By: firebar
- 4th August 2008 at 13:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The vanes don't extend until above mach 1.4. ACM rarely takes place at such speeds. The vanes were designed to cure the excessive stability that VG aircraft have at full sweep and high mach. They did what they were supposed to do.
That is all true what you say, but the fact is that the glove vanes was unnecessary in practice. It only contributed in weight escalation.
A fighter doesn't want to get so slow that it is in the part of the flight envelope where those slats deploy. But if an F-14 gets that slow, it can out turn next to anything at that speed.
You can not hold high speed in maneuvering fight. It always deteriorate to slow speeds, in real dogfight. That is why the F-18 often bits F-16 in close combat.
The F-16 is better at higher speeds but when the speed drops, the F-18 is better.
G limits have relevency for fatigue life, not combat.
You think that it is irrelevant whether the figher a/c is limited to 6.5G like F-14D or 9G like F-16 ??
No, it is always better to have higher G limit, but it depends of aircraft structure. When you have weak structure like F-14 it has to be limited to lower G numbers.
In air combat, the F-16 (or Mig-21 or Mig-23) will always pull more G than F-14.
The F-14 had too weak structure. Multiple its service 6.5 G with 1.5 and you will get its ultimate G.
It is about 10G. Anything more and it will break.
That is lower than the MiG-25 demonstrated.
I know of some libyan Su-22 and MiG-23 pilots who would strongly disagree with that, if they survived.
It was a matter of missiles, not aircraft.
The AA-2 versus AIM 9L.
By: firebar
- 4th August 2008 at 13:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
with the poor visability out of the either a MiG-23 or MiG-25 cockpit, they are less well suited for them than an F-14 would be.
A good visibility is nice to have but it is not everythig.
Would you say that the Zero was better fighter than Hellcat or Corsair?
Or that the F-104 was better fighter than F-4?
Note that the F-15 has better visibility than F-22.
By: firebar
- 4th August 2008 at 13:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My sources also list a 7.3 design G load. The 6.5 limit was added later to preserve the airframe.
I have sources which say that it has 9 G limit, other sources say 7.33 G, etc.These are all lies and pure propaganda values.
The F-14A and D, both, have 6.5 G service limit G. No matter of year of production. Source: Manuals.
The F-14 generated a lot of lift with its tunnel, If you factor that in, it could generate much more lift than the MiG, or nearly anything else in the sky. The T/W was a little lower, not a lot. The MiG-23 is no F-16.
The F-16 has no tunnel. The F-18 also. It is not so important, as Grumman brochures wanted us to believe.
As for T/W ratio, the combat T/W ratio of MiG-23 MLD with 2x R-24 and half fuel is about 1:1.
The F-14A had miserable T/W of 0.82 with half fuel and 4 sparrows.
A very important issue is that F-14A and D, with relatively high by-pass ratio engines, losses thrust with altitude fast, so that at say 6km height, the difference in T/W ratio compared to Mig-23 is even higher.
The higher the altitude, the higher the difference.
By: Schorsch
- 4th August 2008 at 14:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-16 has no tunnel. The F-18 also. It is not so important, as Grumman brochures wanted us to believe.
As for T/W ratio, the combat T/W ratio of MiG-23 MLD with 2x R-24 and half fuel is about 1:1.
The F-14A had miserable T/W of 0.82 with half fuel and 4 sparrows.
A very important issue is that F-14A and D, with relatively high by-pass ratio engines, losses thrust with altitude fast, so that at say 6km height, the difference in T/W ratio compared to Mig-23 is even higher.
The higher the altitude, the higher the difference.
The thrust drag ratio of the F-14 will be much better still. More thrust impresses the layman, but as I said above there are more important criteria and the MiG-23 looses in most against all F-Teens.
By: firebar
- 4th August 2008 at 14:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The thrust drag ratio of the F-14 will be much better still. More thrust impresses the layman, but as I said above there are more important criteria and the MiG-23 looses in most against all F-Teens.
