Making The Best of Mig-21 (FM)

[BadHabit]

Just trying raise a discussion to understand the offsets off the current FM vs what I believe should be and what we read it should be.

 

LINK http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/making-best-mig-21-a-10472/#post200444

""From below article it appears that 21 can still hold its own in dogfight:

 

Try to point at and shoot well flown MiG-21!

 

Predrag Pavlovic, dipl.ing. and Nenad Pavlovic, dipl.ing, JAT Airways

 

Maneuverability of modern fighter is measured by how slow it can fly and how high angle of attack it can sustain and still turn. During some war situations, US evaluation and Aggressor use, MiG-21 has shown it can keep pace with modern planes in this area. Aircraft manufacturer at one time considered this irrelevant and imposed restrictions on angle of attack. Flying above allowed 28-33 degrees local angle of attack at low speeds makes possible to relatively safely achieve a maneuverability once considered privilege of modern fighters.

 

Couple years ago reports and testimonies appeared in the media about a dogfight during the Israeli-Arab War '73. when the Egyptian MiG-21 pilot managed to do a Split-S maneuver at the start altitude of 3000 feet, less than half minimum airspace the manual says (about 6750 ft). Appropriate simulation can be found on the internet:

 

 

 

Figure 1.

 

Initiated by this event, some American and Israeli enthusiasts (once pilots of their AF fighters), one of which has a private squadron of various Russian fighters, attempted to replicate that minimum altitude needed to complete Split-S figure in the two-seater MiG-21. Previous consultation with Israeli ace, who participated in that dogfight in '73. war, did not help test to be successful. Attempts were carried out at the higher altitude (5 km) and the height loss during the figure was in accordance with flight manual. It remained unclear whether ’73 event was result of "special skills or superhuman strength of the Egyptian pilot needed to withstand the required g-loads”.

 

Recently disclosed files of the official MiG-21 evaluation in the U.S. revealed some unexpected capabilities that can be correlated with the "inexplicable" ’73. maneuver. MiGs were brought to America via Israel, in the late '60s as a result of pilot error or fled from Iraq and Algeria. Later they were bought from Indonesia. The MiG-21 in the U.S. Air Force is designated YF-110.

The report of a MiG-21F shows nothing particularly unusual, except for maneuvering capabilities and behavior/handling at low speeds described as "class above competition”. Besides that, if competitors tried to follow MiG-21F at high alpha, their engine experienced shutdown or compressor stall. MiG could perform "hammerhead" turn (wing over/stall turn/renversement) at 100 knots (knot = 1.853 km/h), figure where at the end of the vertical climb pilot add rudder (with the opposite aileron and forward stick) to push the plane in the dive. Rudder is effective from 30 knots. With the stick fully backward, the plane flies at 210 km/h, the rolling oscillations are present, but there is no lift breakdown or the tendency towards spin. If during the evaluation, loss of control due to uncoordinated controls occurred, it was in the form of roll-off (usually for 180°) instead of much more dangerous yaw-off. To put the plane back under control it was necessary only to release controls. MiG-21 proved to be docile, safer to fly than MIG-17. During the hundred flight tests engine compressor stall was never experienced.

U.S. of course, used MiGs in dogfight evaluation against their aircraft. Latter, they formed "Aggressor" squadron of MiGs and other fighters for the dogfight simulation with regular American aircraft.

 

Figure 2, 3. MiG-21 on testing in the U.S.

 

During MiG testing, it was clear that U.S. pilots have not relied on Soviet pilot’s manuals or they did not have one at the beginning. That is why the aircraft ability was fully exploited. Test pilots had thousands of flight hours experience on dozens of types of aircraft. Those who have survived the testing of U.S. supersonic fighters

F-100/101/104/4 (many of planes were called "widow makers"), learned to recognize the pre-stall/spin signs and use rudder for rolling the aircraft at higher angles of attack.

