mig-31bmThird, that is impossible to quantify in one characteristic – some of the most successful fighters were slower, or had less acceleration, or a poorer climb rate, or roll rate, or dive speed, or turn rate than aircraft they were successful against.
What was important was that they had SOME characteristics better than their opponents, and most critically that they had well-trained pilots who used well-develop tactics that emphasized the good points of their aircraft and minimized the good points of the enemy aircraft.
what i mean is some characteristics seem to be more important than other Ex : hell cat vs zero prove that speed is more important than turn rate ?
mig-31bmFirst, what do you mean by “post WW II fighter”?
“Post WW II” can mean anything up to this year. I assume (a big gamble) that, from your list, you mean aircraft that were in service at the end of the war.
In that case I would include the de Havilland Vampire.
yeah that what i mean
Second, there is no such thing as a “thrust to weight ratio” for propeller-driven aircraft, only for jet/rocket propelled aircraft.
why ?
btw
are the early jet like Vampire , meteor , me-262 alot better than piston aircraft at the end of the war or not so much ?
mig-31bmanother question what the most important aspect for a ww II fighter ? max speed , acceleration , climb rate , dive rate , roll rate or turn rate ?
mig-31bmquestion for swexy swerve.
if people are saying the role of WVR declining and BVR increasing
then would it still give the MiG-31 an advantage since it’ll have the speed, range, and radar range to dictate BVR engagements (to enter or leave it)
against a more nimble fighter which may never enter WVR?
still no one able to answear how gen 4 , 4.5 gain advantage against mig-31
mig-31bmDepends. Radar range? Well, it has a huge RCS, so it won’t necessarily see first. And what about AWACS? And aircraft flying in groups, with tight (not broadcasting) datalinks, listening for bloody great high power radars, triangulating their position & sending a Meteor or other long-range AAM that way? MiG-31 will also have a bloody bright IR signature – I’d call it High-Observable. 😀
Zaslon radar can see an AC like Typhoon from 150-200 km ( the irbis-e on su-35 can do even better ) so basically even if gen 4 , 4.5 see the mig-31 first , they still be limited by their missiles range , the range where they can launch their missiles then they already be seen and attacked by the mig-31
AWACs just do very terrible against mig-31 , they will be destroyed by R-33/37 from 200-300 km
mig-31bmWhich has what to do with jets and after-burners.
Peter Pan could fly also.
WTF are you retard or what ???? , how the hell can the P-40 have after burner ??????????
If the aerodynamics of a wing do not affect turning radius, then what does?
Landing gear tire pressure?
You are clueless.
aerodynamics of the wing is not only about wing loading , you are the one that claim lower wing loading will be superior in every aspect , and i say that is wrong
Just how stupid are you?
He turned the aircraft, a turn that covered hundreds of miles in radius.
Hmmm, I can see it now if a bogey a Mig-31 pilot was checking out turned, he could only watch it fly by as it is impossible for an aircraft flying at supersonic speed to turn, and you seem to say flies around at Mach 3 and 90,000 ft. on every mission so it will not be able to turn.
BRILLIANT!
have explained why the mig-31 turn better at supersonic speed than other aircraft ( include f-106 ) several page ago , come back and read it , and most of the pilot will slow down their AC to about mach 0.8-1.2 before turning , turning at mach 2 is just retard
The Russian aviation expert, whose book has an interesting first hand account of the Korean air liner shoot down, that wrote the book I have says so.
You see, he lives in the real world, not Neverland.
quote it or give the link , otherwise this argument is invalid
Depends on altitude but as a Six with full load has an initial climb rate of 42,000 ft. per minute, it gets where it is going quickly.
At high altitude the Six spanks Phantoms very badly.No one has said the Foxhound does not have a good thrust to weight but as it cannot turn worth a damn it will need that to get away.
still doesn’t change the fact that mig-31 is a lot faster and have much better thrust/weight , and btw do you have any link prove that F-106 have better acceleration than F-4 at high altitude ?
mig-31 don’t need to turn to escape , it just need to light up the afterburner and with much superior thrust/weight , it will be out of sight very very quick ( especially against sth that can’t even out accelerate the F-4 )
Yeah right, in your mind.
