By: Grizzly01
- 23rd June 2010 at 09:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"The instantaneous "corner velocity" for the F-15A at a combat load (half fuel and all the missiles) was given as 385 knots at medium altitude (10-20,000ft) and would generate about 15 degrees per second turn rate."
"...This is a higher airspeed - approximately 425 knots for an F-15A at combat weight...Because it is a higher speed, the turning circle is slightly larger and the rate at which the F-15 goes around it is correspondingly reduced to about 12.5 degrees per second." This is an excrept from "Eagles Engaged" by Steve Davies and Doug Dildy (F-15 pilot).
"To give some idea of the problem, F-20 sustained turn at Mach 0.9 at 15,000ft was just 9.7 deg/sec. This compared poorly against 12.8 deg/sec for the F-16 (variant not specified) and 11.8 deg/sec for the F-15, and was little better than the 9deg/sec of the F-4E." "Designed For The Kill" by Mike Spick.
New
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal
- 23rd June 2010 at 10:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
16 STR was achieved at middle altitude levels (10-20k ft). So what's your point in comparing MiG-29 sea level STR to F-15s STR at 10-20k ft?
F-4 Phantom which was know for its poor maneuverability had sea level STR ~15 deg. Phantom also has a 7-g limit. If you think that a 9-g a/c can pull just 16 deg @ sea level then you're totally wrong.
The MiG-29 has STR of 22 deg/s at 3000 mtrs.
The MiG-29 pretty much out turns the F-15 Eagle for great Margin
By: exec
- 23rd June 2010 at 11:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The MiG-29 has STR of 22 deg/s at 3000 mtrs.
The MiG-29 pretty much out turns the F-15 Eagle for great Margin
LOL man, get real!:rolleyes:
New
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal
- 23rd June 2010 at 11:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LOL man, get real!:rolleyes:
You are free to believe what ever you think is right, but the reality is the only Western fighters superior to the MiG-29 in agility are the Rafale, Eurofighter and F-22; the Gripen and F-16 are more or less on par, from China only the J-10 is slightly better.
The F-14 is more or less in the class of the F-15 but the Eagle was only superior to third generation fighters like the Viggen , Mirage F1 or MiG-23.
If you have seen MiG-29s shot down is because most MiG-29A around the world have not have any type of upgrade and those include even the russian ones
By: exec
- 23rd June 2010 at 11:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are free to believe what ever you think is right, but the reality is the only Western fighters superior to the MiG-29 in agility are the Rafale, Eurofighter and F-22; the Gripen and F-16 are more or less on par,
Simply put - this is not true.
F-15 and Su-27 STR is very similar(Su-27 has slightly better turn rate at low speeds, F-15 slightly better at high speeds), however Su-27 has significantly better ITR. Similar situation is with the F-16 and MiG-29.
New
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal
- 23rd June 2010 at 12:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Simply put - this is not true.
F-15 and Su-27 STR is very similar(Su-27 has slightly better turn rate at low speeds, F-15 slightly better at high speeds), however Su-27 has significantly better ITR. Similar situation is with the F-16 and MiG-29.
your information probably comes from a video game, because the Su-27 is vastly superior to the F-15 at WVR that was even proved in the US when the Russians send their Flankers to the US, the F-15 never was able to shot down the Flanker.
The Su-27 has F-16 like agility, the F-15 is not even better than the F-18, the F-15 was never more agile if you have ever watch dogfights a tv series even the F-15 eagle ace Cesar 'Rico' Rodriguez said the Fulcrum is more agile.
According to a Richard Fisher, a defense analyst and noted expert on the Chinese military, the Chinese Flanker fighters can beat the U.S. top jet fighters including the F-15 Eagle.
"Since 1992 the Pentagon has known that in a close-in dogfight the Su-27 would smear the F-15. That year Russian Sukhois came to Langley AFB and showed us their stuff. What we appear to be learning from the recent exercise with India is that Russian radar, weapons and more importantly, tactics, have all reached a level in which the F-15 is on the verge of being outclassed in the long-range engagement as well," stated Fisher.
By: exec
- 23rd June 2010 at 15:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-15 at sea level can pull 9g @ Mach 0.71 so this means that the max STR is ~21.2 deg./sec.
MiG-29 at sea level can pull 9g @ Mach 0.69 so this means that the max STR is somewhere around 22 deg/sec.
So it’s true – you can say that at sea level MiG-29 is slightly more maneuverable.
However @ 10k ft MiG-29 can pull only 8.2g and F-15 can pull 8.7g.
MiG-29 can pull 4.5g @ 26k ft and F-15 can do the same thing at almost 30k ft!
More of that:
With 2x AA-10 Alamo MiG is limited to 8g
Gross weight over 14200kg – 8g limit.
With centerline fuel tank limit is 4g
F-15 can pull 9g with 8 AA missiles and 3 fuel tanks.
