Jump to content

mirage doing tail slide?


mikoyan

Recommended Posts

BTW I fly RC (model kits?) airplanes.

 

img0664fs1.jpg

By hajduk_veljko, shot with Canon PowerShot A95 at 2008-04-20


Edited by Groove
cutting out sniping
  • Like 1

Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

^^^^yap, the disccussion went as ludricous as to deny this just to make someone look bad. Its sad.

 

I only pulled my "tittle" of graduate to stop the wich hunt at its basis.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying that increasing AoA does NOT turn you into an airbrake?

 

I think this entire thread can just be reduced to the following:

 

1. You increase AoA, you become an airbrake, you slow down. You may get in parameters to shoot, but at the expense of a great deal of energy. So much that you're putting yourself in danger.

 

vs.

 

2. The ability to operate at substantially high AoA is a major advantage. It puts you into parameters to shoot first. The danger you may put yourself in is lessened by the fact that you're killing him before he kills you.

 

If I'm not missing anything here, the right question to ask is "How dangerous is this loss of energy?".

 

We're lucky to have two people commenting in this thread who have real-life experience. Comparing posts #57 and # 73 is interesting:

 

For my money I reckon I could do more with my extra 25deg of AOA than the Viper could do with his extra 2.5G.

 

High alpha/AOA flight is a wonderful thing - up to a point. For example, I can get 40+ units of AOA out of the Eagle IRL (N/A LOMAC). However, what I'm doing at that point can be described aptly - since it's fall (season) - is falling out of the sky like a leaf.

 

I'm not trying to reduce those two posts or pit Rhen vs. IvanK. However, the two philosophies presented in those posts do differ. Or maybe its more accurate to say that the differences between the two aircraft they flew creates a different point of view.


Edited by RedTiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate between F-18 and f-16 pilots is almost as old as the designs themselves. truth is that the planes are so closely matched that nobody could find enough arguments to put an end to that never ending pi$$ contest among pilots. :D

 

From my side I can see high AOA culd be a problem when the F-18 is behind my 3-9 line because he can throttle back and blled his speed to stop an overshoot (usualy the victims last ditch effort to evade). Besides that I would rather prefer the better acceleration, G limit and t/W ratio simply for the fact I use these features heavily.

 

I think this entire thread can just be reduced to the following:

 

1. You increase AoA, you become an airbrake, you slow down. You may get in parameters to shoot, but at the expense of a great deal of energy. So much that you're putting yourself in danger.

 

vs.

 

2. The ability to operate at substantially high AoA is a major advantage. It puts you into parameters to shoot first. The danger you may put yourself in is lessened by the fact that you're killing him before he kills you.

 

If I'm not missing anything here, the right question to ask is "How dangerous is this loss of energy?".

 

We're lucky to have two people commenting in this thread who have real-life experience. Comparing posts #57 and # 73 is interesting:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not trying to reduce those two posts or pit Rhen vs. IvanK. However, the two philosophies presented in those posts do differ. Or maybe its more accurate to say that the differences between the two aircraft they flew creates a different point of view.

 

I am assuming one is looking to keep the fight fast, and the other one expects to make it go slow :)

 

Precisely, it has been disccussed before as shown in the above quotes. However there is no distinct advantages of high AOA capability over energy management. What happens is that an f-18 or mig pilot who jumps onto the f-16 is going to be shocked by the fact such a different airframe design will require different tactics. Vice versa is also true. Each pilot will argue in favour of his school of thinking. The ones of us who flies SIm's only are in a priveleged place to to have a perspective on the bigger picture even if its only an educated one. After all each pilot can only guess the picture on the other side as the rest of us. ;)


Edited by Pilotasso

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely, it has been disccussed before as shown in the above quotes. However there is no distinct advantages of high AOA capability over energy management. What happens is that an f-18 or mig pilot who jumps onto the f-16 is going to be shocked by the fact such a different airframe design will require different tactics. Vice versa is also true. Each pilot will argue in favour of his school of thinking. The ones of us who flies SIm's only are in a priveleged place to to have a perspective on the bigger picture even if its only an educated one. After all each pilot can only guess the picture on the other side as the rest of us. ;)

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I disagree with the part I bolded. I don't think vice versa is true.

 

In simplistic terms, I think the pilot that is used to having high AoA to play with is going to get in the F-15 and be out of his element. He'll have to really adjust. However, I think the pilot who's used to keeping the fight at 0.8 mach is going to get in the Su-27 and be and kick some ass! :thumbup: The Flanker doesn't have a bad thrust to weight ratio, nothing says you have to use high alpha like crazy. Sure, he'll have to slow down a bit because the sustained corner speed is slower, but I don't think he's going to be as out of his element as the other guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to say that while you are technically correct, the Flanker has about half the eagle's climbing ability at speed and altitude (lower it's a bit more even, though by the numbers the eagle still comes out on top on this one) ... but the point you brought up is that it is a matter of tactics, and that is the way it is :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny part is that this argument is nothing but East vs. West. It can be sugar coated, but it is what it is. The minute you say something negative about high AoA, take note of who disagrees. Also take note what aircraft preference they have, East or West.

