No, only limited night vision with light amplification.
Not in a TV screen in cockpit sense. The gunner look in a visor with light intensification and magnification if necessary .
The visor is at right on this picture :
Hmm, so do this night vision allow pilots to see and attack at night? ( abet at close range that is)
A simple look at the cockpit of the Mi-24 reveals that there is no TV channel installed, in the first place 🙂
Alright , fair point ,i just got a look , really just a bunch of indicator clocks
It does have Ir channel but that for tracking inflight beacon of the ATGM’s.
I found this image of the system
anyway, should the IR channel allow pilot to see target at night ? ( like how A-10 pilot sometimes use AGM-65 )
on-board IR detector for 9M-17P “Falanga-P” rear facing transmitter detection (SACLOS system).
does that thing lack TV channel too ?
their Mi-25s are basic models without FLIR..
I dont know for sure what equipment Syrian has but isnt the thing on bottom left a FLIR system ? No ?
Its ballpark around 6% maybe more, though its my own measurement from this technical drawing:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248386[/ATTACH]
The issue is not “only” the thickness of the airfoil, but also mechanisms that augment it;
Lets list the principle 4th gen aircraft by their airfoils and aerodynamic features:
Mirage 2k -> Unknown very thin airfoil (suitable for delta wing) + vortex generators + LE Flaps -> Clmax = 0,9-1,1
F-15 -> NACA 64A203 -> Clmax = 1,2
MiG-29 -> TsAGI P-177 + LERX + LE flaps + body lift -> Clmax = 1,5
F-16 -> NACA 64A204 + LERX + LE flaps + relaxed stability + a “weird” FLCS that limits AOA by function of G (numbers are for CAT-I) -> Clmax = 1,16@9G; 1,33@8G; 1,5@5G; 1,72@3G
Su-27 -> Unknown airfoil with ~%6 thickness + LERX + LE flaps +relaxed stability + body lift -> Clmax = 1,85
As i understand the pylon will reduce CL by quite a significant value ( about 0.2 on the DC-8 , as i heard ) , so have these value taken that factor into account ?
A Su-27 pilot going into dogfight at sea level (at half fuel) will keep its speed around 600 and 825 km/h, because former is the point where Clmax (1,85) is achieved at structural limit (9G) to give its highest instanteneus turn rate (30,19 deg/s). and latter is the point where Su-27 reaches its highest sustained turn rate ~21,75 @ 9G.
An F-15 pilot under exact same circumstances will have to be a little faster, because his aircraft produce less lift, so it reaches its 9G limits at faster airspeeds (23,83 ITR, 20,5 STR). That doesn’t mean its better in energy maneuverability, at S/L its both sustained and instantenious turns are actually quite inferior to the Su-27. And that is not just at maximums. if vertical play is not a problem (climb rate improves with airspeed) a Su-27 pilot can easily stick at around ~600 km/h all the time; when he pulls the stick he has more than 30 deg/s ITR, and if he is gentle on the stick, Su-27’s aerodynamics allow an 21 deg/s Sustained turn rate at that speed at just 6,3Gs at 600 km/h, still beating anything F-15C is capable of sustaining even at 9Gs. That is a clear edge provided by energy efficiency of Su-27’s aerodynamic design, as no pilot can turn at around 9Gs for minutes but ballpark 6Gs are simply easy for any trained pilot.
But vertical performance is always important though
i would say the relationship between su-27 and F-15 here is rather similar to the one between f-16 and f-14
Sign In