 

 

 

Figure 4. Some of the results of MiG-21 testing in the United States

 

Reportedly, if Vietnamese pilots had adequate training, the U.S. fighter shot-down ratio figures would be much worse in that war. In the hands of the well trained pilots, MiG would always outmaneuvered Phantom. US unveils graphs depicting not only far better instantaneous turn performance of Fishbed C compared to F-4D but also better sustained maneuverability. MiG-21 Aggressor pilots respected only the most modern fighters because they do not lose so much speed in turn even at low speeds. However, appearance of all-aspect infrared missiles reduced the importance of sustained turns (M2000, F-18E, Gripen …are not brilliant in the maintaining speed in turn). If MiG-21 had R-73 missile, it could easily take advantage of first shoot opportunity at close range against any new fighter.

The F-5E, fighter which does not fly above Mach 1.5, MiG-21 simulator, reportedly has shade better subsonic sustained turn maneuverability, but inferior controllability at low speeds. Maneuverability is the ability to change speed and direction of flight path (velocity vector pointing) and controllability - ability of change aircraft attitude (pitch/roll/yaw - nose pointing) and thrust (engine response - spool up time matters). When the aircraft initial flight path in dogfight is anti-parallel flyby, combat will inevitably develop so that someone goes in a climb with rolling scissors - turn reversals along the opponent’s flight path to remain behind the opponent. If the F-5E does not gain an advantage before the speed drops below 200 knots, MiG will start winning. First look at the configuration of the aircraft, MiG – delta with the sweep near 60°, and Tiger with nearly straight wings, would suggest the opposite, that MiG is in trouble at low speed.

 

Even the mighty F-15 Eagle had no solution in dogfight below 150-250 knots against MiG-21 in US Aggressor hands. At the beginning of dogfight, at the speed of 400-500 knots MiG-21 will turn at max g loosing 70 knots per second, ending at the speed of 70 knots in less than 90º of turn (deceleration of 3.5 g, more intensive than Harrier’s VIFF turn). Reportedly, no other aircraft can do that. This way MiG will remain behind every opponent still having sufficient controllability for gun tracking using rudder rolls. Opponents would think that at this speed MiG can only bring down the nose and dive, but the MiG at less than 100 knots has sufficient pitch authority to raise the nose at enemy. If F-15 tries to follow, ’21 should execute 'barrel-roll ' to remain behind the Eagle.

It is obvious that MiG-21 'Aggressor' pilots pulled full aft stick in turn regardless of the lateral oscillations, roll-off and temporary loss of control.

 

 

 

Figure 5. Scissors maneuver

 

Latter, the F-15 pilots learned (in a hard way) not to accept maneuvering at slow speeds, not to allow to be drown into a series of turn reversals, but to withdraw and re-attack at higher speeds using 3D turns and it’s higher thrust/weight ratio. F-15 with 45º swept wing and low horizontal tail, at higher angle of attack becomes longitudinally superstable, so it can not achieve more than about 30º angle of attack.

 

On the example of lift and stability of the aircraft with the 45º swept wing and high-set horizontal tail it can be seen that the lift begins to decline at 10º (buffeting starts), the wings are stalled at the 20º (the airflow separates from the wing), and max body lift is at 35-40º after which it decreases. Delta wing of MiG-21 with sweep of 57 º retains stable airflow to very high angles of attack.

Longitudinal stability is positive where the curve has a downward slope. In this case, the position of the horizontal tail is causing longitudinal instability at 15º, and at 35-40º angle of attack aircraft is trimmed without tail deflection. MiG-21 has no problem with longitudinal stability (except with air to ground armament with low fuel) and the plane in the example would have a limit at 15º angle of attack.

Yaw stability curve shows that the aircraft is unstable at 15º, what is not uncommon. Few modern fighters are stable at over 20º, but it is not a problem if the aircraft maintains lateral stability i.e. roll due to yaw. Roll stability curve is increasing as the lift increase, so it similarly comes to the instability, in this case at about 20º angle of attack. Shall the plane have a tendency toward spin (at no deflection of the control surfaces!) show the curve of dynamic directional stability where factors are static yaw and roll stability along the inertial characteristics of the aircraft. In this example, the plane is at stall just above 20º angle of attack, while MiG-21 is stable at well over 30º at low Mach numbers.

