alfakiloIn fact ITR or STR does not make difference in F-20 vs M2K, at any altitude or subsonic speed, M2k has better ITR and better STR than F-20 (as said here
I’m sure you are correct…but please show those charts just to confirm that.
alfakiloif one yo-yo doesn’t do it, you go for another one… there are many examples where poorer performers in turn made kills by going out of plane 😀
not to pretend to teach you anything, of course
I appreciate the thought…but you still don’t seem to understand what a High Yo-Yo is used for.
“Doesn’t do what?”
alfakiloI recall a greek pilot saying a mirage 2000 would end the game ‘right there’ in the first turn vs an F-16 due better ITR, IF the Mirage pilot was experienced
Pilots say all kinds of things! And old saying, still true today…bull**** will do for skill, but not consistently.
And if the other pilot was also experienced?
alfakiloFor a fighter as you said, what about F-15?, considered Su-27’s roll rate according to American tested is remarkably higher than F-15, whereas the roll rate the Mirage 2000 achieved was similar to Su-27 indeed.
One of more basic ways to view roll rate is to consider the wingspan of the aircraft. As a general rule, the greater the span, the lesser the roll rate. Just a function of mass and inertia.
When watching F-104 pilots take off, it was easy to spot the new guys. Lots of wing rock in the climb out until they got accustomed to the ailerons. I went from the F-4 to the F-104 and remember well how sensitive the 104 was in roll.
alfakiloBasically, imagine we both dogfight: if you make a flat turn in an aircraft that turns somewhat better than mine, I’ll do a high yo-yo (one possibility among others) and still come inside your turn if you keep it going, regardless of the fact that your STR is higher than mine
A common misunderstanding about BFM is that a High Yo-Yo is a solution to sustained turn radius problems. It’s not.
A High Yo-Yo is designed to reduce aspect angle and control closure, not permit a poorer performing airplane to remain inside the turn of a better performing airplane. Having performed the yo-yo and descended back down inside the turning opponent, you will be faced again with the same horizontal overshoot.
There is no BFM maneuver that will permit a lesser performing airplane to remain inside the opponent’s turn. Instead, you will need to (1) extend away to gain energy for a subsequent reattack, or (2) bug out. If you choose #1, think boom and zoom.
alfakiloDue to considerably smaller wing load,the Mirage 2000 performs 22degrees per second at 4500meter at Mach=0.7.
On the other hand,by destabilizing the aircraft in pitch, the F-20’s LERXes improved the instantaneous turn rate by 7 percent, to 20 degrees per second.
Due to the characteristics of delta wing, the Mirage 2000 gains 265 degree per second of roll rate at 4500m and M=0.8.
Regretably, the roll rate data of F-20 couldn’t be gathered by my capability, if anyone got it please share.
Unfortunately, these numbers do not reveal enough information.
The turn rate values are for an instantaneous turn. Nothing is said about sustained turn rate…this is the number that is more important. Delta wing planforms tend to bleed energy at higher rates that conventional wings. Before we make a conclusion, more data is needed.
The Mirage roll rate is actually relatively low for a fighter, if that is an instantaneous value. If the F-20 roll rate is similar to that of an F-5/T-38, then expect to see a higher value.
These are rates for no external stores…an unlikely combat configuration.
alfakiloSimilar climb rate on both of two, but Mirage 2000 win at turn rate and roll rate.
Do you have references for this?
alfakiloF-104s fail in indo-pakistani wars is not an opinion which could potentially be disputed. Strike aircraft being unsuited for air combat is not an opinion which could potentially be disputed.
The F-104A used by the Paks was not a strike aircraft. You apparently think it was. I don’t know what it will take to change your mind.
Actually it (the F-104A)was designed with two things in mind. Rapidly take off, fly high and intercept russian bomb trucks, or rapidly take off, sneak in and drop tactical nukes.
No. The F-104A was not nuke capable. I don’t know how to say this any other way.
It was not designed as a fighter…
Let Google be your friend. Lacking any first hand knowledge on your own, you will find sufficient references to find out the facts.
the airforces which used it as such regreted it (quoting a retired F-104G HAF pilot when asked to comment on the unusally high accident rate of the F-104.)
The accident rate varied with the user. Some high, some low. The accident rate had little to do with air combat use. The aircraft was unforgiving to a certain extent, particularly when flown in European weather at low altitude.
