SchorschSens,
I guess you don’t have any figure about afterburner-thrust over altitude? the normal thrust drops as you said linear with oxygen conten (=air density). But the afterburner thrust is not known to me.
I found some data on the net and will share it.
You’ll find the complete table at http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/TableB1.html .
SchorschT/T0: Use International standard atmosphere. Which kind of software are you using. I can maybe hand over a little self-written Matlab tool for atmospheric calculations.
Engine: You can assume the THR as function of altitude for low-bypass or pure afterburner use. Then you can write
THR(h) = THR(h=0)*rho/rho(h=0)*D
with D your throttle-setting (0 to 1) and rho the air density 1.225 kg/cbm
Please tell me if you have any other sources because I am actually looking for this kind of data, too.
On this website you find all necessary calculations:
http://www.ae.su.oz.au/aero/atmos/atmos.html
SchorschThe B717 or MD-95 really had bad luck. Both MDD-programs were more or less cancelled. The 717 challenged Boeing 737, especially on the home market. Unfortunately it means one contender less on the single aisle market. I think the B717/MD-95 would have been a usable design for years to come.
SchorschSerbian people Schorsch do not think that they won that war (dont mind Serbmig).We know we lost and what we lost. What people evidentally are proud of is the fact that, concerning the number of aircraft bombing us daily,we managed to shoot down even 2 airplanes (lucky or not) and preserve the ground forces.Fixed targets were destroyed as expected but all the buildings were emptied before.
We could not have done any better,as our equipment was old and outdated and our country was 10 years under international economic sanctions.
Our air force should definutely scrap the Mig-29s as they are too old airframes and concentrate on mobile air defence missiles untill money to buy some descent airplanes is available,whenever that will be.
djnik
I think it is only natural that as a Serb you consider the facts different than a Western European does. There is no defined “truth” so everybody can drive its own conclusions and is welcome to do so. Sometimes I have the feeling that people try to read out stories from this “war” about quality of hardware. The war BTW ended at least acceptable for all sides without further loss of life. That’s favorable. Otherwise I guess this discussion would be much more hostile.
I see you have a (in my eyes) very sober understanding of the topic. I always asked myself what moved the Serbian administration in confrontation with the NATO? They should have known that in terms of military there is no way to defend against NATO, only possibility is to inflict some losses.
SchorschThey have five FULCRUMs left, with four being flyable…why are they bothering with an upgrade at all? If they’re happy with the FULCRUM, just buy some second hand jets. It’d seem that this would be a better use of money than to upgrade four or five old aircraft.
SOC, the word “upgrade” is rather optimnistic. It is more an extended campaign to make them airworthy again. I guess due to the extremly outdated equipment the Serbian MiG-29 are regarded as dangerous in public airspace.
In respect to the war I clearly see that much time is needed to heal the wounds, especially those in the minds of people. It reminds one of the common thinking in Germany after WW1. Although lost the people secretly considered themself as winners. So do the serbs. The fact that a NATO aircraft was shot down is taken as prove for the superiority of the own air defence. It is not a problem of fact, which under these conditions are object of interpretation. As well is the phrase “mission achieved” very difficult to use, because a wrecked aircraft is a fact. If it is a clear evidence of Serb air defence ability or just a lucky hit is opinion.
I guess future generations in Serbia will judge more objective about the war and especially its reasons. Helpful for all involved parties.
SchorschJDK,
I think the bombing campaign on Japan contributed to its surrender, especially because there was nearly no defense against it in the later war stages (while in the beginning the B-29 got considerable losses). We should note here that in summer ’45 battle ships were bombarding the coast and navy fighters joined in for attacks.
But it worked in conjunction with other factors, so especially the total blockade of Japan. The nightmare of the Japanese leadership was that USA continueed war but would not invade, so leaving Japan starving without any possibility to strike back. Additionally the Russians declared war on Japan.
Therefore the surrender of Japan was caused by the overwhelming perception of helplessness. The bombers played a part. The war would perhaps have ended in August ’45 even without nuclear bombs.
Schorschhow could they shot down 12 migs 29s if they only bought 16 of them and 5 are still alive today and what is that reliable site called… and i dont think canada shot down really anything maybe a g-4 glaeb or j-22 orao but most of them were shot down by the US or Nato either in the air or on the ground the 12migs u talk about there dummys some of them but the the 11 migs were diestoyed by the US or Nato but to canada they think they detsroyed does mig 29s were made out of wood so they look like the real thing and it wasent beacuse u cant see if its the real thing in the air only on ground but i that case you didnt see it on the ground and could u post the link of the reliable site.