By: vanir
- 23rd June 2010 at 23:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sens you've posted some good material elsewhere and I don't mean to be contradictory, it's just that having been working on some publications regarding Luftwaffe operations on the Eastern Front I've researched specific details of serviceable aircraft placed in action, in some cases to such detail as individual werk numbers, and without making a series of very long posts outlining my contentions, which would be the equivalent of publishing a book right in this thread, I can only assure you that based on my research at length, a better figure to characterise German fighter strength East versus West would be closer to 75% than 50%
The westwall and Mediterranean got only token fighter geschwader strength, characterised by JG27 in Africa and the two squadrons each serviceable, of JG2 and 26 in France/Belgium with one sqn each high alt interceptors (höhenstaffeln-kommando), or roughly 30-50 single engine fighters serviceable at a time on each of those two fronts respectively. The figure would be closer to 120 in action in the East at the same time (JG5, 54, 3 and 52).
These geschwader do not include attachments and splinters (JG51, 77, etc.) which were often broken up and transferred all over the place.
In addition the East (attached to Luftflotte 4) had the Slovak, Hungarian, Rumanian and Italian airgroups (token in 41 but growing in 42).
I understand what you're saying is drawn from averages based on assumed squadron strength, but can only assure you that pragmatic application of Luftwaffe fighter strength during the war was a far more desperate and haphazard thing than administrative tables suggest.
If I might suggest, the Axis History website has some transferred, referenced documentation of actual serviceable aircraft numbers by geschwader/staffeln at various times, also deployment details of geschwaderen so that between the two one can investigate how many available fighters were where at various stages.
Also the Luftwaffe Experten Forums site has a membership which includes a number of notable authors who've done detailed and celebrated research, whom will also provide a completely different picture of the air war in the East than you appear to have, if I may say so. Not that you aren't quite knowledgeable, just that every new area of research is a veritable can of worms and can be a lifelong project by itself.
You mentioned some interesting things about radar but I stand by the contention that it played no part in the air war between Germany and the Soviet Union. I've no doubt it helped form the postwar structuring of the VVS/PVO defence network, and valuable experience was being gained during the war but it was behind the scenes of the war in the same way perhaps, the P-51H Mustang was a product of the war against Germany but never played a role in it.
The closest parallel I can think of which was actually present in combat between VVS and Luftwaffe fighters (over Courland Pocket, Hungary and Berlin), was the fact pretty much all Soviet aircraft were fitted with a simple radio compass by then, which was important considering later model German fighters often received highly developed all-weather operational equipment standard. Radio navigation back then was a fair bit like radar-style tech to the period mind (entire squadrons were lost in poor weather). Radio navigation on continental Europe worked pretty much the same as British radar direction or AI/R. It was all pretty rudimentary "electrofangled" stuff to work with, very "high tech" and not entirely reliable (Flight 19, the infamous postwar mishap was using radio navigation at the time it was lost).
By: alfakilo
- 23rd June 2010 at 23:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The MiG-29 has STR of 22 deg/s at 3000 mtrs.
The MiG-29 pretty much out turns the F-15 Eagle for great Margin
It's common practice to provide info to back up claims made here. I'm not challenging your claims...just asking for some sort of proof other than your opinion.
A nice little EM diagram or two would suit me just fine...say, 50% combat weight, full AB...5000', 15000', and 25000'.
New
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal
- 23rd June 2010 at 23:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-15 at sea level can pull 9g @ Mach 0.71 so this means that the max STR is ~21.2 deg./sec.
MiG-29 at sea level can pull 9g @ Mach 0.69 so this means that the max STR is somewhere around 22 deg/sec.
So it’s true – you can say that at sea level MiG-29 is slightly more maneuverable.
However @ 10k ft MiG-29 can pull only 8.2g and F-15 can pull 8.7g.
MiG-29 can pull 4.5g @ 26k ft and F-15 can do the same thing at almost 30k ft!
More of that:
With 2x AA-10 Alamo MiG is limited to 8g
Gross weight over 14200kg – 8g limit.
With centerline fuel tank limit is 4g
F-15 can pull 9g with 8 AA missiles and 3 fuel tanks.
Here i will prove you your source is totally wrong Type: F-15C
Country: USA
Maximum instantaneous turn rate: Unknown
Maximum sustained turn rate: 16 degrees/second
Now if you read andrei Fomin Book he says the Su-27 has a STR of 21 deg/s
So basicly you are claming the F-15 is even more agile than the F-16 and Su-27 proof http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f16.htm
Now you do not know a real fact is not the ability to pull Gs what makes an aircraft agile but ist ability to achieve its max Lifting coefficient at high AoA, you only get 9Gs in the MiG-29 due to the fact it is at high AoA in a turn.
The MiG-23ML can achieve 8.5Gs as a max overload, but its true ability to turn is at 7gs, you can pull 8.5Gs in a MiG-23 below Mach 0.9 but it wont turn better because it has a max lifting coefficient at an especific AoA so even it continues increasisng AoA and G load it won`t turn better because its wing is stalled.
