dark light

alfakilo

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 472 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2384884
    alfakilo
    Participant

    The pilots stick to IAS, because the maneuvering limits are related to that independent from height in general the other details aside.

    No, that’s not a very good answer. Why are these limits expressed in IAS? It isn’t because “pilots stick” to them.

    Maybe you have realized that someone gave the corner-velocity of the MiG-21 with 405 kt IAS and a minimum flight speed of ~140 kt IAS.

    Nope…I didn’t realize that…or care.

    I do care about the point you are trying to make…and you haven’t explained that very well.

    For the benefit of all you can give us the related TAS at 20.000 feet for the claimed IAS. When doing so you will realize why I insisted in details like height and what speed was claimed/published really.

    Do your own computations…there is nothing particularly informative about airspeed relationships. You seem to think there is. I’m still waiting for you to explain why.

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2385190
    alfakilo
    Participant

    One related example about the MiG-21F13.
    “An indicated airspeed of 280 km/h was reached and the aircraft remained fully maneuverable. As air speed continued to drop, the maneuverability was sustained.”
    In that case it is IAS, but we have no idea about the related TAS without the height info in need to do so.

    You are not explaining what your point is.

    Is it that this statement doesn’t refer to TAS? What significance would the inclusion of TAS give to this statement?

    Let me help you out with the answer to that.

    Nothing.

    limited, when at some height it is no longer so.
    My experience is that non jet-pilots think of TAS at first.

    My guess is that many of the folks here don’t know the difference, and I’m not sure you do either.

    In your experience, does a pilot fly with reference to IAS or TAS? Remember…the subject is maneuvering a fighter.

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2385238
    alfakilo
    Participant

    Correct, despite that most ordinary readers can not distinguish between IAS and TAS, when the just the “naked” value in km/h is given without the related height.

    OK…just for the ordinary readers here, what exactly are you tying to say in this protracted discussion of IAS vs TAS? What is your point?

    Because in my 43 years of reading airspeed indicators that displayed IAS and TAS, I can’t figure out what you are getting at.

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2393585
    alfakilo
    Participant

    The claims of that book were “max operating limit load factor“.
    Related to the load- and speed-conditions they are lower in general and such details are behind the scope of that official publication.

    G limits are just that…limits. They vary with gross weight and configuration…and in some cases, speed.

    Once the conditions are agreed upon, as Martinez has shown, the limits are not up for debate.

    in reply to: Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) #2399905
    alfakilo
    Participant

    Thanks ‘alfakilo’ !

    I hope I understand you properly >

    “So, the first official DACT in USAFE was at 525th with F-4E’s sometimes in 1976.”

    Well…that’s what that quote says…but I don’t know exactly how true it is. For sure, the 525th flew DACT in the mid-70s…but so did other units. The question really centers around the term “official” and what that means. If it means a formal program approved by USAFE headquarters and published in regulation format, that is probably true.

    At Soesterberg, we flew “DACT” (as the term is defined) with other NATO units before 1976…but these were engagements that took place within the scope of an exercise…and were not intended to be a permanent training program. Were these engagements “official”? Yes, in that they were “approved”. Were they representative of a long term training program? No.

    in reply to: Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) #2400290
    alfakilo
    Participant

    Where is the proper date ?

    Maybe there is a little confusion here. We’re talking about two different USAFE squadrons.

    The 525th was a USAFE squadron with the primary role of air defense (similar to Soesterberg). The squadron had F-4s until the latter 70s and then converted over to the F-15. It is presently located in Alaska with F-22s.

    ” Later the squadron(525th) was the first in USAFE to establish DACT programs with non-aggressor and non-USAF adversaries. “
    Since when ? 1976 ? -77 ? With F-4 or with F-15 ?

    As a F-4 squadron, around 1976.

    ” It began providing aggressor support to European-based combat units in September(1976).”
    None DACT in USAFE pre 1976 ?

    This is the 527th that began operations as a F-5E equipped Aggressor unit in 1976. No such US unit existed in Europe before that…of course, back then, DACT happened all the time…but it was “unofficial” for the most part!!

    Were there any type-specific DACT in USAFE to simulate MiG-23M(ML) ? Since when ? What NATO aircraft(s) simulated the Flogger ?

    No specific squadron as such. F-5 Aggressors were trained to simulate the MiG-23 but the jet’s performance wasn’t very good simulation…too slow if the idea was to simulate Flogger speed and too maneuverable if the idea was to simulate Flogger maneuverability…but the Aggressor pilots did their best. Later, when equipped with the F-16, the 527th could better simulate Flogger characteristics.