Won’t be a big problem to get some surplus MiG-29 from other sources, let’s say Russia. Maybe one of the upgraded MiG-29 is a wooden mock-up, too, and they built it so realistically that they want to widen its use. Just natural to build some “real-aircraft”-equipment in your mock-up to use it for other purposes.
SchorschHard Rain Doesn’t Work Very Effective
– 1939/40: Light Bombers on Warsaw and Rotterdam did the job, and merely by Threat, on Belgium, Denmark and France;
This is a question of definition. Ask the Luftwaffe and I guess they would be surprised of hearing that they had a strategic campaign running. All “strategic” attacks were more or less tactical outreaches. The Luftwaffe was at that time much too busy supporting the army’s ground offensive.
– 1944/45: fire from the air – phosphoric, then atomic – made it impossible to stop invasion of Japan. Expensive no doubt, but the Emperor knew he would lose, so folded;
This is questioned by many. I read historians who said that the direct outlook of being without food and any energy supply in late 1945 actually convinced the Japanese government. Once again, it was not the bombing of the city but mainly the interdiction of transport activity. However, the atomic bomb abd the “terror” attacks on Tokio definetely increased the acceptance of defeat.
– 1944/45: ETO CBO, together with other arms, Intelligence and Economic Warfare, interdicted men and materials, constraining German strength-in-the-field. If Luftwaffe had deployed an UralBomber and/or an AmerikaBomber, the Allies’ decisive logistics advantages would have been eroded;
Topic of discussion and not an easy claim as presented from you. I just state my conditionalised disagreement.
– 1953/90: nuclear MAD worked (this is really 2 Campaigns, ours and theirs, because USSR did not know that NATO would not strike first: indeed archives show discussion several times);
No campaign and no bombers. The deterrence was mainly based on subs and ICBMs and actually really started working after the high age of the Bombers. However, the reason of the “defeat” of SU was economical and deterrence would have been achievable with much smaller defence expenditure. Even a 5000 nuclear warhead SU would have enough power to prevent any NATO attack.
The failed Campaign was on my Mother’s head in London, incendiary/HE, 1940/41, V1/V2, 1944/45 (which also hit Antwerp and Lux – did they panic?) Why so? Feel free to post that she was dim – I won’t take offence; or was putty for profiteers/what you will.
Was there a common factor in the payoff Campaigns, absent in this? Was it belief we would win? Surely not, early-1941?
The Luftwaffe’s campaign definetly was a failure in 1940/41. In 1944/45 it wasn’t realy a campaign, more a retaliation (V-Weapon = Vergeltungswaffe). But still, a failure.
It is not that carpet bombing is uneffective. Vietnam and Gulf War showed its effectiveness in some situations. It is more that strategic bombing only works in very special conditions. An enemy embedded in a total system lead by leadership which either wins or dies, will not be scared by bombing. You have to burn them out of the trench.
Abou immorality: Moral is definition and that changes considerable over time. A likewise campaign against population today as done 1944/45 would raise serious concerns. Most people even denied it before the war. War leads to erosion of moral and justice, that is one reason Western societies generally reject war.
SchorschSerbMig, why not start a campaign on all of the Yugoslav aviation forums? SerbMig, be the one who breaks this massive conspiracy theory! SerbMig, be brave the truth is out there!
Nice post, TEEJ. But the problem is in this case that the truth, or at least something that comes reasonably close, is already available. If somebody does not want to believe it, then going out and looking for proves of his false claims will only result in frustration. Therefore from his (SerbMiG’s) point of view a closer look at the topic doesn’t bring any gain.
The brain is a mighty machine and higher thinking is very effective in reasoning the simple and ordinary feelings which come from the other, less sophisticated areas of our think-sponge.
SchorschAnd also do u think the goverment is going to give out loud that thay shot down one of those i only know this beacuse my uncle was posted near the shotdown area and soldiers told him that american stealth b-2 bomber was shot down and also not even america or the english say what they have shot down all maybe shot down but not what they have lost.
