Well the datalink feature was/is of very limited use in the early modells.
The fact that luftwaffe pilots really missed the lazur on their Mig-29s, tells otherwise.
I thought we were discussin the A modell, and being the export variant does not mean they carry less fuel. And the engines were derated yes. Well somehow an engine barely achieving 300 hours before overhaul was not quite efficent to operate in 1991. 9
I think we all know that the early RD-33s were crap. That’s a given. However, I can now see why luftwaffe pilots complained about range because of the increased fuel consumption on their 10% derated engines.
The range of 1500 km is most probably for the standard configuration of 6 AAMs including 2 R-27. The F/A-18 is probably better in range because of better engines and a higher fuel load internally. Aerodynamically however, the Fulcrum offering lesser drag could help balance the equation. In the end, how much % advantage(if at all any) would an F/A-18 or F-16 have in range over the fulcrum, assuming that all three are flying clean?
All in all, can we comfortably conclude that statements like “Mig-29 too shortlegged” are nothing but empty ones in the context of fighters like the F-16 and F/A-18 ? It must also be noted that the luftwaffe did’nt have IFR and underwing drop tank features that their F-16 counterparts could take for granted. Another reason for increased frequency of complaints?
The fulcrum can also fly on one engine, or with one at higher thrust than that other, although those are going to add complications.
Someone disagrees with you and you make fun of their name and their height. Perhaps even their colour too. Are all the people who disagree with you black?
Ignore the guy garry. Other than shooting off his hamburgers from his back orifice, he is’nt good at anything else. And I’m neither indian nor pakistani. Just how the hell did that come up? Our druggy idiot h177 could tell too? 😀
Sign In