    The best Flogger simulator in the USAF was the F-104. Speed, acceleration, relative turning performance, radar capability, etc all similar to the Flogger.

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2402735
    alfakilo
    Participant

    The question I`d like to have is whether the F-104 had the same flap system or not. Thanks

    The F-104G flap system had three positions…up, maneuver (half) and landing (full). Only the landing flap was blown (BLC). It was NOT a ‘floating’ system.

    The maneuver flap position was used for takeoff and for in-flight maneuvering…for example, entering the overhead traffic pattern, the flaps were extended slowing down through 400KIAS. The landing position was selected after the gear was down and the turn to final begun.

    The maneuver position was also extremely effective in air to air combat…it was good up to 450KIAS/.85m…below 10,000′, we could sustain 6 or more g at about 400-420KIAS. More importantly, the energy bleed was much less than the MiG-21. We test flew this concept at TOPGUN against F-5Es and were quite surprised at how well the F-104 did…in the engagement I flew, the TOPGUN instructor pilot, when seeing how well the F-104 was turning, radioed “I don’t *******ing believe it”!!

    Not that we went out looking to out-turn other folks, of course…but it was really nice to know that when we had to get into that phone booth, we had a couple of advantages that most other pilots didn’t know about…and by the time they figured it out, they were on my gun film, not vice versa.

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2403181
    alfakilo
    Participant

    I don’t have any info on what this ‘SPS’ system in the MiG-21 is other than the limited Google references…but it sounds similar to the boundary layer control system in the F-104.

    Here’s the general idea…as the jet slows with the landing flap extended, the air flow over the flap starts to separate from the surface of the flap…the air stream on the flap surface is called the boundary layer, and it is this part of the airstream that detaches from the flap surface. When this happens, lift is decreased and the effectiveness of the flap is reduced. The jet is unable to fly any slower.

    Since the problem is the separation of the air flow over the flap, how can this be minimized? By installing a system that takes air from the engine compressor and routes it out to the wing flap. This high speed air is “blown” over the surface of the flap, this improves the ability of the boundary layer to remain attached to the flap surface, and as a result, the jet can fly to slower speeds.

    In the F-104, this system was used with the landing flap only. It was ineffective when used to maneuver with…the low speed limit of 240KIAS and the limited g available at that speed made that a poor choice.

    Here is a picture of the system.

    http://webpages.charter.net/alfakilo/blc.jpg

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2408872
    alfakilo
    Participant

    Thanks for your time Ak!
    Hp is short for Height pressure (altitude).

    Thanks, adriann…I’m looking forward to reading that book!

    AK

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2409246
    alfakilo
    Participant

    Here is MiG-21F-13 sustained turn ‘g’ as a function of IAS and altitude 0.2/3/(5) km w/w.o. afterburner A1 and MiG-21BIS sustained turn radius (meters) vs Mach at 1/2/3 km altitude with 1/2 fuel and AAMs.

    Thanks, adriann…I enjoy sharing my time in fighters with the forum.

    And thanks also for the link to the book…I just ordered it!

    I have a question regarding those charts…what does “Hp” mean?

    Cheers

    AK

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2410822
    alfakilo
    Participant

    Do not know whether this is a reliable comparison at all, but from the Have Doughnut tactical eval of Mig-21F13, there is an EM diagram comparing both. Seems that the earliest Mig-21 version had advantage in better instantaneous and sustained manoeuvrability over the Phantom…..while I agree that the latest Fishbed version icluding the Mig-21 BIS izd.75 had worser agility compared even to the Mig-21F13.

    That differences diagram is for 20000’…the comparison is a little better at low altitudes, but the MiG still owns the left side of the graph.

    Sens claimed that the F-4 had a better instantaneous turn capability than the “late model MiG-21s”. One only has to look at that chart to see how far the MiG’s performance would have to deteriorate and the F-4 performance increase to make that statement true.

    It might be…but I haven’t seen any EM charts to demonstrate that…and Sens sure as hell isn’t about to provide any.

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2414672
    alfakilo
    Participant

    Nothing new. How about your figures of the MiG-21s and your interpretation of that.
    You were briefed about that in the 70s and they are no longer classified.

    I don’t have any EM data for “late model MiG-21s”…if I did, I would have posted it.

    So I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked you to provide the info…after all, you made the claim, not me.

    You have two choices…post data to confirm your statement…or admit you were mistaken.

    I don’t see much chance of either happening.