What? The F-14 has enormous drag coeficient compared to Mig-23.
The Thrust/drag ratio is very important for rate of climb.
And you probably know that the F-14A had a patheticaly low rate of climb.
As for what it takes to make a good close combat fighter, read "'Figher tactics and maneuvering"- Robert Shaw, TOP GUN instructor. -"Because of its low T/W ratio, the F-14 was in fact underpowered aerial truck."
By: SOC
- 4th August 2008 at 20:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With allowed 2.5 G, the whole familly was incapable for any but mild maneuvers, and as such unfit for real combat use.
It was in the class of airliners and transport aircraft.
Not to mention 2 hours reaction time. Totaly unacceptable for combat a/c.
It's an interceptor, not a fighter, and as such did not require the ability to maneuver to any greater degree. Even with a massive turn radius at Mach 3, the reattack time against an incoming bomber formation was shorter than that of the F-106. I guess the F-106 was also unsuitable as an interceptor then, right? And all of the ideas of placing R-33 batteries on Tu-160P airframes were also stupid?
By: martinez
- 4th August 2008 at 22:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's an interceptor, not a fighter, and as such did not require the ability to maneuver to any greater degree. Even with a massive turn radius at Mach 3, the reattack time against an incoming bomber formation was shorter than that of the F-106. I guess the F-106 was also unsuitable as an interceptor then, right? And all of the ideas of placing R-33 batteries on Tu-160P airframes were also stupid?
I agree with him on this, an interceptor has to provide within five minutes readiness "24/7". Thats the reason why F-12B failed in the role of interceptor, bcs it wasnt built for that purpose even if it was ahead of its time in some respects. With that in mind, the Foxbat was the Interceptor with QRA capability and few minutes dash time at M2.8, enough to attack US Mach3 bomber or reccon aircrafts. Probably, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara knew the F-12B is waste of money.
By: sferrin
- 4th August 2008 at 22:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree with him on this, an interceptor has to provide within five minutes readiness "24/7". Thats the reason why F-12B failed in the role of interceptor, bcs it wasnt built for that purpose even if it was ahead of its time in some respects.
With bombers coming over the pole why in the hell would you need "five minutes readiness"? BTW work was done to get launch time down on the potential interceptor version. We're not still talking about SR-71 response time if that's what you're thinking.
By: Sens
- 4th August 2008 at 23:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With bombers coming over the pole why in the hell would you need "five minutes readiness"? BTW work was done to get launch time down on the potential interceptor version. We're not still talking about SR-71 response time if that's what you're thinking.
You can go close to the border-line and do nothing, when the interceptor runs out of fuel. How fuel efficient are such high-speed intercepters at low speed and low level compared to a B-52 or Tu-20?! The SAC did play that game for decades as the Russian long-range aviation recce/bomber did it too. :diablo:
By: eagle
- 5th August 2008 at 04:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You have to mention also that the F-16 is very slow compared to Mig-23.
With is max speed of 1.6 Mach, with 2 AIM-9, it compares miserably with sparkling 2.35 Mach of MiG-23 carrying 2 large R-24.
Top speed with 2 AAMs and a centerline tanks is M 1.9.
The F-15A is cleared to 7.33G and its ultimate (breaking) G load is 11G. At more that 11G pull-out, it will break.
The newer F-15C is cleared to 9G and its ultimate is more than 13 G.
Those were the original figures. Nowadays, F-15s are restricted like the Tomcat was. Doesnt mean they can pull 9Gs in anger without braking. However, some Eagles do brake at 5Gs, others don't at 30Gs.
By: SOC
- 5th August 2008 at 07:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree with him on this, an interceptor has to provide within five minutes readiness "24/7". Thats the reason why F-12B failed in the role of interceptor, bcs it wasnt built for that purpose even if it was ahead of its time in some respects. With that in mind, the Foxbat was the Interceptor with QRA capability and few minutes dash time at M2.8, enough to attack US Mach3 bomber or reccon aircrafts. Probably, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara knew the F-12B is waste of money.
