mirage doing tail slide?

[Pilotasso]

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1986/articles/apr_86/f16_aero/index.html

Read this to get a good ide of F-16 AOA limits.

because of AOA limits there were no meaning of building engines that could handle tail slide.

 

 

F-16 AOA limits have NOTHING to do with engine airflow disturbance tolerance. Nothing at all. because no one wants the engine to just shutdown diring a spin either. See the the flaw on your thinking? ;)

[RedTiger]

though F-16 is ill-designed also :P

 

That's rich. If the F-16 is ill designed, care to point out a plane that isn't ill designed? Air shows don't count. Niether do planes designed recently, it must be a contemporary of the F-16. I dare you to. Also, give some combat examples, preferably with sortie rates, air to air kills, air to ground kills. Life-span of the airframe would also be good. Accident rate too. Fuel fraction would be nice. Can you also include the average number of hours the pilot has in the plane? This is indirectly related by design, but it would be nice to compare those hours in the "well-designed" plane vs. the Viper drivers.

 

I'm waiting. :D

Edited November 18, 2008 by RedTiger

[Pilotasso]

You're hell right man, there's no such limits - as there's no such plane...

Want it or not, AL-31 engine series have much better surge resistance than P&W F100's (which in addition still has some problems with AB burn stability.). If you're to argue an obvious - see above.

 

Speaking of wich did you see the Su-30MKI red flag video? The flankers had to wait alot longer than the F's to take off after other aircraft. That happens because the engines can stall when ingesting disturbed airflow.

 

Theres one other thing to take attention to. the original russian Al-31 engines were indeed tolerant. But they have since uprated without major core alterations. What does this imply?

 

It implies that the russians probably gained the extra thrust by altering the configuration of the compressor blades. The ofset deal here is surge and stall tolerance. The 1 minute wait seems to me a symptom of that.

 

The problems you mention for PW F-100 engine were reported and adressed to more than 25 years ago after they figured out the pilots pushed them too hard (in the sence of throttling and de-throtling back often) with the new F-15 and F-16 fighters (and in the F-14 TF-30 and its proposed alternatives).

 

Furthermore ever since the PW-220 and E versions, the pilot lost direct controll of the engine to give place for new digital unit that in same essence acts like FBW for the controll surfaces and prevents the pilot from accidently stall/surge the engine. That and the realm of the 5000 hours of core life. A standard that the russian types are still dreaming of achieving. ;)

Edited November 18, 2008 by Pilotasso

[RedTiger]

Speaking of wich did you see the Su-30MKI red flag video? The flankers had to wait alot longer than the F's to take off after other aircraft. That happens because the engines can stall when ingesting disturbed airflow.

 

 

Ok, to give my honest opinion, arguing AoA capability in terms of "this fighter is better than that one" is like arguing a fighter that is painted a some shade of purple is better. You can have the plane that can turn up its own ass and obtain 45 degree AoA, I'll take the one that can fight in the verticle and boom and zoom you while you do your aerobatics. :pilotfly: And if I have the Raptor, I have both. :P

 

BUT...Pilotasso, that isn't what that pilot said in the video, or at least not how I took it. It was clear to me that the staggered take-off was from fear of FOD and the prospect of having to ship an engine off to Russia.

[Vekkinho]

If you really want to go that route:

 

 

 

Is that a fight of Falcons versus 2 ship formation of MiG-29A and MiG-29UB?!!

You know the one where MiG pilots were not allowed pull beyond 4.0 G?!!

 

LOL, Just kidding M8!

[DarkWanderer]

That's rich. If the F-16 is ill designed, care to point out a plane that isn't ill designed?

MiG-29. At least it doesn't require bailing out at the moment you hear stall signal.

 

I'm not going in another turn of "fanboy one-circle fight", just will point on one "flaw in your thinking"©: you somehow always believe that US is the only country which works on it's errors. And this

It implies that the russians probably gained the extra thrust by altering the configuration of the compressor blades. The ofset deal here is surge and stall tolerance. The 1 minute wait seems to me a symptom of that...

 

...The problems you mention for PW F-100 engine were reported and adressed to more than 25 years ago...

 

...That and the realm of the 5000 hours of core life. A standard that the russian types are still dreaming of achieving.

illustrates it perfectly. Open your eyes!

And GG's treating one clip as a proof... Guys, this is ridiculous.

 

Whatever you believe - we have never seen F-15 or F-18 performing anything but low passes on airshows. And the tailslide has no restrictions except non-neutral stability and engine stall resistance. If you want an argue, not chinwag - deal with this, not with my separated words.

[Teknetinium]

I'm not sure its Mig-29 in that video it looks like it because of videos name. I red somewhere that it was F-15.

Dark wanderer U mean F-15, F-18 is cable of same maneuvers as Su-27 and Mig-29. Not sure of AOA but Im sure its better then F-15 and f-16.

 

And if I get back to topic has anyone seen Mirage 2000 doing tail slide before?

Edited November 18, 2008 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

MiG-29. At least it doesn't require bailing out at the moment you hear stall signal.