By: vanir
- 24th June 2010 at 00:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
kiwinopal surely you would concede there are specific cases of circumstance where the Eagle outmanoeuvres the non-FBW versions of the Fulcrum (which are the ones in service).
There are plenty of evaluations using the German MiGs of this, most particularly at lower altitudes where the MiG can't sustain Gs like the Eagle can (and bleeds airspeed), but it is noted at higher altitudes the Fulcrum gets the agility advantage in turn.
Also evaluations of the Indian AF Flankers versus F-15C are muted by the TVC of the Su-30MKI. The regular Su-27P/S/K/M2 series in service elsewhere (using analogue FBW without TVC), are noted for their low speed handling superiority but again the excellent G-capabilities which are reliable in the Eagle can only be matched by a Flanker under certain conditions, which includes an internal fuel load no greater than 5 tons (9 is maximum). At full load Flankers are restricted to 7G and at speeds above 0.85M the MiG-29 is similarly design limited to 7G where on both counts the US aircraft are limited only by stores restrictions, the F-16 can pull 9G anytime with anything except iron bombs strapped.
The G-meter in the Flanker-B doesn't even go past 8 (though it is recognised it can do 9 with a light fuel load, clean). The G-meter is also red past 7, meaning you're not supposed to go that high.
Talking about sustained G here. For all intents and purposes, with light loads all these aircraft types might be characterised by similar structural capabilities with the exception of the MiG, which is celebrated as less robust than a Viper despite MAPO claims. That's a matter of service evaluation and comparative testing experience in the west with both 9-12 and 9-13 models.
Quite simply the non-FBW and some poor structural strength around the base of the fins, plus a tendency to bleed airspeed at low alt really let the Fulcrum down. At higher altitudes like say 15,000+ft sure it's a butterfly with a deadly sting, but up there its BVR capabilities really let it down.
The Eagle is a great dogfighter, not so much because of low speed handling which the two newer Russian fighters have but because of its ability to sustain very high G turns at low altitude, which few aircraft can.
Under the same conditions an Eagle can pull at 9G turn at 5000ft a Phantom can pull 3G and a Hornet or Fulcrum can pull 7. This is documented. I dare say a Flanker-B will match an Eagle turn for turn, but it'll need to have no more than a half fuel load and light stores to do it...and certainly an Eagle cannot match Flanker low speed handling, so Flankers can lead Eagles into manoeuvres which bleed airspeed and take the advantage that way.
Eventually, y'know it's still going to come back to pilot skill, experience and training.
Also, turn rates are by altitude. You need the full conditions given for the test to make valued comparative judgements, because what you'll find is that a superior turn rate at one altitude can still mean an inferior one at a different altitude. Even excess thrust varies by altitude differently between different engine types, which plays a part here.
By: Sens
- 24th June 2010 at 00:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I will answer you by e-mail about that. At least the personal reports from the Russian side till 1990 were not free of restriction and about the command and control system you will not even find side-notes. Someone like A.W. Woroshejkin complained that the command way consumed too much time in 1942 for fast reactions f.e..
New
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal
- 24th June 2010 at 00:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's common practice to provide info to back up claims made here. I'm not challenging your claims...just asking for some sort of proof other than your opinion.
A nice little EM diagram or two would suit me just fine...say, 50% combat weight, full AB...5000', 15000', and 25000'.
all of what i have read point the F-15 has a Max ITR of 21deg/s and a Max STR os 16deg/s and all of what i have read point the MiG-29 having a Max ITR of 28 deg/s and a STR of 22-23deg/s.
The numbers i have read for the J-10 is 24-23 deg/s do you think the J-10 flown in 2000 won`t surpass the F-4E with a STR of 14.5deg/s at sea level?
we are talking almost 45 years of difference in technology, the F-15 is old, if it has prevailed is just because its main rivals were the MiG-21, Mirage F1, F-4E, MiG-23 and MiG-25s, the Iraqi MiG-29s and Serbian were outmatched by the use of AWACs and larger numbers, besides the Iraqies did claim kills which never ever were aknlowledged by the USAF, but of course the whole point is the F-15 surpassed mostly the MiG-29 in BVR and that is where even Rico Rodrigez kill it.
By: alfakilo
- 24th June 2010 at 00:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
all of what i have read point the F-15 has a Max ITR of 21deg/s and a Max STR os 16deg/s and all of what i have read point the MiG-29 having a Max ITR of 28 deg/s and a STR of 22-23deg/s.
OK...but that isn't what I asked for.
I found your link for the USAF officer briefing to be interesting and informative. The only problem is that his points seemed to contradict yours.
By: alfakilo
- 24th June 2010 at 00:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
we are talking almost 45 years of difference in technology...