Curves correspond to a particular Mach number, at some other speed they can vary significantly.

 

 

 

Figure 6. Example lift and stability of aircraft

 

Soviet training was based on a relatively small number of flight hours on a MiG, which is used for training the primary purpose of aircraft, interception of fighters-bombers, under ground control. Pilots are not encouraged to explore the flight envelope. The aircraft is designed to fly faster and higher. Slow speeds were irrelevant, except for landing. In the first combat manuals, the performance at altitudes only above 5 km were presented. Later, it turned out that there are many practical constraints due to which the projected max altitudes and speeds are rarely used.

MiG-21 wing has no camber or twist along span. The relative thickness of the higher end of the wing than in the root. There are few prestall signs. Prestall buffet begins much earlier (at 50-100 km/h higher speed), its intensity is light and slightly decreases at higher α. Below Mach 0.4 buffet does not develop. Just before stall α, aircraft nose would start wandering accompanied by more noticeable wing rocking (roll oscillations that intensify thru the stall), symptoms of dynamic directional instability.

Stalling proceeds more vigorously with fewer signs at higher subsonic speeds.

 

Ailerons are ineffective in countering roll oscillations and rudder would push aircraft into a spin. Setting control surfaces to the neutral position immediately after the onset of stall would restore normal flight conditions. The aircraft is longitudinally stable in air combat configuration at any internal fuel quantity.

 

Aircraft’s stall speed (speed at which dynamic directional stability breakdown occurs) is function of Mach number, because directional and lateral static stability usually decreases with speed. Stall angle of attack decreases from above 30º (far beyond indicated α) at Mach 0.2 to 20º (i.e. 33 units local angle of attack on indicator) at Mach 0.95.

 

In those days when MiG-21 was designed, electronic flight controls to limit the angle of attack in function of Mach number didn’t exist. A fighter was built primarily for high speeds, high altitude interceptions. At slower speeds previous generations MiG-19/17 were better.

 

Designers put the angle of attack indicator, calibrated in local angle of attack, to warn the pilot of approaching stall limit. At recommended and allowed limit 28 units (about 17º true angle of attack) safety margin to stall is from 13º at Mach 0.2 to 3º at Mach 0.95.

So there is large margin between allowed angle of attack and stall angles of attack especially at lower Mach numbers.

At higher speeds, the angle of attack is limited by tail pitching power.

 

Mach number 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.95

Stall angle of attack (α) > 30º ~ 25º ~ 23º ~ 20º

Stall speed

weight = 7500 kg 233 km/h 254 km/h 260 km/h 267 km/h

Speed at 33 units local α

(~20º α ) 287 km/h 287 km/h 282 km/h 267 km/h (stall)

Speed at 28 units local α

(~17º α ) 311 km/h 311 km/h 305 km/h 291 km/h

 

So, the low speed turning capabilities were not fully exploited. If situation comes, like it happened to that Egyptian pilot during war, there is an additional lift potential.

 

During the Split-S figure, speed should not be increased. The closer to stall α is, the lesser the altitude loss is during figure. Below 600 km/h CAS entry speed aircraft cannot aerodynamically reach the allowed structural load factor so there is no need for superhuman physical stress. At higher speeds height loss in split-S at stall angle of attack is much more than 3000 ft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7, 8, 9.

 

Because of its very high stall angle of attack at lower Mach numbers and good pitch control authority (large wing leading edge sweep produces strong vortical flow which shifts aerodynamic centre forward at high alpha, reducing stability thus allowing the tail to easily trim aircraft at more than 30° alpha), aircraft has a great point and shoot potential with modern IR missiles.

 

Although it is often said that the MiG-21 looses a lot of energy in turn, the truth is also that it has better sustained turn performance than most aircraft of its generation.

