MBot Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 I know it doesn't mean anything for combat capabilitys, but the Mirage 2000C put up the most impressive airshow displays I have ever seen, including F-16s, F/A-18C/E, F-15 and even the Rafale. The insane rollrate of the Mirage 2000C is one aspect that makes the displays so impressive and of course the incredible turnrate.
wasserfall Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 SU37 AS for the SU37, it flew with TVC (only up and downward movement) and could outperform anything in the air (just watch the movies around), but..........!! At a later time the tvc was removed and advanced FBW installed and it could perform the same aerobatics as with TVC, unfortunately it crashed somehowe Visiting Maks2006 there was a Mirage 2000 flewn by a Russian pilot !!! and yes it was very impressive. But i have to say the Mig 29M and SU27SK are just as nimble if not better imho. Only seeing the SU30MK and Mig OVT perform in real live is simply STUNNING now way any other jetfighter can outperform these (except maybe the f22) Intel Core i5-9600K, Gigabyte Z390 AORUS PRO, 16GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro, Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080 WINDFORCE 8G
Pilotasso Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 The gripen turns surprisingly well for a fighter wich runs on 1 of the F-18's engines. Maybe because it has huge canards wich add to lift instead of subtracting it for pitch manuevers. Turns with a low angle of attack. .
Kula66 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 So given the EuroFighter has more effective canards (bigger and further forward) ... and more power ... should it be the more maneuverable? The last display I watched of a Typhoon was very poor ... just fast & slow passes! It was just after the near crash so they were probably taking it easy!
Cobra360 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 The Su-35 with its new FCS software laws is supposedly able to maneuver just like the Su-37. And Norweigan F-16s have consistantly beat the Gripen in dogfights. It was in an AFM article. The Swedish pilots admitted that the 16s had a higher T/W ratio which gave them the advantage as their 39s could not sustain the high turn rates for as long.
peterj Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Gripen has probably one of the best airframes and FBW control systems out there (all swedes know that, and don't quote me on this one) ;) However t/w-radio, Gripen 10-12 N/K (depending on version) Rafale 19 N/K Some gripen highspeed turns at the end of this, http://www.flightlevel350.com/video_streaming.php?id=5139 Again I don't think it's shown its full potential. Cobra360, is that from a good source? Iv'e also heard that Gripen beat the norwegan F-16:s despite its lower t/w-radio since it bleed much less speed.
51GRIZZLY Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Originally posted by GGThanos: He said non-TVC. OOPS :)
Cobra360 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Cobra360, is that from a good source? Iv'e also heard that Gripen beat the norwegan F-16:s despite its lower t/w-radio since it bleed much less speed. It was in an issue of Airforces Monthly from last year. It was reporting about some winter exercise involving the Gripen, F-16s from Norway and F-18s from Finland. I would have thought the 39' would have performed better.
Cobra360 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 It was actually Combat Aircraft, Vol 6, No.5 not AFM, sorry.
peterj Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 That's a quote from a norwegian pilot, in the link below someone said SwaF sources stated that they won most of the dogfights. Also the Norwegian pilot did not say they won most dogfights, only that they (surprisingly?) could outmanuover it (sometimes?) :) http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1029-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-0.html Did the article say anything about BVR?
Cobra360 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Nothing was said about BVR, it was mainly close in DACT.
jj_pt Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 D-Scythe, don't get me wrong, but where do you get all this info? Is it based on facts or just your opinion? I ask this because what your're saying is incorrect. No pilot in the world can go 1 to 9 Gs in 1.2 without blacking out almost immediately. In fact, can anyone say G-LOC? BTW, 13.5Gs means nothing. The pilot will black out well before then. The RAF G's tests include 9 G's sustained during 15 seconds and I saw non-pilots doing it with no g-suit help, only standar respiratory procedures. And I didn't even mentioned the test the USAF did a few years back on a pilot, he sustained 12 G's during several seconds. The pilot had big constitution and had no problem in holding it during the entire test. IMO' date=' you'd be wrong about that. The only thing the M2000 does exceptionally well is instantaneous turn rate. It's pretty good at everything else, but is by no means uber. I know for a fact that an F-16A or a Block 50+ F-16C would perform equally well if not better than the M2000.[/quote'] I have an old issue of Air International stating that the Mirage 2000's can hold it's own against an F-16 Block50/52 with no problems. At medium altitudes the F-16 would have the edge but the Mirage wins at Medium to Higher altitudes. The F-16As are much less heavier than a Charlie version, so in theory it could outperform most fighters in the dogfight regime. [sIGPIC]http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/images/userbars/A-10C_UserBar_01.gif[/sIGPIC]
Cobra360 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 But the F-16C have more powerful engines than the Alpha's to compensated for the weight. But in saying that the USN use F-16A/Bs for aggressor training. I saw the Equnox programme on TV a good few year sback and it was about G-LOC. It showed the USAF pilot sustaining 12G with the Combat Edge anti-g system which was new at the time. With the old G-suit he was just about holding 9.