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2414831
    alfakilo
    Participant

    For the benefit of the others somthing about the ‘Barrall Roll Attack”. A figure will show, that the corner speed of the MiG-21 is much lower than that of the F-4 and does allow a smaller turn-radius by that. To make us of that, you are in the defensive, because you energy-state is lower than that of your faster opponent.
    The deeper sense for the defender is to force an overshoot by the faster attacker and reverse the situation by that. It does work fine, when your opponent is surprised by that. The Barrel Roll Attack prevents an overshoot by using a three dimensional manouvre to change the angle off and stay in the tail-cone of your opponent. The higher energy state of the F-4 allows to counter the advantage of the MiG-21 in a turning-contest by by the clever use of vertical manouver to square corners.
    To cut it short, such graphs may just give an idea what manouver will be an option, when the pilot reports give an idea about the real behavior of the very fighter, when doing so. The MiG-21 is very stable at lower speeds, but it ……

    Good grief!!

    Sens…it’s a shame you never were a fighter pilot, because if you had been, you wouldn’t be making silly posts like this.

    Just in case any of those folks you mentioned are still reading this, here are some additional things about the Barrel Roll Attack.

    The maneuver has nothing to do with turn performance other than it is used when the attacker cannot equal the turn radius required by the excessive aspect angle and initial nose position of the attacker. Corner velocity is irrelevant. Instantaneous turn rate is irrelevant. Type of aircraft is irrelevant. Relative speeds are irrelevant.

    It is a relatively long range maneuver whose purpose is to reduce aspect angle, and in doing so angle off. One of the better stories of this maneuver involves one of the MiG kills credited to Robin Olds during the Vietnam War. The noted aviation artist, Keith Ferris, has done an excellent and correct painting of this Barrel Roll Attack.

    Another interesting thing about the maneuver is that it relies on the target not responding to the attack. The most common reason for this is that the target doesn’t see the attacker. The attack is relatively easy to defend against, and it is assumed that the failure for the target to do so is that lack of a tally on the attacker. That or the target is clueless. Take your pick.

    The Barrel Roll Attack is one of a number of maneuvers generally classed as ‘rolling maneuvers’. Other offensive forms of this include the Lag Roll and the Vector Roll. Each is designed to solve different positional problems…basically fuselage alignment problems (Barrel Roll), range issues (Lag Roll), and closure issues (Vector Roll).

    The Barrel Roll Attack is used in high aspect and angle off situations where the attacker wants to avoid a flight path overshoot. This sounds much like the conditions where the High Yo-Yo would be a good option, but because of the longer ranges involved, a yo-yo would be ineffective in handling the high aspect situation.

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2414906
    alfakilo
    Participant

    You were the one, who gave a high rate for ‘Fighter Combat’ of Robert L. Shaw.
    All the ten chapters are about ‘Maneuvers’ or Maneuvering’ and ‘Tactics’. Just in the Appendix you find a few figures about Fighter performance.
    All that figures are limited to some very specific test conditions. Something not to find in a fluid air-to-air combat.

    Correct. His book is excellent, but, as I said earlier, assumes a relatively good understanding of air combat principles on the part of the reader.

    I do not dodge your questions, when you do it for sure. How about your graphs and explanations about that. What late model MiG-21 you have in mind?!

    Of course you do.

    You claimed that an F-4 had a better instantaneous turn capability than a “late model MiG-21”. I have asked you several times now to back that up. You continue to refuse to do so.

    This is typical of your behavior on this forum…incorrect opinion making and a refusal to provide supporting data when asked. Instead you try to fluff up an answer by name-dropping and posting irrelevancies.

    To give names and sources rises the credibility considerably, because it allows the intrested ones to verify that claims.

    You haven’t verified anything.

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2415980
    alfakilo
    Participant

    How about to read the experiences from US combat pilots more properly? It is written in American and not difficult to understand really.

    In posting a quote about the Barrel Roll Attack in a discussion of instantaneous turn rate, you have demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of BFM. The Barrel Roll Attack is a relatively low g, low turn rate maneuver that solves aspect problems, not angle off problems. If that is too difficult for you to comprehend, go ask one of those German pilots you’ve been mentioning to explain it to you.

    Are you going to provide a maneuvering diagram that shows the turn rate capability of a late model MiG-21? Or are you going to continue to dodge the question?

    I’ve noticed that you like to sprinkle your posts with the names of other people. Do you think that name-dropping lends some sort of credibility to what you say? If so, why not get one of them to respond here on the forum to back you up? What do you think the chance of that is going to be?

Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 472 total)