Tumansky engine proved almost stall/surge free at speeds far below minimums quoted in conservative Soviet flight manuals. All U.S. and European contemporary designs flamed out under same conditions. Engine has two shafts for optimized - different rotational speeds of low and high pressure compressors stages for a compressor blade stall resistance, feature that allows more compressors stages to be added for lowering specific fuel consumption. But it has unusually low number of compressor stages for a two-shaft design, contributing to reliability. Bad side of this philosophy is higher fuel consumption.

Despite the resistance of the compressor to the extreme conditions of airflow at the inlet, if afterburner is engaged at almost zero speed (well below the conservative engine envelope) other undesirable phenomena are possible. Distortions of the inlet airflow causes disruption of relations of air and fuel in the AB chamber, which changes the speed of combustion. Pressure fluctuations coupled to acoustic velocity fluctuation (AB chamber is also exposed to sound fatigue, the noise is up to 180 decibels) associated with combustion instability (called rumbling), can cause extreme resonant structural vibrations of the engine with subsequent engine destruction and the loss of the aircraft.

 

The published results of American evaluation relates to the F/PF models. BIS model has 15-20% higher ratio of inertia moments in yaw to roll. It certainly results in more sideslip during rolls and somewhat lower stall angle of attack, angle when breakdown of dynamic directional stability occurs. But the prevailing factor in this equation is the dihedral effect i.e. roll stability and it is the same in all models because it depends on airflow around the delta wing, so it can be expected good behavior of BIS model at low speeds also.

 

It should be borne in mind that prevailing effects at high angles of attack are dihedral and adverse yaw due to aileron deflection. Rudder is used for rolling and if the sideslip angle or yaw rate (induced in this way) crosses critical, result is the spin. Opposite aileron increases the roll rate through an additional sideslip angle i.e. 'adverse yaw'. In most modern aircraft application of such cross controls for 5-15 seconds, usually causes spin.

 

 

 

Figure 10. MiG-21 derivatives J-7G and JL-9

 

In general, the plane that has a lower stall speed is more maneuverable. At some speed, it will be able to achieve g-load equal to the square of the mentioned speeds quotient. The U.S. experience from simulated dogfights during exercises indicates the importance of the minimum speed and controllability at high angles of attack. That is why F-18 gets F-15/16 although its performances are considerably lower. Latest F-18E has still weaker performance, but better controllability. Angle of attack, at low speeds, of the F-16 and Gripen is limited to about 26º (Rafale and the Typhoon to a shade more). F-15 has max trimmed angle of attack 30-33º with poor roll response here. Against 'stealth' fighters F-22/35 and corresponding new Russian (whose all planform contour lines are parallel to a few main sweep angles - cm wavelength radar return angles, in addition to other 'stealth' measures and cost of 50 MiG-21), none of the listed has significant chances at medium range. Analysts agree that the close combat will remain inevitable, and that each aircraft armed with missiles cued by helmet sight has a chance, especially if it can reach high angles of attack. Even stealth fighters do not destroy opponents with death rays. Every component of the fire control/weapon system chain has limitations, from fighter radar to missile fuze. Towed mini decoy (laterally separated) with monopulse deception jammer/repeater or just simple towed corner reflector can draw away radar return signal centroid from towing aircraft. It could help surviving medium range combat even against stealth fighters.

 

The main disadvantages of MiG-21 are poor cockpit downward visibility, a proportionally small (but inline to generation) wingspan i.e. large induced drag (afterburner is needed for level flight at the absolute minimum speed, as at max allowed Mach number) and relatively slow response of two-shaft engine. All this causes poor performance on landing, especially in the case of go-around. Small fighter size means limited mission equipment carriage capacity.

 

It turns out that only important is to have a reliable and economical aircraft, a platform for carrying payload, with attack speed in the Mach 1.5+ class (that’s why a 15-20 years younger A-10 was withdrawn prematurely). The modern nav-attack equipment (simplified inertial system, GPS, displays…) is now relatively inexpensive to install even in a small propeller planes. MiG-21 operators missed opportunity to realize fact that with helmet cued, large acquisition angle R-73 missile that was available upgrade, MiG could achieve 50:1 kill ratio in dogfight against F-18/Gripen/Typhoon class fighters just because latter were 10-15 years late with similar weapon system. Instead of making best of it, MiG-21 operators opted to admire newer fighters.