It cannot turn for squat, or its wings will come off or it will stall and fall out of the sky.
It is a good interceptor and a lousy figher.
except stealth AC ( PAK-FA , F-35 ..etc ) that may have a chance against Mig-31 , normal AC like Typhoon , Rafale , Su-35 , Gripen will die long before that can even attack the mig-31 , it so obvious that mig-31 will dominant in BVR , at close range even if it doesn’t turn at all the R-73 will still do the job , and if the missiles doesn’t do the job , then pilot just need to fly at highest speed , he will be out of sight quickly
NO ONE SAYS the SIX OR ANY OTHER FIGHTER flys at full throttle ANYWHERE.
If the situation is that desperate, then there had better be tanker there or it will be a very short mission.
are you trolling or sth , just several post ago you claim that the F-106 can fly at mach 2.7 for 500-600 miles
The high speed numbers give for any aircraft are found during tests so an air force knows what a plane can or cannot do under absolute worst scenario conditions.
In the Book Soviet Air Defense Aviation, a pilot the author spoke with said during SR-71 intercept he did not go as fast as he could because even if he did the Blackbird would simply fly away as it was much faster than the Mig-31.
He also said that during an intercept if thing go hot, he would only have one chance to shoot. There was no second chance, period.
sr-71 is simply very different animal , not related to the discussion
mig-31bmWhile pulling the same number of Gs, the Avro Vulcan will have smaller turning radius than the Eurofighter or F-16.
i doubt that , any source ?
mig-31bmReally? Depends on the aircraft & engine. Concorde could accelerate to supersonic speeds without afterburner, & did so in testing – but operationally always used afterburners. The only time it used afterburners was for accelerating to supersonic speeds, & if it hadn’t used them for that, they could have been dispensed with, saving money & weight. So, why do you think it had them? Why bother fitting them, if they weren’t needed?
The answer is very simple: without them, the aircraft burned too much fuel accelerating, & range was reduced unacceptably. This is because drag is higher at transonic speeds, what is sometimes called the transonic drag hump. Accelerating on dry thrust through that zone took much longer than a short burn, so burned more fuel, despite the higher fuel consumption of afterburners per unit time & thrust. The pilot would switch the ABs off at around M1.7 & continu accelerating to cruise speed on dry thrust. There was also an issue with the efficiency of the engines at different speeds, but that doesn’t affect the overall point. It is not necessarily true that using AB for acceleration uses more fuel than dry thrust, particularly in the transonic zone.
IIRC Lightning generally used AB to go supersonic for the same reason – though unlike Concorde it couldn’t keep accelerating dry all the way to M2.
well except these like concorde or sr-71 , most aircraft burn alot more fuel in afterburner , and there is no source saying the f-106 can supercruise
mig-31bmWhere did RpR say ‘”at sea level”? I can’t find it. It looks to me as if he’s discussing a dogfight fairly low down, but not at sea level.
at 5000 feets from sea level the F-104 still the fastest and only reach mach 1.3
mig-31bmno iam not , iam trying to explain the basic for you , boom and zoom is a very different tactic from turn and burn , come on do some reading before you reply— You are babbling about a term from silly computer games.
I am speaking of a term pilots have used
no it not from computer game it was a tactic first used in WW II by the Flying tiger squaron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vIZGnC7-l4&list=PLA3B6B6EE9285415A (from 5:56 )
You really do not have clue do you.
Wing LoadingWhat is it? It is the weight of the aircraft (W) divided by the gross wing area of the airplane (S) = W / S
the units can be N / m2 (SI) or lbs / ft2 (English)
The wing loading shows how hard the wing is working to lift a plane of a given weight.