Kula66 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 According to a book I read about John Boyd, the F-16A could have been even better at turning. The AF kept adding features that pushed the weight up and increasing wing area to compensate would have made it significantly better turner than the 15 ... something the AF didn't want. They wanted the 15 (with all the gizmos) and feared that if the 16 was significantly better congress would have forced more 16s on them ... or binned the 15 altogether.
Pilotasso Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 at 13 G's you get pilot death by tissue crushing. I find that hard to belive anyone could be in his perfect abilities in 12 G's. I flew up to 4G's and I felt I was already in trouble. I cant imagine anyone going for 12, its insane. The mirage 2000 will sutain structural damage at 12.5 G's. As for the gripen it will have uprated engines soon and sustained agility wont be a serious matter anymore for that Type. I find it hard to believe the Gripen can be beaten by F-16's so consitently, I've heard Gripens had beanten F-16's and 18's consistently. There seems to be a bit of contradiction on the reports declassified to the public. .
jj_pt Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Pilotasso, I find hard to believe I've read those words from you. When a pilots ejects he/she finds him/herself in 20G's forces!!! How can you say that at 13 G's a pilot will die?! I don't think you're a trained pilot, so it's normal you find yourself in troubles at 4G's. German Navy pilot wannabess need to pass the centrifuge test at 5.5G's. If you pass out, you're out of the program. [sIGPIC]http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/images/userbars/A-10C_UserBar_01.gif[/sIGPIC]
Guest IguanaKing Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 He's speaking of sustained G's. Is that not what you were referring to? He's absolutely correct, sustained G's of that level and even less will kill a pilot. There are many technological advances that help prevent loss of consciousness, but none of them will prevent the effects of Gs on your internal organs
warthogmadman987 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Thanks for the help guys, i have also been wondering though now, is there any american aircraft that has a thrust vectoring system. and if not, why? I assum there is a reason. Just like why the russians dont have catapults on the carriers and the americans do. there must be a reason. PS-i have seem some pics and movies of the moveable nozzles on russian aircraft, just didnt know what they called it!
nscode Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Pilotasso, I find hard to believe I've read those words from you. When a pilots ejects he/she finds him/herself in 20G's forces!!! How can you say that at 13 G's a pilot will die?! I don't think you're a trained pilot, so it's normal you find yourself in troubles at 4G's. German Navy pilot wannabess need to pass the centrifuge test at 5.5G's. If you pass out, you're out of the program. And when F1 drivers crash they can expirience 250+ G's, and (sometimes) stay alive, but that's in miliseconds time. Problem with flying at more than a few G's that your blood will drain from the brain into lower parts of the body and you will pass out. G suites can press on your legs and all around in order to keep that blood up where it's needed. What they can't do is, as IK sayed, keep your internal organs from blowing up, crushing in, or any other graphical scene you can imagine. All that will not happen if the G load is short enough. And speeking of ejecting, you tend to shrink a bit from that, and it's forbiden to fly for a month afther that, so that your spine can recover. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Guest IguanaKing Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Thanks for the help guys, i have also been wondering though now, is there any american aircraft that has a thrust vectoring system. and if not, why? I assum there is a reason. Just like why the russians dont have catapults on the carriers and the americans do. there must be a reason. PS-i have seem some pics and movies of the moveable nozzles on russian aircraft, just didnt know what they called it! The AV-8B is an American aircraft with thrust vectoring. ;) Actually...I guess that's technically a British aircraft. The F-22A also has thrust vectoring. One reason Russians don't use catapults is because they are quite expensive to build, operate, and maintain. The Russians have always had a no-nonsense approach to military equipment. :D
Force_Feedback Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 The AV-8B is an American aircraft with thrust vectoring. ;) Actually...I guess that's technically a British aircraft. The F-22A also has thrust vectoring. One reason Russians don't use catapults is because they are quite expensive to build, operate, and maintain. The Russians have always had a no-nonsense approach to military equipment. :D They also have cockroaches on the Admiral Kuznetsov :p (that is after the refit) Guess it's some strategic asset ;) Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Guest IguanaKing Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Heh...as big as those things get...they can be sent out to attack the enemy while he is sleeping. :D
Force_Feedback Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Heh...as big as those things get...they can be sent out to attack the enemy while he is sleeping. :D Add "lasers" and mind-control chips to their heads and you have your cheap-no nonsense roaches with frickin "laser"beams on their heads. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Guest IguanaKing Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Hehehe...no need for those. I've seen the end result of these guys chowing down on peoples' faces as they slept when I was stationed in Texas. It wasn't pretty. You know how they say "everything's bigger in Texas"...well its definitely true of the cockroaches. :D
nscode Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 One reason Russians don't use catapults is because they are quite expensive to build, operate, and maintain. The Russians have always had a no-nonsense approach to military equipment. :D When NASA needed to give their astronauts something to write with, they spent millions $ to develop a pen that works in 0G. Russians gave their astronauts pencils :cool::D Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Recommended Posts