Because of its good characteristics, even 50 years after MiG-21 became operational, some of its modifications are still in production in Asia.

 

Reference:

 

- Fighter Performance in Practice, Phantom versus MiG-21, Predrag and Nenad Pavlović,

eBay.com;

- Test and Evaluation Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Interviews;""

[humptydumpty]

Thanks for this , I have never in my life read such a long post but it was interesting what ever I understood :).

 

As an armchair pilot all I can say that the weight issue is still there in the Mig21 .

[Fri13]

Good post about the "less known" advantages of the Mig-21.

 

I have read many of those generally about the deathly capabilities of Mig-21Bison with R-73 and helmet mounted aiming systems, combined with the capability carry R-27 and get the GCI or Su-27/Mig-31 flights to guide in. Combine that even more with a tiny size and smaller front cross section when cruising toward the target than even F-5E and Mig-21 can really surprise enemy at close range before target even realize the Mig is on them at their missiles NEZ range.

 

IMHO based that what you can listen and read from the training exercises with Mig-21, it is close to a "perfect" fighter because its price and design. Upgrade ones with the modern systems and it would be really capable aircraft even today for most situations, wanted for speed or for maneuverability.

 

I would like to know how engineers could improve Mig-21 if they could re-design it today while keeping the same airframe? Like improve the engine, add some pylons or upgrade them to carry different loads, upgrade radar performance with AESA, glass cockpit and new CM suit.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Fri13

[BadHabit]

Mig 21-93 , 2000 , Bison and Lancer C where the biggest upgrades this fighter saw, almost 4th gen.

I am goin to test the new FM paragraph to paragraph compared to this

[humptydumpty]

Mig 21-93 , 2000 , Bison and Lancer C where the biggest upgrades this fighter saw, almost 4th gen.

I am goin to test the new FM paragraph to paragraph compared to this

 

There is a Type-96 of the Indian Air Force , yep 21-93 is the Bison.

 

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galleries/Aircraft/Current/Fighters/MiG21M/

[Verde]

Funny thing is read about russian experiments with F-5 (when they laid their hand on in) they tested alot that one with Mig-21, mig-21 pilots had approval to go beyond capabilities of Mig-21 to push as hard they can... but whatever they did F-5 was better in merge hands down. Slowly with every turn f-5 got more and more advantage. As i find the article i will post it here;)

[Verde]

Here is video of some testing, but still cant find the article and what pilot said about F-5 against mig-21.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e52_1320882209

[Verde]

Here it is https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144200

 

Sorry for tripple post guys!

[BadHabit]

As long as its engines can keep it flying I would add. Edge Slats and Auto flaps will give it that more α but how long it can sustain it its up to the engines. However as the article I posted says Russian pilots rarely pushed their airframes beyond what the manuals suggested so the true possibilities of the 21 where not shown untill the 21 fell into American hands.

 

""Soviet training was based on a relatively small number of flight hours on a MiG, which is used for training the primary purpose of aircraft, interception of fighters-bombers, under ground control. Pilots are not encouraged to explore the flight envelope. The aircraft is designed to fly faster and higher. Slow speeds were irrelevant, except for landing. In the first combat manuals, the performance at altitudes only above 5 km were presented. Later, it turned out that there are many practical constraints due to which the projected max altitudes and speeds are rarely used.""

[GGTharos]

This 'article' has been making the rounds for years. It embellishes a tiny sliver of the flight envelope enabling a (easily countered for the trained pilot) maneuver that has been elevated to higher mythical status than Pugachev's Cobra.

[BadHabit]

This article reminds me everything I felt flying the 21 in the early days. From the 1st line to the last. I consider it gold not silver.

[Fri13]

As long as its engines can keep it flying I would add. Edge Slats and Auto flaps will give it that more α but how long it can sustain it its up to the engines. However as the article I posted says Russian pilots rarely pushed their airframes beyond what the manuals suggested so the true possibilities of the 21 where not shown untill the 21 fell into American hands.