 

This is in no way one-sided. Bring up something negative about the Raptor and then also take note of who responds and what their aircraft preference is.

 

 

That is the sad thing isn't it. I've said nothing negative about high-AOA capabilities. They're fantastic, they're hugely useful. But only at the proper time, and it so happens that the proper time is usually late in the fight. As we move into the future, there will likely be no "late in the fight."

 

Exactly the one who has highest AOA doesn't need to be the one who will bleed most speed if he doesnt want to.

...

You mean the one who can achieve the highest AoA, because the guy WITH the highest AoA is definitely aerobraking more than the other guy ;)

 

Yes to GGTharos, no to Teknetinium.

 

 

The point here is the viability of low airspeed maneuvering. Regardless of whether or not you use it. If you don't, what's the point?

 

 

For those who don't understand what I mean:

Just because you can achieve high AOA units doesn't mean it makes sense to do so. Imagine a rabbit running in circles around a snapping turtle who can't move forward... The turtle has an awful lot of trouble turning around in place. The rabbit is moving so fast around the turtle that he stays away from the turtle's mouth. If the turtle was able to turn around in place as fast as the rabbit, chances are the rabbit would just jump over the turtle. (Maneuver in the vertical)

 

 

 

 

I know I'll get blasted for saying this... but it appears to me that Eastern proponents on the internet often do a poor job of presenting their argument logically. Especially on YouTube, the sewer of the internet... :lol:

"A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all." -Richard S. Drury

http://www.virtualblueangels.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, turn rate of different aircraft with the same AOA will be different. In an analogue way, 2 different aircraft at same turn rates will likely to have different AOA.

 

In all aircraft past 25º or so AOA the lift provided by the wing no longer increases. Divergent boundary layer occurs, drag increases (exponentially). One could argue that empirically the aircraft turn radius is smaller, but that’s due to slower speed, turn rate and turn radius are 2 very different things.

 

What sets the Mig-29 and Su-27 apart from F-16 and F-15 is that the divergent boundary layer is chaotic on the F's and the Russian planes have a longer nose in front of the LERXes and wings wich generate equal and symmetric boundary layer divergence.

 

So you can go past 25ºs, past 40 and even 90 and you don’t spin. however the rules of lift applied to the wings apply equally on different aircraft even if different wing profiles will give different lift per AOA degree. there are standardized NASA wing profiles wich are published and let you calculate CD and CL with ease and observe the differences in results of different wings.

 

Another aspect is that stall speeds and AOA for the wings MAY be different for the rest of the airframe. You might have stalled wings but the body (typically that pancake shape of the f-14 and Su-27 ) still provides usable lift.

 

There’s an interesting chapter in one of my books that in the early f-14 days pilots had difficulty knowing when their airplanes were in danger of stalling because some of the symptoms were dampened by the flow over the body while the wings were stalled.


Edited by Pilotasso

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beaker VBA u miss understand me, what Im trying to say is, because Mig-29/Su-27 or F-18 can go to higher AOA witch means bleeding alot of speed, doesnt mean that they will always go there its a choice that F-16/F-15 pilots dont have, so simple is that.

 

 

Goon I liked Ur poem :)


Edited by Teknetinium

Teknetinium 2017.jpg
                        51st PVO Discord SATAC YouTube
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that no pilot will decide in a merge that he'll get slow to explore his superior high AoA regime. Because that is a bad choice. Rate kills, and that means staying in close proximity to corner speed. In BFM the guy with higher energy state in neutral positions will -always- have the advantage, no matter what. Sustained use of +25 or so units AoA will decrease the speed of the aircraft FAST, and that means loss of vertical maneouvring and loss of rate. And loss of options.

 

oh, and not exactly my poem..:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For those who don't understand what I mean:

Just because you can achieve high AOA units doesn't mean it makes sense to do so. Imagine a rabbit running in circles around a snapping turtle who can't move forward... The turtle has an awful lot of trouble turning around in place. The rabbit is moving so fast around the turtle that he stays away from the turtle's mouth. If the turtle was able to turn around in place as fast as the rabbit, chances are the rabbit would just jump over the turtle. (Maneuver in the vertical)

 

I like your example! Well put! This is why I don't think as highly as some do of high AoA capability. You're putting all your eggs in the horizontal basket without regards to the verticle one.