 

 

I'm not going in another turn of "fanboy one-circle fight", just will point on one "flaw in your thinking"©: you somehow always believe that US is the only country which works on it's errors. And this

 

illustrates it perfectly. Open your eyes!

And GG's treating one clip as a proof... Guys, this is ridiculous.

 

You are absolutely, 100% incorrect. The reason I posted this clip was to show exactly how helpful this 'and they DEFEATED all F-16s!' report was with respect to tail slides ;)

 

And if you're not going around in this 'fanboy 1-circle', then why did you post your first sentence?

 

Whatever you believe - we have never seen F-15 or F-18 performing anything but low passes on airshows. And the tailslide has no restrictions except non-neutral stability and engine stall resistance. If you want an argue, not chinwag - deal with this, not with my separated words.

 

Again, those maneuvers are done at low altitude. If the recovery altitude for a tailslide for these aircraft is fairly high, then what's the point of demonstrating them?

Further these maneuvers serve to demonstrate stability in a stalled state, and it is entirely possible that quite SIMPLY neither the F-15 or F-16 is stable in this condition. Again, the ENGINES are NOT a problem since at least the F-15 can be and IS spun intentionally, as well as demonstrating tail slides in experimental high maneuver versions with THE SAME ENGINES.

 

So I'll go with 'it isn't safe' on this one, for whichever reason - too much altitude to recover, lack of post-stall stability - you pick one.

[GGTharos]

I'm not sure it Mig-29 in that video it looks like it because of videos name. I red somewhere that it was F-15.

 

Is this MiG-29 enough?

 

 

Dark wanderer U mean F-15, F-18 is cable of same maneuvers as Su-27 and Mig-29. Not sure of AOA but Im sure its better then F-15 and f-16.

The F-18 has better slow-speed handling than the MiG-29 ... the MiG-29 has better TWR. The F-15 and F-16 both have lower AoA limits than the MiG-29 in general.

[JaNk0]

I'm sold...

[RedTiger]

MiG-29.

 

I'll agree that the MiG-29 is certainly not an ill designed plane.

 

At least it doesn't require bailing out at the moment you hear stall signal.

 

You're clueless about this one. End of story.

 

I'm not going in another turn of "fanboy one-circle fight", just will point on one "flaw in your thinking"©: you somehow always believe that US is the only country which works on it's errors.

 

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said that the US is the only country which works on its errors. If you think I'm a member of whatever fanboy group you're putting GGTharos in, you are sorely mistaken. There are conclusions that he has come to regarding Russian aircraft that I simply do not agree with. However, the reason I don't agree with them is because I at least tried to do some research and I came to a different conclusion.

 

MY point is that you said the F-16 was ill designed. You put a little ":P" next to it, but I decided to address it because what you said was just plain silly. Do you even a thing about how the F-16 was developed? I do AND I also know about the original development of the MiG-29.

[SVK_Fox]

If you really want to go that route:

 

 

 

What can I say? :huh:

 

In my point of view and as results show (during exc.) migs29 are in advantage during close air combat. Also cause of AOA.

[GGTharos]

My point was that you missed the point. No one said the MiG didn't have superior AoA capability ;)

[Beaker_VBA]

An aircraft that does not stall this way is not "ill-designed." That's a horribly biased and uniformed comment. Hopefully a sarcastic one. Fancy stalls are hardly necessary to produce a lethal killer.

 

An aircraft operated by almost 50 countries for this long could hardly be described as "ill-designed."

 

 

I'm a little disappointed with the quality of discussion you nay-sayers are putting up. You tell someone they're a fanboy, then turn and act the same! Get real, DarkWanderer.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Beaker_VBA

[nscode]

Blessed, who believes. We have a video stating the opposite. No point in further word spending.

 

Care to share that video?

[RedTiger]

TBH, I'm not sure why it was decided to put TV on the Raptor (looks cool, sounds impressive?). I assume one of the reasons was to be able to do this high alpha stuff. Yet you have a USAF pilot in the Su-30MKI debrief saying that a Raptor pilot using that TV high alpha, post stall is a "rookie mistake"! :music_whistling:

 

There was a good discussion awhile back about this. Someone asked if the Russian's share the idea that "speed is life" because their fighters seem to be tailored to fight slower and can reach higher angles of attack. I think the conclusion was that they most certainly do know about the whole energy-maneuverability concept, but I don't think it was ever fully explained what impact that had on their fighter designs.

Edited November 18, 2008 by RedTiger

[mikoyan]

Guys I didn't wanted this to become a flame war, I just wanted to show you haw well the mirage handles, I'm impressed by the fact that it seems to have a great instantaneous turn rate and that it could do the tail slide without entering a flat spin thats all.

[mikoyan]

I guess the f-16 don't do the tail-slide because it can enter into a deep stall, and to me that is a bit troublesome, because that is a limitation, If you are in a dogfight and you do an unexpected tail slide (by mistake) then you have to worry about handling your airplane out of trouble, in a russian jet don't need to worry about that. One thing that the f-16 does better is that its reaction to the pilot input seem to be really fast because of the flight control system, in a russian jet you need to move the stick a lot to get the same input, but anyway that can be counter reacted by a good pilot, what I'm going is that all this airplanes have advantages and disadvantages. An for you f-16 fanboys, take a look at the super hornet that thing does have an great flight control system!

