Basher54321

2006!! :lol: You could at least highlight the end bit instead to put it more into context.

Not trying to be patronizing but all I would say is try to learn a bit about EM charts as a start - see what is happening so you can understand some of the discussion going on here. You will eventually see what the above really means and how misleading it is - (Not really the pilots fault - you simply can't condense the complexities of this into one easy to understand sentence.)

These are not random charts - Full up Technical Orders (Not all are free) have been available for years for various aircraft with their respective flight test data - so it's the best you will get - did you wonder where flight sims get a lot of data from?

Thanks - rep inbound I assume the dashed lines are the low power mode and this chart includes output from both engines?

Drop the fuel another 1000 lbs on the Block 30 and you can do a 24dps sustained turn while buzzing the tower before you land :) The above is certainly a good example of how much a drop of 2000 lbs in weight can make - so clearly dropping the MiG-29G down 2000 lbs to a similar fuel state should obviously improve the figures - but on the other hand might put the MiG-29G on fuel emergency (Anyone have fuel flow charts for the MiG-29G from that manual?)

Speaking of David "Hey Joe" Parsons a direct quote of his tells me that A-A config was decided at squadron level (Libya mid 1980s) - e.g. VF-102 chose AIM-7/9 because they expected to get into dogfights so wanted a lighter loadout - but VF-33 used 2 of each AIM-9/7/54 despite the extra weight. There was no Vis ID requirement in the late 80s because Libya had MiG-25PDS / MiG-23MF/ML with all aspect BVR weapons - in the 1989 engagement the F-14As fired the first 2 x AIM-7s at over 10 miles (both missed).

Might be a good observation Rapid expansion in high AOA capability (due in part to advances in flight control system integration required for use with relaxed static or statically unstable longitudinal designs and in part to improved aerodynamic design) was first exploited by the F-14A Tomcat and exceeded the design areas covered by MIL-F-8785C. When this specification was first introduced, high AOA was considered to be about 16 degrees. The F-14 expanded that to over 50 degrees, although the Tomcat did not have the control power to exploit this region.......The F-14A can safely be maneuvered to 50 degrees AOA... Operational Lessons Learned from the F/A-18E/F (2000, USN/NAS)

Sorry not sure what you mean by that. In the mid 80s an F-14A was modified with Yaw Vectoring and apparently demonstrated full control near 90 degrees alpha. If not the video demonstrates the F-14A(?) could attain brief transient AoA near 90 degrees anyway (without the same control level).

Any details on the video? - Is that not the Yaw vector test bed?

Can I just confirm we are on the same page here TER (e.g. BRU-42) = Triple Ejector rack (carried 3 x MK-82) - very common on F-16s over the years (STAR is another type I think might be in use) MER (e.g. BRU-41) = Multiple Ejector Rack (Carried 6 x MK-82) - seldom seen

Could carry them from the start but I think I have only actually ever seen MERs on the YF and FSD jets during 1970s testing. Interesting pic - LM have the pic it on their site http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f16.html This site claims it is an F-16IN - certainly has a Block 60 antenna type layout but missing the nose FLIR. https://tacairnet.com/2015/08/15/the-f-16in-super-viper-could-get-another-shot-with-the-indian-air-force/

I have used them okay in the stock Intercept mission with the R-55s as well, so I know they come off the rail.

Posted some on here - http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=169410

Any comments on the actual subject? They might not have English as a native language but they have managed to include full stops after sentences. ;)

Found this study of A-LOC on aircrew interesting [ame]http://medind.nic.in/iab/t04/i2/iabt04i2p17.pdf[/ame]

Works for me in latest 1.5.4 Does it work if you click on the button by the throttle? You are loading them pre mission?

Expensive series but the Arab MiGs volumes on here is good value in my opinion. http://www.harpia-publishing.com/ And there are some little gems here if you search https://ospreypublishing.com/mig-21-units-of-the-vietnam-war https://ospreypublishing.com/mikoyan-gurevich-mig-21 https://ospreypublishing.com/f-15c-eagle-versus-mig-23-25 Not sure if these are published in German - the authors are multinational

Many thanks to you both for clarifying this.

