M0.8 or .85, which is normally a few Mach counts short of the transonic drag rise (starts at M0.9 for most supersonic aircraft). These speeds can be achieved with thrust settings well below Military. Fighters a generation younger than F-16 were less efficient in cruise due to the optimized engine for supersonic (and higher wing loading leading to higher lift-induced drag).
SchorschThanks for your replies guys,
I mostly wanted to know other opinions. It is clearly possible to modifly Learjet wing to have provision for hardpoints. I know – not an easy task, but nothing what cant be done. For example Finland bought them with such a provision.
Regarding to Super Ednards – see here:
The LearJet as interim bomber!? Sounds very improvised, but on the other hand quite possible. Especially when the opposition has no or insufficient air cover and medium range missiles are available, the LearJet could make a good stand. Of course, there will be reduced flight performance and possible a fatigue problem on the wing if many missions are flown. But in war that hardly counts.
Schorsch650nm radius at 0.8M, with 6 AAMs, 30,000 feet…
Of course, this is an optimistic figure and will probably be less when reserves for “unscheduled events” have to be in place. Also, even in war time, the excessive dropage of external tanks might be too wasteful.
But true is that at moderate speeds a fighter like the F-16 can achieve quite reasonable ranges, especially because it can carry very large drop tanks (2x 2270l). Same is actually true for EF2000, Mirage and Rafale. The early MiG-29 for example suffered from low external fuel capacity, while this has been resolved in later versions.
But the high flexibility of the F-16 with 4 heavy external hard points, 3 wet hardpoints (incl 2 of the heavy) and 4 hardpoints always available for AAMs, is one of the key winning points of the design that makes it the favorite aircraft of so many nations (beside the lobbying by US government 😉 ).
SchorschAn F 16 can stay longer in the air than an F 15. ???
The F 16 can accelerate too in order to launch a missile farther; in fact it accelerates better than an Su 30. It accelerate better than anything in USAF, except the F 22.
The F-16 with 2 AIM-120 and 4 Sidewinder is in my eyes quite a beast. Add to large drop tanks and it will be on station for a while, when engaged it can accelerate, drop the tanks and be pretty fast. The M2-barrier is due to inlet restrictions, the speed region beyond is quite achievable.
A masterpiece of aviation, sad the F-35 cannot compete with the elegance of an F-16.
Sign In