Nope...what we are talking about...or at least you are talking about...is a bunch of nationalistic hoopla combined with some serious overtones of post-Cold War angst.
New
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal
- 24th June 2010 at 00:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
kiwinopal surely you would concede there are specific cases of circumstance where the Eagle outmanoeuvres the non-FBW versions of the Fulcrum (which are the ones in service).
There are plenty of evaluations using the German MiGs of this, most particularly at lower altitudes where the MiG can't sustain Gs like the Eagle can (and bleeds airspeed), but it is noted at higher altitudes the Fulcrum gets the agility advantage in turn.
Also evaluations of the Indian AF Flankers versus F-15C are muted by the TVC of the Su-30MKI. The regular Su-27P/S/K/M2 series in service elsewhere (using analogue FBW without TVC), are noted for their low speed handling superiority but again the excellent G-capabilities which are reliable in the Eagle can only be matched by a Flanker under certain conditions, which includes an internal fuel load no greater than 5 tons (9 is maximum). At full load Flankers are restricted to 7G and at speeds above 0.85M the MiG-29 is similarly design limited to 7G where on both counts the US aircraft are limited only by stores restrictions, the F-16 can pull 9G anytime with anything except iron bombs strapped.
The G-meter in the Flanker-B doesn't even go past 8 (though it is recognised it can do 9 with a light fuel load, clean). The G-meter is also red past 7, meaning you're not supposed to go that high.
Talking about sustained G here. For all intents and purposes, with light loads all these aircraft types might be characterised by similar structural capabilities with the exception of the MiG, which is celebrated as less robust than a Viper despite MAPO claims. That's a matter of service evaluation and comparative testing experience in the west with both 9-12 and 9-13 models.
Quite simply the non-FBW and some poor structural strength around the base of the fins, plus a tendency to bleed airspeed at low alt really let the Fulcrum down. At higher altitudes like say 15,000+ft sure it's a butterfly with a deadly sting, but up there its BVR capabilities really let it down.
The Eagle is a great dogfighter, not so much because of low speed handling which the two newer Russian fighters have but because of its ability to sustain very high G turns at low altitude, which few aircraft can.
Under the same conditions an Eagle can pull at 9G turn at 5000ft a Phantom can pull 3G and a Hornet or Fulcrum can pull 7. This is documented. I dare say a Flanker-B will match an Eagle turn for turn, but it'll need to have no more than a half fuel load and light stores to do it...and certainly an Eagle cannot match Flanker low speed handling, so Flankers can lead Eagles into manoeuvres which bleed airspeed and take the advantage that way.
Eventually, y'know it's still going to come back to pilot skill, experience and training.
Also, turn rates are by altitude. You need the full conditions given for the test to make valued comparative judgements, because what you'll find is that a superior turn rate at one altitude can still mean an inferior one at a different altitude. Even excess thrust varies by altitude differently between different engine types, which plays a part here.
Interesting true but i you watched the video i left where Rico Rodrigez appears, who was a F-15C pilot and has shot down both Mig-29s and MiG-25s they say the MiG-29 is more agile and the series has interviews with Pilots that did shoot down MiG-29s with F-15s, they knew the intentions of both Serbians and Iraqies were getting close, the F-15 never let them do it, the German MiG-29s were detuned of their max engine power too.
One interesting aspect of all the Western propaganda is the claim the Germans were the best MiG-29 drivers here i can give you link to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQByetpFgKM
watch it and tell me how MiG-29s with detuned engines flown by German pilots were better than Russian pilots flying their MiGs without detuned engines?
New
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal
- 24th June 2010 at 00:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OK...but that isn't what I asked for.
I found your link for the USAF officer briefing to be interesting and informative. The only problem is that his points seemed to contradict yours.
watch this it is not Russian but american, no dogfight because both kills were funny one is a AIM-7 kill and the other is no kill at all the Iraqi pilot crashed his MiG as a result of bad flying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44oaapoAqPU&NR=1
By: vanir
- 24th June 2010 at 00:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To be fair some of the USAF comparative evaluation is based on the 9-13 MiGs purchased from Bulgaria (which the Russians gave them to get back some of their Cold War strategic equipment that was stationed there).
Also the main thing noted about the German MiGs was the structural failures at the base of the fins after sustaining training operations trying to match up against Vipers for a few years. This was where they realised the 9G limit is generous for the MiG structure (MAPO claims 12G is possible, but I guess they didn't mind if all the pilots trying it returned or not).
Certainly at the very least the drawbacks of the MiG have to be accounted to even things out, it is not a Viper or Eagle that is even better than a Viper or Eagle, but a different aircraft which is better in some ways, not as good in others. Evens out.
I mean we might've had this same argument about the Mustang versus the Focke Wulf or Lavochkin. It's not like we're comparing the Me-262 with the Fokker Eindecker here, I really don't think such a chasm exists or else the Flanker-B and Fulcrum-A/C would be called 5th gen fighters.