A low W/S indicates a larger wing for a given weight.High W/S means
smaller wing for a given weight
higher stall speed Vs
longer takeoff & landing distance
poorer climb performance
poorer maneuvering performance (turning etc.)
reduced skin friction drag
smooth ride (wing insensitive to gusts
reduced weightLow W/S means
larger wing for a given weight
lower stall speed Vs
shorter takeoff & landing distance
better climb performance
better maneuvering performance (turning etc.)
higher skin friction drag
bumpy ride (wing sensitive to gusts)
heavier airplane[/LIST]
i said it many times before turn radius of aircraft isnot only affected by wing loading it not that simple , if your logic was true then the B-17 , DC-3 , B-36 ,Avro Vulcan must all turn alot tighter than Eurofighter , su-30 , f-16 or f-22 . but no , they dont
I said the official — unofficial, if you want to search the information is on the web, is that the Six flew, not dash, but flew at Mach 2.7 and flew, not zoomed to, flew without a flame out at 80,000 feet (pilots said at 40,000 ft. it really could show what it could do (One pilot told me the fastest he ever went was a little over Mach 2.2 and it was accelerating strongly but the combat profile he was flying forced him to turn and turning scrubbed off speed. He turned while accelerating at Mach 2.2. He did not slow down to turn).
sorry man if your F-106 was turning at mach 2.2 it would either break off it’s wing or have a turn radius of a hundred km , and i can’t find anything about the F-106 can cruise at 80K feet at mach 2.7 like you say , if you can’t provide the source then it total bull****
Oh yes the Mig can go over Mach 1,864 mph. the official top speed, clean, but the official word is the aircraft will start to self-destruct if so done.
no it only reduced engine life ( EX from 800 hours to 300 hours ..etc )
The OFFICIAL top speed with missiles on pylons is Mach 2.3, so as the Six carried its weapons internally and always flew clean, the wings tanks, when used, imposed no penalty, the Mig would have to jettison at least is short range missiles to able to fly away.
if the mig-31 still have missiles on it the f-106 will be shot down long long before the pilot know what happened , and where you get the idea that Mig-31 can’t fly at mach 2.8 with missiles on ?
As far as get up and go, the English Lightning, which had better thrust to weight than the Six, could probably have given a Foxhound pilot an even bigger head-ache if it came down to which aircraft flew better.
The Lightnings big shortcoming was lack of fuel.
thrust/weight of mig-31 is 1.30 simply superior to both the f-106 and the lightning , the f-106 acceleration is pathetic if it can’t even keep up with F-4
Now the SR-71/YF-12 was the one aircraft a Foxhound could turn inside of as it was limited to 2.5 g but then at Mach 3.2 and above was where it became most efficient fuel wise and was just starting to fly real well.
nonsense it have been eplained , at supersonic speed from mach 1.6+ the mig-31 turn better than all other fighter ( find the explaination several page ago )
575 miles is merely the distance a fighter squadron was responsible for, it has nothing to do with combat range.
I have seen many Six scrambles and if the bogey is 575 they will get to it as quickly as possible.
If you had ever seen one, in less than sixty seconds on a clear day they were out of sight.
as quick as possible doesnot mean the F-106 will fly to target at mach 2.7 it just mean that pilot will fly as fast as they can and still can land ( and the speed here will depend on range to target ) if the target is near the pilot will light up the afterburner and fly at top speed there , if the target was far ( 100-200 miles ) then the pilot will need to trade speed for range
One more thing, a Six could go supersonic without the after burner, at altitude, but pilots said it was not worth the fuel penalty to do it.
this is just totally nonsense , supercruise would mean the aircraft will use much less fuel , there is no such thing as fuel penalty here ,light up the afterburner the AC will consume fuels 4-5 times faster
mig-31bmi have explained the tactic you was describe is boom and zoom not turn and burn and it has nothing to do with the turning ability of aircraft —You keep saying that becasue the Mig-31 cannot turn worth a damn.
no iam not , iam trying to explain the basic for you , boom and zoom is a very different tactic from turn and burn , come on do some reading before you reply
Well from what the Six pilot I spoke to said, after the Phantoms, whose base was running the show, called off the air-combat exercise, the Phantoms broke off and headed full throttle for fuel at Mach 1.2, their limit at that altitude.