The non-optimized SR-71A was capable of launch in 20 minutes and turnaround in 15, according to one of the declassified SR-71I proposals. What makes people think that the ADC-optimized F-12B wouldn't have been capable of better?
By: Sens
- 5th August 2008 at 08:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The non-optimized SR-71A was capable of launch in 20 minutes and turnaround in 15, according to one of the declassified SR-71I proposals. What makes people think that the ADC-optimized F-12B wouldn't have been capable of better?
Against better knowledge you do claim things similar to firebar.
The warm-up time till take-off is ~ 40 minutes .
The roll till take-off run is ~ 20 minutes. Leaving the hangar and to reach the take-off position is ~ 15 minutes. There are some minutes at the last chance point alone.
Before entering the cockpit, you are in need of several people to enter the S-1030-pressure suit.
To climb to the first refueling is ~ 7 minutes at ~25000 feet. The Habu does not take-off with full fuel. After some minutes in refueling the Dipsy maneuver is done to go supersonic and climb to cruising height. The Habu is limited in AoA and bank (=G). To reach Mach 3 and stay there it has to be flown in a constant setting with the help of an autopilot.
Going that high and reaching Mach 3 has its price, be it a MiG or the Habu. Above Mach 2,5 none can claim some to maneuver really.
It will be interesting to learn, what has been accomplished by the three prototypes of the YF-12A really. Except some claims, there was no F-12B.
By: Schorsch
- 5th August 2008 at 09:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can go close to the border-line and do nothing, when the interceptor runs out of fuel. How fuel efficient are such high-speed intercepters at low speed and low level compared to a B-52 or Tu-20?! The SAC did play that game for decades as the Russian long-range aviation recce/bomber did it too. :diablo:
For a supersonic interceptor with some endurance at supersonic cruise, good subsonic cruise and capability to have powerful avionics and weapon system, the B-58 would have been the best basis in the early 1950ies. In basic data comparable to the Tu-28/128, just much more advanced in all respects.
By the way: the specific range at MAch 3 of the SR-71 is twice as good as at Mach 0.9. I think one of the few aircraft that has such characteristics (not sure about the MiG-25, but that aircraft basically guzzled the gas at any speed).
By: Sens
- 5th August 2008 at 10:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For a supersonic interceptor with some endurance at supersonic cruise, good subsonic cruise and capability to have powerful avionics and weapon system, the B-58 would have been the best basis in the early 1950ies. In basic data comparable to the Tu-28/128, just much more advanced in all respects.
By the way: the specific range at MAch 3 of the SR-71 is twice as good as at Mach 0.9. I think one of the few aircraft that has such characteristics (not sure about the MiG-25, but that aircraft basically guzzled the gas at any speed).
By: firebar
- 5th August 2008 at 11:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just hilarious:
"The aircraft displays handling characteristics of an aeroplane at lower altitudes and that of a spacecraft at higher altitude."
So the MiG-25 can shoot down the space shuttle?
Who remembers the film with Clint Eastwood and the Soviet superfighter? I lost the title.
The inscription before Indian Mig-25 say that it has
handling
characteristics like airplanes designed for lower altitudes, and like spacecraft at higher altitudes, where is no enough air density.
Obviously it has very effective flying controls.
To design Mach 3 airplane which combines these two contradicting requirements is truly outstanding, from engineering point.
According to Manual the Mig-25 is cleared to any fighter maneuver: loops, slow rolls, zoom climbs, high G pull outs, etc.
That is a remarkable achievement compared to Blackbird family, which are in essence streightline, unmaneuverable flying fuel tanks with flimsy airframes.
By: firebar
- 5th August 2008 at 12:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's an interceptor, not a fighter, and as such did not require the ability to maneuver to any greater degree. Even with a massive turn radius at Mach 3, the reattack time against an incoming bomber formation was shorter than that of the F-106. I guess the F-106 was also unsuitable as an interceptor then, right?