The jet has its detractors. You seem to be one. Like most, you come to your opinions apparently without an ounce of personal experience…you know a guy who lived next to a guy who had a friend who saw it on TV kind of personal experience.
And so it goes.
alfakiloFunny but I got exactly that feeling from your behavior, not mine. It wasn’t clear to me until I’ve spotted the logo in your avatar picture… Someone hit your nerve, eh?
No, I simply feel that the other posters here deserve to know when someone is spreading BS. Isn’t that what you want too?
alfakiloIDF wasn’t exactly an average opponent and Arab air forces were not exactly an example of soldiering excellence.
Now you are catching on. Kinda makes you wonder why we see so much uninformed BS here, doesn’t it?
Wrong.. Airforces do, not pilots.. That means pilots, fighter types, force multipliers, training and tactics. And money..
Not too sure what you mean by “money”…but the rest of that is OK. The point is that comparing aircraft performance numbers or kill ratios is a lousy way to rate an aircraft. No matter how pretty the hammer or how well it is made, it’s the guy using it that tells the tale.
alfakiloI know ACIG accounts are not 100% accurate but you get the idea.
The idea that I get is that you have a difficult time dealing with an opposite point of view.
My argument was simple…if the results of the Pak war in 1971 are viewed by some to suggest the the F-104/MiG-21 engagements proved the 104 to be a “bad” fighter and the Mig to be a “good” fighter, then are we to conclude that the MiG was still the “good” fighter when engaging the IAF.
The point is that arguments like this are not credible. Pilots win and lose engagements, not airplanes.
alfakiloDon’t blame the aircraft for the mistakes of its pilots.
Perfectly said.
alfakiloActually, he has some point. PAF F-104 losses were against a conteporary opponent aircraft of their era (MiG-21) while the EAF and SyAAF losses were mostly attributed to IDF/AF F-16s and F-15s – jets which were two generations ahead.
Even upgraded F-4s would most likely have poor score against Typhoons and noone can really blame them.
How many F-16s and F-15s did the IAF have in the ’73 war?
alfakiloI like the two seats in the Tucano…very useful for close air support. So many CAS mistakes might have been prevented with two sets of eyes and two brains working on the problem.
alfakiloIn the same sense, installing AIM-9s on an F-104 will make it a fighter? Aspides maybe? AFAIK, it did really bad in the indo-pakistani wars when they tried to to use it as a fighter, and later, the Italians were rather panicked when they realised they had only Aspide capable F-104s for securing the Adriatic in the 90s. Strange facts, no?
You declare these to be facts. Says who?
But I can tell you this. Putting AIM-9s on a F-104 does make it a fighter. Amazingly enough, that is how the jet was originally designed.
Your use of combat losses is an odd way to make a point. If the Pak F-104 loss rate to MiG-21s makes the F-104 a “bad” fighter, does that mean the Egyptian and Syrian MiG-21 loss rate to the IAF makes the MiG-21 a “bad” fighter too? This is so confusing.
Perhaps we have some panicky Italians on the forum who can explain their behavior regarding the F-104S.
Same was with the F-15A/B. Then came the F-15E. It came because it was able to come. It could evolve into a very capable A2G platform. The opposite cannot be said for any strike aircraft.
There ya go again with your absolutes.
The F-101 was designed as a strike aircraft. It evolved into a front line interceptor, I suppose because it was “able”.
But this doesn’t happen very often, mostly because fighter-bombers are designed to very different criteria that limit their ability to cross-dress.
If this is the base of your arguments, then there is only one possible conclusion: That only combat pilots should be allowed to post, everybody else should be prohibited from questioning those posts and if so, banned. In fact the whole forum should be switched to read-only mode for everyone else.
There is a significant difference between posting a question as compared to posting unsupported opinion. Like some others on these types of forums, you post your opinion as if it were fact.
You are misjudging me in the sense that you try to think of me under your own criteria, obviously finding me uncomprehensible.
I find you comprehensible, just not very credible.
I on the other hand remember a time when each combat wing in most Air Forces was operating a different aircraft type for a different mission. And you know what? This time is long gone. Plain and simple
More absolutism. If one thing in fighter aviation has been true, it’s that people’s opinions of what the future holds ought to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
Sign In