The Six pilots followed but did so at Mach 1.5, soon caught and passed the Phantoms and were waiting for them at the filling station which due to their far greater ability to stay aloft they did not need.
do you have and actual source to support what you say rather than ” a pilot i spoke to ” ? it really hard to prove that on the internet and btw he may be exaggerate about the AC he flying
i really dont think f-106 can do mach 1.5 at sea level , the fastest AC at sea level is the F-104 at mach 1.3 , f-111 can do mach 1.25
really dont know what to say , are you really think the f-106 can out turn ef-2000 or f-22 — Yes it can but in a dog-fight just turning inside only really helps if one can maintain or recover speed quickly.
low wing loading = easier to retain energy = maintain or recover speed quickly so your argument here is invalid
read what Andraxxus explained page ago , it will be helpful for you
If you think a Mig-31 has less drag than a Six, you need glasses.
lower drag compared to it’s thrust , not to mention mig-31 simply have much superior thrust/weight
Point one Mach is 66 miles per hour at altitude.
66 miles per hour is a big different, image you are standing still and a car zoom past you at 66 miles per hour , it will go out of sight very soon , and here it is 0.3 mach different
Yes the Mig could for a little while go over Mach 2.8 but then the Six would win because the Mig would have to be repaired before it could fly again making it useless for x amount of time
the official speed of f-106 is mach 2.3 not mach 2.7 which mean either that it take very very long for f-106 to reach mach 2.7 or it will caused serious damage to the airframe and engine at that speed , so basically if the f-106 fly at mach 2.3 then mig-31 can fly at mach 2.83 , if the f-106 pilot want to go at mach 2.7 , then the mig-31 pilot can go at mach 3 , both aircraft will suffer from airframe damage
You do know how to use arithmetic, do you not.
You figure out what speed Mach 2.7 is, then calculate how far a Six could go having just refueled from a tanker in twenty minutes at Mach 2.7 at which point pilots said you would be looking for fuel.
A Six could go, absolute maximum ferry range, 2,700 mile at 610 mph at 41,000 ft.
Its maximum combat range without tanks was 1,500 miles.
The official radius covered by each air base was 575 miles.
so what ?????? where did you get the idea that F-106 could fly at mach 2.7 for 20 minutes ????
and the 575 miles combat radius doesn’t mean it will fly at top speed from 1 air base to another
mig-31bmhow ironic , the bomber f-35 now seem like the only western AC that have what necessary to do decent against the mig-31 ( stealth and Meteor )
mig-31bmDang… got real quiet ’round here all ‘a sudden.
because the same logic used to bash the f-35 would mean mig-31 superior to all gen 4 , 4.5 fighter
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?127198-Mig-31-as-the-ultimate-fighter
mig-31bmdecelerate, yes
zoom climb or turn away… only if your missiles can be guided by another vector until they become active.
missiles launch from mig-31 will enjoy superior start speed ( mach 2.6 vs mach 1.5 ) and also superior altitude so it reach target much quicker , not to mention that R-37 have longer reach than all the aim-120 , r-77 , meteor so i think for sure the mig-31 have time to turn
mig-31bmIf you want to design an air-to-air missile optimised for use against high-speed high-altitude targets, you put a big wing on it. That’s what the French did with the Super 530 because they wanted the Mirage F to be able to deal with MiG-25/31 class targets.
The wings on the AIM-120 are more of a compromise, but the designers would still have wanted to ensure that the MiG-25/31 target set was covered.
As for the effect of the cropping on the C and D versions, this turned out to have no effect of manoeuvrability, a senior programme official told me. The reduced drag meant that the missile flew faster, and that compensated for the smaller size of the surfaces.
seem reasonable , what the altitude limit for aim-120 ?
This has been discussed at length in an earlier thread. The Meteor powerplant is designed to burn all the way to the target, even at long range. I have not seen any published statement of missile flight time to maximum range, so cannot give you a numerical value.
meteor is seem very impressive , too bad you can’t have it on f-22 :rolleyes: , as an engineer which one do you think more effective Meteor or R-33 or Aim-120D if the range is about ( 80-140 km )
Sign In