The F-106 was very maneuverable interceptor, like it should be. And it had a good reaction time.
Imagine the long range radars detect Russian bombers, then this information passed to supposed F-12 squadron, and with its 2 hours reaction time, what would happen ?
That is where YF-12 failed. It was unacceptable.
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 4th August 2008 at 13:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is all true what you say, but the fact is that the glove vanes was unnecessary in practice. It only contributed in weight escalation.
You can not hold high speed in maneuvering fight. It always deteriorate to slow speeds, in real dogfight. That is why the F-18 often bits F-16 in close combat.
The F-16 is better at higher speeds but when the speed drops, the F-18 is better.
You think that it is irrelevant whether the figher a/c is limited to 6.5G like F-14D or 9G like F-16 ??
No, it is always better to have higher G limit, but it depends of aircraft structure. When you have weak structure like F-14 it has to be limited to lower G numbers.
In air combat, the F-16 (or Mig-21 or Mig-23) will always pull more G than F-14.
The F-14 had too weak structure. Multiple its service 6.5 G with 1.5 and you will get its ultimate G.
It is about 10G. Anything more and it will break.
That is lower than the MiG-25 demonstrated.
It was a matter of missiles, not aircraft.
The AA-2 versus AIM 9L.
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 4th August 2008 at 13:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A good visibility is nice to have but it is not everythig.
Would you say that the Zero was better fighter than Hellcat or Corsair?
Or that the F-104 was better fighter than F-4?
Note that the F-15 has better visibility than F-22.
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 4th August 2008 at 13:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have sources which say that it has 9 G limit, other sources say 7.33 G, etc.These are all lies and pure propaganda values.
The F-14A and D, both, have 6.5 G service limit G. No matter of year of production. Source: Manuals.
The F-16 has no tunnel. The F-18 also. It is not so important, as Grumman brochures wanted us to believe.
As for T/W ratio, the combat T/W ratio of MiG-23 MLD with 2x R-24 and half fuel is about 1:1.
The F-14A had miserable T/W of 0.82 with half fuel and 4 sparrows.
A very important issue is that F-14A and D, with relatively high by-pass ratio engines, losses thrust with altitude fast, so that at say 6km height, the difference in T/W ratio compared to Mig-23 is even higher.
The higher the altitude, the higher the difference.
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 4th August 2008 at 14:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-15A is cleared to 7.33G and its ultimate (breaking) G load is 11G. At more that 11G pull-out, it will break.
The newer F-15C is cleared to 9G and its ultimate is more than 13 G.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 4th August 2008 at 14:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The thrust drag ratio of the F-14 will be much better still. More thrust impresses the layman, but as I said above there are more important criteria and the MiG-23 looses in most against all F-Teens.
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 4th August 2008 at 14:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
25
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 4th August 2008 at 14:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What? The F-14 has enormous drag coeficient compared to Mig-23.
The Thrust/drag ratio is very important for rate of climb.
And you probably know that the F-14A had a patheticaly low rate of climb.
As for what it takes to make a good close combat fighter, read "'Figher tactics and maneuvering"- Robert Shaw, TOP GUN instructor.
-"Because of its low T/W ratio, the F-14 was in fact underpowered aerial truck."
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 4th August 2008 at 17:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just hilarious:
"The aircraft displays handling characteristics of an aeroplane at lower altitudes and that of a spacecraft at higher altitude."
So the MiG-25 can shoot down the space shuttle?
Who remembers the film with Clint Eastwood and the Soviet superfighter? I lost the title.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th August 2008 at 18:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Firefox. ;)
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 4th August 2008 at 20:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's an interceptor, not a fighter, and as such did not require the ability to maneuver to any greater degree. Even with a massive turn radius at Mach 3, the reattack time against an incoming bomber formation was shorter than that of the F-106. I guess the F-106 was also unsuitable as an interceptor then, right? And all of the ideas of placing R-33 batteries on Tu-160P airframes were also stupid?