New
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal
- 24th June 2010 at 01:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To be fair some of the USAF comparative evaluation is based on the 9-13 MiGs purchased from Bulgaria (which the Russians gave them to get back some of their Cold War strategic equipment that was stationed there).
Also the main thing noted about the German MiGs was the structural failures at the base of the fins after sustaining training operations trying to match up against Vipers for a few years. This was where they realised the 9G limit is generous for the MiG structure (MAPO claims 12G is possible, but I guess they didn't mind if all the pilots trying it returned or not).
Certainly at the very least the drawbacks of the MiG have to be accounted to even things out, it is not a Viper or Eagle that is even better than a Viper or Eagle, but a different aircraft which is better in some ways, not as good in others. Evens out.
I mean we might've had this same argument about the Mustang versus the Focke Wulf or Lavochkin. It's not like we're comparing the Me-262 with the Fokker Eindecker here, I really don't think such a chasm exists or else the Flanker-B and Fulcrum-A/C would be called 5th gen fighters.
yeah but then why the MiG-29 kills were with AIM-7s and not in dogfights here look this is even with the interview of an american F-15 fighter pilot that show down a Serbian MiG-29 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-HxUFEctvs
The F-15 is not better than the MiG-29, in this series where they have Rico Rodrigez who was a F-15C pilot that shot down a MiG-25 and an outflown MiG-29 into a crash, they say it the MiG-29 is more agile, if you look at this video they say the Serbian Pilot wanted to get close why? because he knew getting close he was going to splash the F-15, the F-15 fired AIM-120.
Same is with the Flanker versus Fulcrum dogfights in africa, the MiG-29s were shot down with R-27s and just finished with a R-73 in one of the kills. what does it tells, well the MiG-29A has not a really good BVR ability specailly after 30 years of no upgrade.
By: CayceG
- 24th June 2010 at 01:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yeah but then why the MiG-29 kills were with AIM-7s and not in dogfights here look this is even with the interview of an american F-15 fighter pilot that show down a Serbian MiG-29 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-HxUFEctvs
The F-15 is not better than the MiG-29, in this series where they have Rico Rodrigez who was a F-15C pilot that shot down a MiG-25 and an outflown MiG-29 into a crash, they say it the MiG-29 is more agile, if you look at this video they say the Serbian Pilot wanted to get close why? because he knew getting close he was going to splash the F-15, the F-15 fired AIM-7s.
Same is with the Flanker versus Fulcrum dogfights in africa, the MiG-29s were shot down with R-27s and just finished with a R-73 in one of the kills. what does it tells, well the MiG-29A has not a really good BVR ability specailly after 30 years of no upgrade.
Just a clarification on your last statement, the Flanker kills over Fulcrums in the Ethiopia/Eritrea war were ALL made with R-73s in visual range. The R-27s that were fired all missed except for one, which damaged a MiG only enough to force it to crash land.
Posts: 135
By: Grizzly01 - 23rd June 2010 at 09:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"The instantaneous "corner velocity" for the F-15A at a combat load (half fuel and all the missiles) was given as 385 knots at medium altitude (10-20,000ft) and would generate about 15 degrees per second turn rate."
"...This is a higher airspeed - approximately 425 knots for an F-15A at combat weight...Because it is a higher speed, the turning circle is slightly larger and the rate at which the F-15 goes around it is correspondingly reduced to about 12.5 degrees per second." This is an excrept from "Eagles Engaged" by Steve Davies and Doug Dildy (F-15 pilot).
"To give some idea of the problem, F-20 sustained turn at Mach 0.9 at 15,000ft was just 9.7 deg/sec. This compared poorly against 12.8 deg/sec for the F-16 (variant not specified) and 11.8 deg/sec for the F-15, and was little better than the 9deg/sec of the F-4E." "Designed For The Kill" by Mike Spick.
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal - 23rd June 2010 at 10:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The MiG-29 has STR of 22 deg/s at 3000 mtrs.
The MiG-29 pretty much out turns the F-15 Eagle for great Margin
Posts: 408
By: exec - 23rd June 2010 at 11:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LOL man, get real!:rolleyes:
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal - 23rd June 2010 at 11:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are free to believe what ever you think is right, but the reality is the only Western fighters superior to the MiG-29 in agility are the Rafale, Eurofighter and F-22; the Gripen and F-16 are more or less on par, from China only the J-10 is slightly better.
The F-14 is more or less in the class of the F-15 but the Eagle was only superior to third generation fighters like the Viggen , Mirage F1 or MiG-23.
If you have seen MiG-29s shot down is because most MiG-29A around the world have not have any type of upgrade and those include even the russian ones
Posts: 408
By: exec - 23rd June 2010 at 11:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Simply put - this is not true.
F-15 and Su-27 STR is very similar(Su-27 has slightly better turn rate at low speeds, F-15 slightly better at high speeds), however Su-27 has significantly better ITR. Similar situation is with the F-16 and MiG-29.