 

""Soviet training was based on a relatively small number of flight hours on a MiG, which is used for training the primary purpose of aircraft, interception of fighters-bombers, under ground control. Pilots are not encouraged to explore the flight envelope. The aircraft is designed to fly faster and higher. Slow speeds were irrelevant, except for landing. In the first combat manuals, the performance at altitudes only above 5 km were presented. Later, it turned out that there are many practical constraints due to which the projected max altitudes and speeds are rarely used.""

I think that soviets very well knew every bit of the Mig-21 performance as they do far more dangerous and throughout testings than Americans did back in the day. They had free hands to do what ever wanted in science and engineering. That is the big thing that no one came to say that you are not allowed to do something. In America it was bureaucracy that ordered in what order things were done and when. Teo different cultures and why soviets achieved more, faster and made things simpler for the task (more efficient).

 

But.... Cost is that test pilots and engineers died in their wilderness for trying something stupid to test and proof things.

 

The safety was higher goal in soviets as well in the spirit of the operational efficiency. No one cared for comfort but that a unit and individual can perform its task and purpose maximally.

 

That puts the education a higher level where it needed to be fast and efficient so you can take a rookie and train him/her to be efficient.

And that put far more requirements to the research and development as it was that where the demand of performance was moved. Instead giving a rookie complex task, it was given to engineers and scientist so they can simplify it and make it so that rookie can perform when needed.

 

And manuals, tests etc were done most often conservative manner that there was the safety limit as you couldn't expect rookie to perform perfectly. So books were not scientific in limits but conservative so they were right but you always had more to give.

They even could put a switch or button somewhere that says "press this to go faster" even if it doesn't work at all, if it increased the operator performance by keeping fear and stress down as it was perceived control effect.

And in high risk situation you want commanded to perform well. So simplify everything.

 

That as well leads to false believes that many capabilities are "doup" like Cobra because they think they can make them obsolete in million different ways. Instead such features are like a hammer, when you see a nail up you take a hammer and hit it in. When you need to secure something, you take nail and hammer and secure it, without thinking complex things when all you need is hammer and nail.

 

Americans weren't first ones to do serious testing to Mig-21, Finnish did a lot. Breaking speed and height records and maneuvering capabilities etc. They had access not just for a soviets aircrafts but as well to western ones to evaluate them. But even them had the safety rules etc not to break things.

 

From americans it took a different secret projects to get things going, allowing to start operating and searching how soviets operated and what there were. All improving radically americans military flight schools and so on.

 

And they did the research to seek information what enemy can do, instead having a text books that spies got around revealing them. You didn't put all secrets to books openly....

 

And when a Mig-21 was designed for one thing, it wasn't just the only designed capability.

First it didn't even have a capabilities to carry A-G ordance until added at the testing phase as it was well known you get to go low.

 

The west didn't really know much about soviets, how could they when the communism was a red flag to mark you as a spy if you had any knowledge about them. A propaganda and terrorism in its finest form how American civilians were controlled.

 

And now decades later the old society and its achievements are started slowly to reveal, same time after they start to disappear forever.

Winners writes the history and they trash what "the wrong side" had.

 

 

 

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

[Redglyph]

Pretty interesting, thanks!

 

Here is the pdf article with the figures.

MAKING THE BEST OF MiG-21 w.pdf

[BadHabit]

Nicely said FrI3 can't argue with that. However I will have to trust what an American test pilot will say about an aircraft since these guys are truly veterans with hundreds of hours in combat that many Russian test pilots didn't have I suppose. However I'll stick with this review about the aircraft to test how the new FM develops. As much as I can best.

[Fri13]

Nicely said FrI3 can't argue with that. However I will have to trust what an American test pilot will say about an aircraft since these guys are truly veterans with hundreds of hours in combat that many Russian test pilots didn't have I suppose. However I'll stick with this review about the aircraft to test how the new FM develops. As much as I can best.