Okay let's look at this : However the the idea that you would give your self a disadvantage when your life is on the line seems to be an attitude right out of computer sims. This was not a swipe at you - where I am coming from is that the above is generally the done thing (I wasn't just referring to drop tanks) - For the majority of platforms dropping tanks in AA or when a SAM is fired at them has been pretty much SOP throughout history. I can now see where you are coming from re the F-14 crews and so I can see why you were taking that line. There are not many USN A-A engagements compared to the USAF to go on. However you could have provided a document that states ROE regarding tanks for F-14 crews if you have it. Turkey Driver was the first to provide information that might back up what you were claiming. You have provided nothing so far regarding ROE/SOP for the FA-18 crews that would back up that engagement in 1991. If you think I am being awkward here you need to go back to my post and see the example of an Israeli F-16 not dropping its tank in combat - because the engagements you brought up seem no different to that whatsoever. I had already said (to effect) the F-16 was probably not in a disadvantaged position despite having its tank on. Without having information on SOP it is not unreasonable to think that the pilot can make the decision to jettison stores entirely based on the situation - especially when there are countless other examples of it happening. You seem to be a knowledgeable person but seem to have degenerated into a defensive posture on here on more than one occasion when you are probably better than that. Also telling someone how funny you are finding things etc comes across as nothing more than an attempt to wind the other person up so bare that in mind.

True at 8 miles sure - no TCS although wasn't sure if AWACS had any means to identify them although they would have had some knowledge of the Libyan inventory at the time. Nope - point missed I haven't defined anything. :) I would like to think you are still not getting it - you are trying very hard to pull this into a personal argument aren't you - please go on - I seem to remember you trolling before.

I can only apologise if you didn't understand where I was coming from. Source I have doesn't have Kleemans account Mucynski continued: At approximately eight miles I saw the two Su-22s on the nose. They were flying a formation we refer to as welded wing, within about 150ft (50m) Seeing a missile come off the rail at that range is a bit late to jettison tanks - but if the F-14 tanks really have tiny affect on performance then that is certainly a good reason to why they don't jettison them. Well I have looked at the information I can find on the engagement and given you a reason why they did that - it has nothing to do with the range and everything to do with the situation. Please provide me the USN doctrine from this era (in your next reply) that states all FA-18 drivers must do all AA with all AG and tanks on at all times regardless of the situation. Okay.............and totally Irrelevant.

Thanks I did wander about this - someone who moved onto F-16A (still USN) from big motor Cs stated he thought the big motor C had impressive T/W - so probably more down to T/D if there was a large weight gain - but looks like its handling may have been affected in some areas according to your guy.

Well that declaration still stands regardless of how literally you wish to take it. LOL - admit my last reply was lazy. The Fast Eagles identified the Libyan Su-22s at what 8 miles? according to the USN pilots and appear to have a good idea what they were up against - technically they were never in any real position of disadvantage, although they got lucky the missile fired wasn't an all aspect type. If they were disadvantaged during the merge they would have had to drop tanks ( I take it the F-14 tanks are not much of a drag penalty anyway especially when empty?) - luckily they were up against Libyan Su-22s. The Hornets (part of a large package?) didn't have to do much in the way of maneuver and it looks like the MiG was picked up at quite close range. Looking at the HUD tape of one - the MiG is flying into the strike package (as per other accounts) - the FA-18 switches modes, does some low G banking then fires head on. If the missile misses they may have had to ditch everything to get the nose around - regardless of training the FA-18 wont come round any quicker (although in this case another flight could have fired on the MiG anyway!). The USAF guys in Desert Storm dropped tanks in a lot of situations, some going into the engagement, some when they were locked onto by MiGs and sometimes even holding onto the centerline until things got out of hand - it varied but the tanks were dropped at a certain point deemed by that pilot to be an emergency.

Did they consider themselves to be in emergency situations, or like the example above were they confident they could handle the situation and were confident of the threat being faced?

The later FA-18Cs have higher thrust engines over the original ones so there is a bit of a difference in performance. In any emergency situation all the stores go regardless that has almost always happened in actual conflict. There is a photo of an Israeli F-16 coming back after a combat mission (1982) with a centre tank after firing an AIM-9. Considering they only used 4 x AIM-9 and it was 9G with an empty tank - and the fact they still had such an advantage over anything if they had to merge could have meant they had that luxury. In training you might want more fuel or in the past they might have been simulating other jets to reduce performance - or in some cases you might want drop tanks to simulate a drag level you might be stuck at in some loading's. However the the idea that you would give your self a disadvantage when your life is on the line seems to be an attitude right out of computer sims. Israel were running out of tanks in the 60s - they just changed policy to only drop if they got a visual on actual bandits and risked they would get more in time. The North Vietnamese made boats out of the F-4 tanks so many dropped - in fact you couldn't release AIM-7s properly without the CL tank jettison.