Believe what you like, but you should really think about what you write (and sometimes also how you write) in public. The very doubtful story of your uncle stands against official statements of all NATO governments. Otherwise you quickly get the reputation of being an idiot yourself. I actually could imagine how this story evolved: somebody heard something about a stealth bomber falling from the sky, then the news spread around (and became funnier).
SchorschFor that the price was $6 million US per aircraft. Even for the reduction in maintainence costs it would be worth it. For 5 aircraft that is $30 million, so 3 years worth of savings will reduce operational costs. Am pretty sure it includes a redesigned cockpit display setup too with LCDs instead of dials.
Just to clarify: The Serbian Update will be just basic nav and com equipment. A modification to SMT standard is not planned.
Schorschwell i could tell were i got this infromation from Airserbia when the wbesitire comes up u can scroll down to see what they are going to do and they said they are also planning to buy some more mig 29s but second hand ill give you the link of the website:
http://www.airserbia.com
Does this website also “prove” the downed B-2s and other NATO aircraft, the thousands of defected NATO-soldiers and – of course – the true emperor of Europe, Slobodan Milosevic?
SchorschBarely enough to get them airworthy again.
Yes, I agree. The “upgrade” is mostly intended to make them compatible with modern airspace. this upgrade was already performed for all other ex-sviet combat aircraft in wetsern Europe and doesn’t bring any gain in combat effectiveness. Actually, the MiGs objective seems to be providing minimum training capacity for the pilots.
SchorschI’m hoping that it does come to war, just for my amusement. Does that make me a bad person?
Just irresponsible and not appropriate for leading positions in politics. But your point is not completly wrong. think of the the thread:
USN F-18E vs. IrAF F-14A
A real blockbuster!
But war is not going to happen. Iran gets increasingly isolated in the world and China and Russia have agreed to indicate political consequences. War is an instrument of choice but has to be waged against its drawbacks. Any military attack would actually be beneficial for Iranian government.
SchorschUmm. It is true that area bombing was hardly precise, by day or night, but I think you have a lower opinion of the achievements of the bombers than the history indicates. A sweeping statement as ‘day bombers were hardly able to hit factories’ isn’t either true or helping the discussion.
So, off the top of my head… the Dams raid (precision) the Grand Slam and Tallboy raids (an area bomb used in a precision sense), the Polesti raids, and the Operation Jericho, the Amiens Prison raid, the raids on the German U-Boat pens or the Turpitz raids by No.9 and 617 Sqns…
By the time of the Pathfinders at night, an ‘objective’ (such as a marshalling yard or factory) could be totally destroyed in a raid, and often was. The dispersal of much German war production and the building of secret and/or underground factories indicate that Germany had no effective defence or protection or expectation of the survival of these targets.
The described attacks surely were good examples for precise attacks. Don’t forgot that the Tirpitz was attacked with good weather, no fighter interdiction and only limited AAA on a stationary target.
The problem was less aiming than simply the weather. That is sometimes unpredictable and having a cloud bank over the target actuallty ruins the complete attack.
Read foolowing statement from Robin Olds (P-51 pilot during WWII):
“When the lead bomber dropped his weapons, the rest of his formation released their bombs on his smoke trail. Out of thousands of bombs dropped,” Olds observed during raids on German targets, “as few as 50 percent hit within 3,300 feet of the aim point.” As a result, post-war studies revealed German war plants were dispersed and often increased production despite the raids.
Olds began developing his own ideas about tactical air power. “It occurred to me that if they wanted precision bombing on a ball-bearing factory they could load P-51s with 500-pounders, and 70 of us could have done just as much damage as 1,000 bombers.”
David,
I think you miss the point. You as some here point out the drastic effect on the German economy which obvioulsy did not exist. The bombing interupted civil life but military organisation was nearly unharmed. From the point of military usefulness the night bombing campaign was with few exceptions a complete no-go.
The fact you can afford an offensive doesn’t mean it makes sense. Neither in the aftermath nor at the time it was undertaken. How much effort went into the production of 4-engined bombers in UK, how much pilots were trained, how many soldiers lost?
Is it worth spending billions of pounds/dollars and losing so many bombers just to increase the moral of forced workers and of Dutch people (most bombers normally flew into Germany via Holland)?
Could the events of Dunkirk and the carnage of the BEF in Europe have any other outcome than the desire to destroy Germany as a whole?
Yes, I hope so. Or am I wrong? Destroy a country as a whole because you lost a battle (mostly due to own failures) with actually relativly small losses in life?
Sign In