IIRC the soviet test pilots were war veterans and they had fought against everyone. But they didn't just use their opinions but as well the young pilots as they got the new ideas how to do things differently. Like the Su-27 pedal breaking instead stick break leveler.

 

Old habits die hard and can be difficult to even notice that they are used. Why "thinking out of the box" means that outsider, a unfamiliar person is brought to suggest things.

 

My point was that Soviets devices often were far more capable than the design specifications stated. And specifications often were made lower so that users didn't enter to danger zone but had a buffer zone. And that could be "abused" by simply not limiting yourself to the limits.

 

 

This is like today ie. Eleverlvator designing, on door it can state max weight 800kg or a 10 person. But the engineering is done for 1200kg and 15 person. Because at some point there comes an moron who will stress that and the elevators needs to be able stress it single time.

 

It is as well in the electronics design... We know very well specifications ie. Single capacitator.

And that information is used to build electronics so they break down after expected warranty lifetime!

 

Like a server switch is designed, mean operation time 4 years 24/7 and you check the specifications that match it and pick it. No need to use part that costs more but offers 6 years...

 

Or like the Mavericks in A-10 of full load. Can do it but allowed only in emergency case where tens of thousands Soviet tanks roll over. Then you don't care if tires burn or TGP burns as there isn't airfield where to return if A-10 fleets can't stop them.

But if fleet stops operating because max capabilities were used... It dangers everything again.

So logical and good specifications drawn and written to manual "not to do" and then you simply educate the crew chiefs about emergencies what they can do, otherwise no-go.

 

This is why following the official specifications isn't realistic as they often are wrong. You don't know are they exactly the real limits or is there a safety zone.

 

Like could a F-15 land on carrier? Definitely! But can it do it 15 years? No... Can it do it 1-2 years? Likely...

 

So in a war time in case of emergency it can be used... But what to do when pilot has no experience to land on carrier? Tough luck...

 

This is why the Split S from 1km altitude is not "impossible" but just unlikely and can happen as if there is no documentation for below 5km flights and tests are done at that, everyone knows 5km isnt same as 1km aerodynamically. But safety rules disallow things, hold things back.

 

Americans say that Mig-21 beat F-5 in almost every way with a small fleet of them

One soviet say that F-5 won every Mig- they had with a one unit...

 

Difficult to say...

 

But many agrees in PROJECT DOUGHNUT etc that F-5 was by performance just like Mig-21 so well that it was almost perfect match...

 

But who knows....

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

[GGTharos]

This is like today ie. Eleverlvator designing, on door it can state max weight 800kg or a 10 person. But the engineering is done for 1200kg and 15 person. Because at some point there comes an moron who will stress that and the elevators needs to be able stress it single time.

 

It has nothing to do with 'morons' and everything to do with good engineering purposes and design for fitness of purpose and service duration.

 

And that information is used to build electronics so they break down after expected warranty lifetime!

 

If you're buying the cheap stuff then you get cheap performance.

 

This is why following the official specifications isn't realistic as they often are wrong. You don't know are they exactly the real limits or is there a safety zone.

 

It's both very realistic and they are correct. You're just making BS up as you go right now. You fight like you train, and pilots train to respect the limits :)

 

Like could a F-15 land on carrier? Definitely! But can it do it 15 years? No... Can it do it 1-2 years? Likely...

 

Definitely not. After the first one you'd have overstressed the shock absorbers and possibly done a number on the tyres. The hook isn't designed for such a rapid stop so you'd probably never end up stopping anyway. Again, making stuff up.

 

So in a war time in case of emergency it can be used... But what to do when pilot has no experience to land on carrier? Tough luck...

 

No, it can't be, and won't be. Better to lose that eagle than risk destruction on the deck - and even if not, you've got an aircraft onboard now that no one is trained to maintain and that you probably can't launch anyway.

 

This is why the Split S from 1km altitude is not "impossible" but just unlikely and can happen as if there is no documentation for below 5km flights and tests are done at that, everyone knows 5km isnt same as 1km aerodynamically. But safety rules disallow things, hold things back.