 

I know I'll get blasted for saying this... but it appears to me that Eastern proponents on the internet often do a poor job of presenting their argument logically. Especially on YouTube, the sewer of the internet... :lol:

 

You'll only get blasted if someone doesn't think it through. Western aircraft, particularly American ones, have been used in combat by the air force they were originally designed for using the tactics they were designed for. As such, we know how they perform. They have also been widely exported and some of those exports have also seen combat.

 

Russian aircraft...not so much. Has there ever been a single documented use of a Flanker in real combat used by the Russian or Soviet air force? We all know when and where the MiG-29 was used. How much can you really glean from this?

 

The -best- argument so far I've seen has to do with mock combat involving the schlemm and archer combo. Everyone seems to walk away from that ACT with an appreciation for it. I cannot help but wonder how well it would work in reality. I don't know a whole lot about what the guidelines are for missile kills, but I've always been uncomfortable with that, tending to think missile kills are easier to get in training than they would in reality. That feeling applies across the board, not just with Russian planes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There’s an interesting chapter in one of my books that in the early f-14 days pilots had difficulty knowing when their airplanes were in danger of stalling because some of the symptoms were dampened by the flow over the body while the wings were stalled.

 

Wow, isn't that something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that no pilot will decide in a merge that he'll get slow to explore his superior high AoA regime.

 

Actually, there are instances where a pilot will want to slow the fight down and use superior nose authority in order to get a guns tracking kill, snap shot or to intimidate his opponent with nose position.

 

Some versions of the MiG-21 (vs. F-16 or F-15, say) provide us with an excellent example of this. Another example is the Hornet, whose pilots regularly attempt to get the fight as slow as possible in order to use superior manouvering at higher AoA in order to kill the likes of the Eagle or Viper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there are instances where a pilot will want to slow the fight down and use superior nose authority in order to get a guns tracking kill, snap shot or to intimidate his opponent with nose position.

 

Some versions of the MiG-21 (vs. F-16 or F-15, say) provide us with an excellent example of this. Another example is the Hornet, whose pilots regularly attempt to get the fight as slow as possible in order to use superior manouvering at higher AoA in order to kill the likes of the Eagle or Viper.

 

If the fighting isn't 1 vs. 1, what do they do to avoid getting shot at in the process? Plan to have their wingman do something that forces the bandit wingman to focus his attention on him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there are instances where a pilot will want to slow the fight down and use superior nose authority in order to get a guns tracking kill, snap shot or to intimidate his opponent with nose position.

 

I knew someone was going to point this one out. I do realize the great benifits of high AoA capabilities when the fight starts to last a bit longer, especially if the fighters engage in flat scissors. I was talking about the beginning of the fight when the aircraft are fairly neutral. Pulling high AoA from the opposite side of the circle while the other guy is maintaining his corner would propably end up in disaster.

 

I also understand that a hornet guy would not enjoy the situation with a viper pilot if the viper would maintain it's speed, but would do everything he could to get the viper guy to slow down. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missile kills in training are awarded my meeting stricter parameters than the weapon's WEZ, at least in the USAF.

 

The -best- argument so far I've seen has to do with mock combat involving the schlemm and archer combo. Everyone seems to walk away from that ACT with an appreciation for it. I cannot help but wonder how well it would work in reality. I don't know a whole lot about what the guidelines are for missile kills, but I've always been uncomfortable with that, tending to think missile kills are easier to get in training than they would in reality. That feeling applies across the board, not just with Russian planes.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the fighting isn't 1 vs. 1, what do they do to avoid getting shot at in the process? Plan to have their wingman do something that forces the bandit wingman to focus his attention on him?

 

If the fight is not fair, and he is an angles fighter going up against two vertical fighters, then I would imagine that he is going to extend and leave the fight. He will not stand a chance, otherwise.

 

As with all of this, a lot depends on skill: i know a couple of guys who flew the F-5 as Aggressors, and later the MiG-21 and MiG-17 as Red Eagles, who would take-on and beat pairs of F-4s flown by less experienced pilots. This, though, was generally the exception to the rule in the 2 vs 1 scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew someone was going to point this one out... I was talking about the beginning of the fight when the aircraft are fairly neutral.

 

Goon

 

The old crusty Weapon School guys who flew the MiG-21 for CONSTANT PEG would hit the merge at 450 knots in their Fishbed against an F-15 or F-16, and the first thing they did was reef the jet into this huge break turn that bled away nearly all of their knots within about the first 180 degrees. There was no point in them conserving their knots because their strengths lay elsewhere.

 

So, unless the plan is to extend from the fight having hit the merge, then yes, there really are valid reasons to force the fight to get slow as quickly as possible.

 

Pulling high AoA from the opposite side of the circle while the other guy is maintaining his corner would propably end up in disaster.

 

I don't agree - if your strength is the ability to take snap shots, and your weakness is sustained turn rate and specific excess power, then this is exactly what you should be doing.


Edited by Steve Davies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...