[GGTharos]

TBH, I'm not sure why it was decided to put TV on the Raptor (looks cool, sounds impressive?). I assume one of the reasons was to be able to do this high alpha stuff. Yet you have a USAF pilot in the Su-30MKI debrief saying that a Raptor pilot using that TV high alpha, post stall is a "rookie mistake"! :music_whistling:

 

Yup, and the Raptor guy gets gunned for doing it! But now we're no longer comparing aircraft. A 28DPS sustained at 20k he'll eat your lunch, your mother's lunch, and that of your kids too.

 

There was a good discussion awhile back about this. Someone asked if the Russian's share the idea that "speed is life" because their fighters seem to be tailored to fight slower and can reach higher angles of attack. I think the conclusion was that they most certainly do know about the whole energy-maneuverability concept, but I don't think it was ever fully explained what impact that had on their fighter designs.

 

They didn't ignore it though - they built good thrust into their fighters (especially the MiG!). The Flanker has similar sustained turn capability as the F-15C at the F-15's combat speeds (above M0.6), much better below that. On the other hand, the F-15 enjoys a significant climb advantage at altitude, at its combat speeds.

[mikoyan]

There is an interview of the su-27 chief designer that says that the su-27 can do a 360 turn in 10 seconds is that true? here is the link http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-simonov1.html

The only way I see the su-27 doing that is at the end of the display with minimum fuel, like it is shown in one video of anatoly Kvochur here

also note how different is Anatolys the display from other su-27 demos, other su-27 pilots seem to do slower rolls and more delicate movements. Edited November 19, 2008 by mikoyan

[GGTharos]

~13 seconds in practically air-show configuration (low fuel, 2xR-73, 2xR-27R) ... try it in LO, it works.

[Pilotasso]

Ok, to give my honest opinion, arguing AoA capability in terms of "this fighter is better than that one" is like arguing a fighter that is painted a some shade of purple is better. You can have the plane that can turn up its own ass and obtain 45 degree AoA, I'll take the one that can fight in the verticle and boom and zoom you while you do your aerobatics. :pilotfly: And if I have the Raptor, I have both. :P

 

BUT...Pilotasso, that isn't what that pilot said in the video, or at least not how I took it. It was clear to me that the staggered take-off was from fear of FOD and the prospect of having to ship an engine off to Russia.

 

AOA is bad for maneuvering. This is something that escapes some of the people here. AOA for snapshots is another thing but you pay a price for it.

 

Everytime you pull high alfa maneuvers you are spending energy for nose placement. if your AOA is low the better. Therefore wich one can make higher AOA is largely pointless on itself.

 

 

BTW RT, the way I took it was the way I said because thats the standard procedure (at least in the west) for preventing surge and engine stall at take off (not to mention controlability) because the other aircraft engines leave a wirpol of gases that takes time to dissipate. If theres debris on the runway there will be no way to tell no matter how much waiting time the next plane on the ramp does, because there wont be anybody there to remove it. Do you see the inconsistency here?

The fear the engines were to be sent to russia makes sense either way.

 

cheers.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Pilotasso

[Pilotasso]

TBH, I'm not sure why it was decided to put TV on the Raptor (looks cool, sounds impressive?). I assume one of the reasons was to be able to do this high alpha stuff. Yet you have a USAF pilot in the Su-30MKI debrief saying that a Raptor pilot using that TV high alpha, post stall is a "rookie mistake"! :music_whistling:

 

There was a good discussion awhile back about this. Someone asked if the Russian's share the idea that "speed is life" because their fighters seem to be tailored to fight slower and can reach higher angles of attack. I think the conclusion was that they most certainly do know about the whole energy-maneuverability concept, but I don't think it was ever fully explained what impact that had on their fighter designs.

 

Another frequent ommition of the press is the fact that F-22's TVC is also meant for high speed manueverability where other aircraft cant pull more G's due to aerodinamic authority limitations at high speed, high altitude.

[Teknetinium]

Su-27/Mig pilots have to think about their AOA as much as the F-16/F-15 pilots,

In different matter thou,

As it was pointed out from F-16 pilots that they could unclimb anything that went in to AOA limits.

 

High AOA is not giving u that much effect in gunz, because when u apply it the one u chance will have more energy to climb witch can put u in a risk.

 

High AOA is good when u merge and have some IR-missiles, nothing could touch mig-29 or Su-27 after a merge until thrust vectoring came.

 

25 years of dogfight superiority :)

[Pilotasso]

I think your post above is amazing. You managed to say the exact opposite to what realy ahppens up there.

 

High AOA like it was said before, is advantageous for snap shots, such as guns. If you shoot him right away why save 50 extra knots? :D

 

Of course ita a gamble but its better to make a gamble whan you at his 6 than the reverse. ;)