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 4th August 2008 at 22:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree with him on this, an interceptor has to provide within five minutes readiness "24/7". Thats the reason why F-12B failed in the role of interceptor, bcs it wasnt built for that purpose even if it was ahead of its time in some respects. With that in mind, the Foxbat was the Interceptor with QRA capability and few minutes dash time at M2.8, enough to attack US Mach3 bomber or reccon aircrafts. Probably, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara knew the F-12B is waste of money.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th August 2008 at 22:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With bombers coming over the pole why in the hell would you need "five minutes readiness"? BTW work was done to get launch time down on the potential interceptor version. We're not still talking about SR-71 response time if that's what you're thinking.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 4th August 2008 at 23:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can go close to the border-line and do nothing, when the interceptor runs out of fuel. How fuel efficient are such high-speed intercepters at low speed and low level compared to a B-52 or Tu-20?! The SAC did play that game for decades as the Russian long-range aviation recce/bomber did it too. :diablo:
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 5th August 2008 at 04:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Top speed with 2 AAMs and a centerline tanks is M 1.9.
Those were the original figures. Nowadays, F-15s are restricted like the Tomcat was. Doesnt mean they can pull 9Gs in anger without braking. However, some Eagles do brake at 5Gs, others don't at 30Gs.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 5th August 2008 at 07:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The non-optimized SR-71A was capable of launch in 20 minutes and turnaround in 15, according to one of the declassified SR-71I proposals. What makes people think that the ADC-optimized F-12B wouldn't have been capable of better?
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 5th August 2008 at 08:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Against better knowledge you do claim things similar to firebar.
The warm-up time till take-off is ~ 40 minutes .
The roll till take-off run is ~ 20 minutes. Leaving the hangar and to reach the take-off position is ~ 15 minutes. There are some minutes at the last chance point alone.
Before entering the cockpit, you are in need of several people to enter the S-1030-pressure suit.
To climb to the first refueling is ~ 7 minutes at ~25000 feet. The Habu does not take-off with full fuel. After some minutes in refueling the Dipsy maneuver is done to go supersonic and climb to cruising height. The Habu is limited in AoA and bank (=G). To reach Mach 3 and stay there it has to be flown in a constant setting with the help of an autopilot.
Going that high and reaching Mach 3 has its price, be it a MiG or the Habu. Above Mach 2,5 none can claim some to maneuver really.
It will be interesting to learn, what has been accomplished by the three prototypes of the YF-12A really. Except some claims, there was no F-12B.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 5th August 2008 at 09:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For a supersonic interceptor with some endurance at supersonic cruise, good subsonic cruise and capability to have powerful avionics and weapon system, the B-58 would have been the best basis in the early 1950ies. In basic data comparable to the Tu-28/128, just much more advanced in all respects.
By the way: the specific range at MAch 3 of the SR-71 is twice as good as at Mach 0.9. I think one of the few aircraft that has such characteristics (not sure about the MiG-25, but that aircraft basically guzzled the gas at any speed).
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 5th August 2008 at 10:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Belenko
The flight distance was ~800 km with full fuel. ;)
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 5th August 2008 at 11:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The inscription before Indian Mig-25 say that it has characteristics like airplanes designed for lower altitudes, and like spacecraft at higher altitudes, where is no enough air density.
Obviously it has very effective flying controls.
To design Mach 3 airplane which combines these two contradicting requirements is truly outstanding, from engineering point.
According to Manual the Mig-25 is cleared to any fighter maneuver: loops, slow rolls, zoom climbs, high G pull outs, etc.
That is a remarkable achievement compared to Blackbird family, which are in essence streightline, unmaneuverable flying fuel tanks with flimsy airframes.
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 5th August 2008 at 12:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-106 was very maneuverable interceptor, like it should be. And it had a good reaction time.
Imagine the long range radars detect Russian bombers, then this information passed to supposed F-12 squadron, and with its 2 hours reaction time, what would happen ?
That is where YF-12 failed. It was unacceptable.