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal - 23rd June 2010 at 12:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
your information probably comes from a video game, because the Su-27 is vastly superior to the F-15 at WVR that was even proved in the US when the Russians send their Flankers to the US, the F-15 never was able to shot down the Flanker.
The Su-27 has F-16 like agility, the F-15 is not even better than the F-18, the F-15 was never more agile if you have ever watch dogfights a tv series even the F-15 eagle ace Cesar 'Rico' Rodriguez said the Fulcrum is more agile.
watch it if you want
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgQHS2hsx84&feature=related
Flanker Beats Eagle
According to a Richard Fisher, a defense analyst and noted expert on the Chinese military, the Chinese Flanker fighters can beat the U.S. top jet fighters including the F-15 Eagle.
"Since 1992 the Pentagon has known that in a close-in dogfight the Su-27 would smear the F-15. That year Russian Sukhois came to Langley AFB and showed us their stuff. What we appear to be learning from the recent exercise with India is that Russian radar, weapons and more importantly, tactics, have all reached a level in which the F-15 is on the verge of being outclassed in the long-range engagement as well," stated Fisher.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/26/154053.shtml
Posts: 408
By: exec - 23rd June 2010 at 15:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-15 at sea level can pull 9g @ Mach 0.71 so this means that the max STR is ~21.2 deg./sec.
MiG-29 at sea level can pull 9g @ Mach 0.69 so this means that the max STR is somewhere around 22 deg/sec.
So it’s true – you can say that at sea level MiG-29 is slightly more maneuverable.
However @ 10k ft MiG-29 can pull only 8.2g and F-15 can pull 8.7g.
MiG-29 can pull 4.5g @ 26k ft and F-15 can do the same thing at almost 30k ft!
More of that:
With 2x AA-10 Alamo MiG is limited to 8g
Gross weight over 14200kg – 8g limit.
With centerline fuel tank limit is 4g
F-15 can pull 9g with 8 AA missiles and 3 fuel tanks.
Posts: 165
By: vanir - 23rd June 2010 at 23:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sens you've posted some good material elsewhere and I don't mean to be contradictory, it's just that having been working on some publications regarding Luftwaffe operations on the Eastern Front I've researched specific details of serviceable aircraft placed in action, in some cases to such detail as individual werk numbers, and without making a series of very long posts outlining my contentions, which would be the equivalent of publishing a book right in this thread, I can only assure you that based on my research at length, a better figure to characterise German fighter strength East versus West would be closer to 75% than 50%
The westwall and Mediterranean got only token fighter geschwader strength, characterised by JG27 in Africa and the two squadrons each serviceable, of JG2 and 26 in France/Belgium with one sqn each high alt interceptors (höhenstaffeln-kommando), or roughly 30-50 single engine fighters serviceable at a time on each of those two fronts respectively. The figure would be closer to 120 in action in the East at the same time (JG5, 54, 3 and 52).
These geschwader do not include attachments and splinters (JG51, 77, etc.) which were often broken up and transferred all over the place.
In addition the East (attached to Luftflotte 4) had the Slovak, Hungarian, Rumanian and Italian airgroups (token in 41 but growing in 42).
I understand what you're saying is drawn from averages based on assumed squadron strength, but can only assure you that pragmatic application of Luftwaffe fighter strength during the war was a far more desperate and haphazard thing than administrative tables suggest.
If I might suggest, the Axis History website has some transferred, referenced documentation of actual serviceable aircraft numbers by geschwader/staffeln at various times, also deployment details of geschwaderen so that between the two one can investigate how many available fighters were where at various stages.
Also the Luftwaffe Experten Forums site has a membership which includes a number of notable authors who've done detailed and celebrated research, whom will also provide a completely different picture of the air war in the East than you appear to have, if I may say so. Not that you aren't quite knowledgeable, just that every new area of research is a veritable can of worms and can be a lifelong project by itself.
You mentioned some interesting things about radar but I stand by the contention that it played no part in the air war between Germany and the Soviet Union. I've no doubt it helped form the postwar structuring of the VVS/PVO defence network, and valuable experience was being gained during the war but it was behind the scenes of the war in the same way perhaps, the P-51H Mustang was a product of the war against Germany but never played a role in it.
The closest parallel I can think of which was actually present in combat between VVS and Luftwaffe fighters (over Courland Pocket, Hungary and Berlin), was the fact pretty much all Soviet aircraft were fitted with a simple radio compass by then, which was important considering later model German fighters often received highly developed all-weather operational equipment standard. Radio navigation back then was a fair bit like radar-style tech to the period mind (entire squadrons were lost in poor weather). Radio navigation on continental Europe worked pretty much the same as British radar direction or AI/R. It was all pretty rudimentary "electrofangled" stuff to work with, very "high tech" and not entirely reliable (Flight 19, the infamous postwar mishap was using radio navigation at the time it was lost).