 

They disallow it because it's the right thing to do. There are very good flight training rules with good reasons for preventing such a thing. The guy was lucky to have survived.

 

Americans say that Mig-21 beat F-5 in almost every way with a small fleet of them

One soviet say that F-5 won every Mig- they had with a one unit...

 

Difficult to say...

 

Was it the same MiG-21 variant?

 

But many agrees in PROJECT DOUGHNUT etc that F-5 was by performance just like Mig-21 so well that it was almost perfect match...

 

But who knows....

 

It was a 'perfect' match for DACT training purposes. And yes, they know, and those of us who understand the flight envelope have a good idea, too. Both sides made extensive tests and recorded a lot of information about the aircraft they flew. HAVE DOUGHNUT reports we can look at today are 'tip of the iceberg' type documents.

Once pilots got beyond some level, they'd go to fly against those MiGs for training if there were enough machines of the type available. Before that, their training would be vs aggressors in F-5s.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Soviet-Russian test pilots were/are among the best pilots in the world.

 

They are not so famous as Chuck Yeager but they are at the same level. Read more about them, you will be surprised.

 

Vladimir Ilyushin.

Anatoly Kvochur.

Viktor Pugachev.

Magomed Tolboyev.

Sergei Bogdan.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Esac_mirmidon

[Quadg]

the best test pilot was captain "winkle" brown...

 

no one is going to break his record for number of different military aircraft types flown.. they don't make enough different types, in enough nations.

487 different in service types..

 

and he has the world record number of take off and landings from a carrier.

 

first man to land a twin engine aircraft, a jet aircraft and a rotary wing aircraft on a carrier...

 

he was our kind of pilot...

 

[p1t1o]

Did someone up there suggest that the Soviets played down the capabilities of a system?

 

FWIW, that doesn't sound very Soviet.

[Blackjackk]

This thread exemplifies how potent the Mig 21-93 would be in DCS World if it was implemented as an add-on for owners of the Mig 21bis. As many have pointed out in previous threads.

[Sweep]

The document should be titled "Making the Worst of MiG-21"

[humptydumpty]

There are Type-96 too I think it's the MF

[Hyperion35]

The Israeli Air Force demonstrated the vast difference in capabilities between the F-15 and MiG-21 fairly decisively in 1982 over the Bekaa valley. Leaving aside all of the advantages that the Israelis had in terms of AWACS and communications and radar, etc, and the Syrian reliance on GCI, one might still have expected a few Syrian MiGs to have engaged Israeli aircraft in one of those turning fights if the hypotheses in the analysis presented were correct. And since most of the Israeli victories over the Bekaa valley were made with AIM-9s rather than AIM-7s, in theory the Syrian MiGs should have been able to get into range for such tactics.

 

But the actual real-world outcome was dramatically one-sided. Not a single Syrian MiG managed to get a kill on an Israeli aircraft. If there was any accuracy to this analysis, surely at least one Syrian pilot should have been able to use it to their advantage. Yes, there was obviously a massive disparity in training and ability of the pilots involved, and there were other technological and structural advantages aside from just having superior aircraft, but the supposed advantages of the MiG-21 from the analysis in the OP do not seem to have shown up in the Real World.

 

The best that can be said about the MiG-21 is that it was able to score kills against F-4s over Vietnam when those F-4 pilots lacked cannon and were hampered by ROEs that required them to allow enemy aircraft to get very close before firing and used early versions of the AIM-7 that were so unreliable that many pilots derided them as being no better than drop tanks.

 

The MiG-21 is fun and challenging to fly, but realistically its main advantages were its low cost, low maintenance, and durability. It was the perfect aircraft for the air forces of developing nations that lacked the capabilities and funds necessary to use more advanced aircraft. In many ways it was the Kalashnikov of fighter jets: simple, dependable, and cheap. That's not necessarily a bad thing, so long as one understands its limitations and strengths and uses them accordingly.

 

 

ETA: Here's an analysis of the air combat over the Bekaa valley that explains this better than I could: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html