Posts: 523
By: alfakilo - 23rd June 2010 at 23:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's common practice to provide info to back up claims made here. I'm not challenging your claims...just asking for some sort of proof other than your opinion.
A nice little EM diagram or two would suit me just fine...say, 50% combat weight, full AB...5000', 15000', and 25000'.
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal - 23rd June 2010 at 23:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here i will prove you your source is totally wrong
Type: F-15C
Country: USA
Maximum instantaneous turn rate: Unknown
Maximum sustained turn rate: 16 degrees/second
source http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/f15.htm
now i know you might say but this is a webpage what about hearing an american pilot?
The F22 can sustain a turn rate of 28 deg per second at 20,000 feet while the F-15 can get an instantaneous rate of 21 and a sustained rate of 15-16 degrees
http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory.org/exercise-red-flag-su-30mki-comparison-fornof.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w&feature=player_embedded
Now if you read andrei Fomin Book he says the Su-27 has a STR of 21 deg/s
So basicly you are claming the F-15 is even more agile than the F-16 and Su-27 proof
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f16.htm
Type: F-16A
Function: fighter
Year: 1976Maximum instantenous turn rate: 26 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: 18 degrees/second
wow your F-15 is even better than the F-16.
and it is only slightly lower than a Su-30 with TVC
The Su-30? No problem. Big airplane. Big cross section. Jamming to get to the merge, so you have to fight close... he has 22 - 23 degrees per second sustained turn rate.
http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory.org/exercise-red-flag-su-30mki-comparison-fornof.shtml
and surpasses the Gripen
Maximum instantaneous turn rate: 30 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: 20 degrees/second
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/jas39.htm
Now you do not know a real fact is not the ability to pull Gs what makes an aircraft agile but ist ability to achieve its max Lifting coefficient at high AoA, you only get 9Gs in the MiG-29 due to the fact it is at high AoA in a turn.
The MiG-23ML can achieve 8.5Gs as a max overload, but its true ability to turn is at 7gs, you can pull 8.5Gs in a MiG-23 below Mach 0.9 but it wont turn better because it has a max lifting coefficient at an especific AoA so even it continues increasisng AoA and G load it won`t turn better because its wing is stalled.
Posts: 165
By: vanir - 24th June 2010 at 00:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
kiwinopal surely you would concede there are specific cases of circumstance where the Eagle outmanoeuvres the non-FBW versions of the Fulcrum (which are the ones in service).
There are plenty of evaluations using the German MiGs of this, most particularly at lower altitudes where the MiG can't sustain Gs like the Eagle can (and bleeds airspeed), but it is noted at higher altitudes the Fulcrum gets the agility advantage in turn.
Also evaluations of the Indian AF Flankers versus F-15C are muted by the TVC of the Su-30MKI. The regular Su-27P/S/K/M2 series in service elsewhere (using analogue FBW without TVC), are noted for their low speed handling superiority but again the excellent G-capabilities which are reliable in the Eagle can only be matched by a Flanker under certain conditions, which includes an internal fuel load no greater than 5 tons (9 is maximum). At full load Flankers are restricted to 7G and at speeds above 0.85M the MiG-29 is similarly design limited to 7G where on both counts the US aircraft are limited only by stores restrictions, the F-16 can pull 9G anytime with anything except iron bombs strapped.
The G-meter in the Flanker-B doesn't even go past 8 (though it is recognised it can do 9 with a light fuel load, clean). The G-meter is also red past 7, meaning you're not supposed to go that high.
Talking about sustained G here. For all intents and purposes, with light loads all these aircraft types might be characterised by similar structural capabilities with the exception of the MiG, which is celebrated as less robust than a Viper despite MAPO claims. That's a matter of service evaluation and comparative testing experience in the west with both 9-12 and 9-13 models.
Quite simply the non-FBW and some poor structural strength around the base of the fins, plus a tendency to bleed airspeed at low alt really let the Fulcrum down. At higher altitudes like say 15,000+ft sure it's a butterfly with a deadly sting, but up there its BVR capabilities really let it down.
The Eagle is a great dogfighter, not so much because of low speed handling which the two newer Russian fighters have but because of its ability to sustain very high G turns at low altitude, which few aircraft can.
Under the same conditions an Eagle can pull at 9G turn at 5000ft a Phantom can pull 3G and a Hornet or Fulcrum can pull 7. This is documented. I dare say a Flanker-B will match an Eagle turn for turn, but it'll need to have no more than a half fuel load and light stores to do it...and certainly an Eagle cannot match Flanker low speed handling, so Flankers can lead Eagles into manoeuvres which bleed airspeed and take the advantage that way.
Eventually, y'know it's still going to come back to pilot skill, experience and training.
Also, turn rates are by altitude. You need the full conditions given for the test to make valued comparative judgements, because what you'll find is that a superior turn rate at one altitude can still mean an inferior one at a different altitude. Even excess thrust varies by altitude differently between different engine types, which plays a part here.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 24th June 2010 at 00:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I will answer you by e-mail about that. At least the personal reports from the Russian side till 1990 were not free of restriction and about the command and control system you will not even find side-notes. Someone like A.W. Woroshejkin complained that the command way consumed too much time in 1942 for fast reactions f.e..
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal - 24th June 2010 at 00:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
all of what i have read point the F-15 has a Max ITR of 21deg/s and a Max STR os 16deg/s and all of what i have read point the MiG-29 having a Max ITR of 28 deg/s and a STR of 22-23deg/s.
The numbers i have read for the J-10 is 24-23 deg/s do you think the J-10 flown in 2000 won`t surpass the F-4E with a STR of 14.5deg/s at sea level?
we are talking almost 45 years of difference in technology, the F-15 is old, if it has prevailed is just because its main rivals were the MiG-21, Mirage F1, F-4E, MiG-23 and MiG-25s, the Iraqi MiG-29s and Serbian were outmatched by the use of AWACs and larger numbers, besides the Iraqies did claim kills which never ever were aknlowledged by the USAF, but of course the whole point is the F-15 surpassed mostly the MiG-29 in BVR and that is where even Rico Rodrigez kill it.
Posts: 523
By: alfakilo - 24th June 2010 at 00:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OK...but that isn't what I asked for.
I found your link for the USAF officer briefing to be interesting and informative. The only problem is that his points seemed to contradict yours.
Posts: 523
By: alfakilo - 24th June 2010 at 00:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nope...what we are talking about...or at least you are talking about...is a bunch of nationalistic hoopla combined with some serious overtones of post-Cold War angst.
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal - 24th June 2010 at 00:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting true but i you watched the video i left where Rico Rodrigez appears, who was a F-15C pilot and has shot down both Mig-29s and MiG-25s they say the MiG-29 is more agile and the series has interviews with Pilots that did shoot down MiG-29s with F-15s, they knew the intentions of both Serbians and Iraqies were getting close, the F-15 never let them do it, the German MiG-29s were detuned of their max engine power too.
One interesting aspect of all the Western propaganda is the claim the Germans were the best MiG-29 drivers here i can give you link to this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQByetpFgKM
watch it and tell me how MiG-29s with detuned engines flown by German pilots were better than Russian pilots flying their MiGs without detuned engines?
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal - 24th June 2010 at 00:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgQHS2hsx84&feature=related
watch this it is not Russian but american, no dogfight because both kills were funny one is a AIM-7 kill and the other is no kill at all the Iraqi pilot crashed his MiG as a result of bad flying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44oaapoAqPU&NR=1
Posts: 165
By: vanir - 24th June 2010 at 00:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To be fair some of the USAF comparative evaluation is based on the 9-13 MiGs purchased from Bulgaria (which the Russians gave them to get back some of their Cold War strategic equipment that was stationed there).
Also the main thing noted about the German MiGs was the structural failures at the base of the fins after sustaining training operations trying to match up against Vipers for a few years. This was where they realised the 9G limit is generous for the MiG structure (MAPO claims 12G is possible, but I guess they didn't mind if all the pilots trying it returned or not).
Certainly at the very least the drawbacks of the MiG have to be accounted to even things out, it is not a Viper or Eagle that is even better than a Viper or Eagle, but a different aircraft which is better in some ways, not as good in others. Evens out.
I mean we might've had this same argument about the Mustang versus the Focke Wulf or Lavochkin. It's not like we're comparing the Me-262 with the Fokker Eindecker here, I really don't think such a chasm exists or else the Flanker-B and Fulcrum-A/C would be called 5th gen fighters.
Posts: 489
By: kiwinopal - 24th June 2010 at 01:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yeah but then why the MiG-29 kills were with AIM-7s and not in dogfights here look this is even with the interview of an american F-15 fighter pilot that show down a Serbian MiG-29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-HxUFEctvs
The F-15 is not better than the MiG-29, in this series where they have Rico Rodrigez who was a F-15C pilot that shot down a MiG-25 and an outflown MiG-29 into a crash, they say it the MiG-29 is more agile, if you look at this video they say the Serbian Pilot wanted to get close why? because he knew getting close he was going to splash the F-15, the F-15 fired AIM-120.
Same is with the Flanker versus Fulcrum dogfights in africa, the MiG-29s were shot down with R-27s and just finished with a R-73 in one of the kills. what does it tells, well the MiG-29A has not a really good BVR ability specailly after 30 years of no upgrade.
Posts: 202
By: CayceG - 24th June 2010 at 01:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just a clarification on your last statement, the Flanker kills over Fulcrums in the Ethiopia/Eritrea war were ALL made with R-73s in visual range. The R-27s that were fired all missed except for one, which damaged a MiG only enough to force it to crash land.
Source, acig.org:
http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=47