Is the Phantom a dogfighter?

[Temetre]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb Dragon1-1:

The MiG-21F-13 that the Phantom faced was a dogfighter (and had no emergency AB). We have a fat, bloated MiG-21bis which, while contemporary to the F-4E, was not its most famous opponent. The sleek, sexy early models were completely different animals, with a weaker engine, avionics closer to the MiG-19 and considerably lighter weight. 

The older Mig-21 would then suffer from an even weaker engine without emergency-AB, and probably not the most amazing aerodynamics in turns. Also even less fuel than the 21Bis, which is severely hampering the ability to dogfight in any real mission.

Maybe Ive got some misconceptions here, but to me it seems like eg the F-5E is much more like a dogfighter, and more capable than the 21Bis?

[Dragon1-1]

As a matter of fact, the F-5E is an amazing dogfighter. Many stories around of Phantoms getting their clock cleaned by them. It's an amazing turner for its time. That, however, is a little beside the point. 

The MiG-21F-13 isn't quite that good, but "probably not amazing aerodynamics in turns" is very much wrong. It's so light that it can turn on a dime, and despite the wimpy engine, it'd accelerate similar to the 21bis, again because of lighter weight. Two circle it's similar to 21bis, one circle it's a lot better, and it's the tight one circle fights where the MiGs scored kills against hard wing Phantoms. It didn't have much fuel (although the engine wasn't as thirsty as on the 21bis), but then, lightweight fighters rarely do, and they did not have to fly far in Vietnam. When used like that, it's got enough to win a fight. Phantom is also a gas guzzler, BTW, it certainly has a lot of fuel by weight and volume, but definitely not by time in full AB.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[Kalasnkova74]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

The older Mig-21 would then suffer from an even weaker engine without emergency-AB, and probably not the most amazing aerodynamics in turns. Also even less fuel than the 21Bis, which is severely hampering the ability to dogfight in any real mission.

Maybe Ive got some misconceptions here, but to me it seems like eg the F-5E is much more like a dogfighter, and more capable than the 21Bis?

Let’s look at the combat records. Between the F-4 Phantom II and the MiG-21, the biggest variable is pilot training and tactical skill. At the beginning of Southeast Asia the NVAF had the training edge over US pilots trained in nuclear bomber intercepts. Scary thing is most of us on this forum know more about fighting the F-4 than your average US junior pilot did in 1965. Thus the MiG wrecked the F-4s: at one point the VA-176 prop engined Skyraiders killed more MiGs than their “Air Superiority” F-4Bs embarked in the same Navy air wing! 

TOPGUN of course changed this dynamic, and the kill statistics bore that out. The USAF kept their obsolete finger four tactics & bomber intercept training. Their kill ratio at the end was the same as 1965. 
The USN posted a 12-1 ratio by the end of hostilities. 

We see the same thing in the Middle East. Arab air forces not trained to the same standard as Israeli or Iranian pilots were mauled. While MiG-17s were fighting  Phantoms over Southeast Asia & winning, the same jet was cannon fodder to Israeli Phantoms over the Middle East. MiG-21s in Arab & Iraqi service were downed in droves against Western trained opposition.

Then we have the 4477th TES, staffed with the cream of the USAF crop. Aggressor pilots, hand recruited, 2000+ hours & many flown combat in Southeast Asia. Flying MiG-21s & Chengdu F-7s they frequently smoked “Blue Air” F-4s ,F-14s & F-15s in the initial fight. Ward Carroll recounted a fight where he lost to a MiG-23 when the pilot extended and shot them in the back. 
 

Bottom line; E-M diagrams and data matters, but training tops all. What does that mean for DCS?  Excusing the minority of people who’ve studied in advance & may even fly the VSN mod as a basic training aid, most F-4E module buyers will be just like those US pilots from 1965: totally unfamiliar with analog aircraft or the F-4Es kinematic and technological capabilities & limitations. They will make the same mistakes , because they’ll do the same things they did with their Hornets and Fulcrums only to find out the hard way “lift vector on bandit and PULL” ain’t how you win in Phantom land. I anticipate a backlash from the easily frustrated players used to CCRP & AMRAAMs. 

[WinOrLose]

I’m hoping a couple of years studying and flying the tomcat will help. 

[Top Jockey]

44 minutes ago, WinOrLose said:

I’m hoping a couple of years studying and flying the tomcat will help. 

All this, does bring nostalgic feelings.

One of my very first experiences in PC combat flight sim, was indeed in the F-4 Phantom II.
Somewhere in the early 90's with the famous "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat".

[Temetre]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb Kalasnkova74:

Let’s look at the combat records. Between the F-4 Phantom II and the MiG-21, the biggest variable is pilot training and tactical skill. At the beginning of Southeast Asia the NVAF had the training edge over US pilots trained in nuclear bomber intercepts. Scary thing is most of us on this forum know more about fighting the F-4 than your average US junior pilot did in 1965. Thus the MiG wrecked the F-4s: at one point the VA-176 prop engined Skyraiders killed more MiGs than their “Air Superiority” F-4Bs embarked in the same Navy air wing! 

TOPGUN of course changed this dynamic, and the kill statistics bore that out. The USAF kept their obsolete finger four tactics & bomber intercept training. Their kill ratio at the end was the same as 1965. 
The USN posted a 12-1 ratio by the end of hostilities. 

We see the same thing in the Middle East. Arab air forces not trained to the same standard as Israeli or Iranian pilots were mauled. While MiG-17s were fighting  Phantoms over Southeast Asia & winning, the same jet was cannon fodder to Israeli Phantoms over the Middle East. MiG-21s in Arab & Iraqi service were downed in droves against Western trained opposition.

Then we have the 4477th TES, staffed with the cream of the USAF crop. Aggressor pilots, hand recruited, 2000+ hours & many flown combat in Southeast Asia. Flying MiG-21s & Chengdu F-7s they frequently smoked “Blue Air” F-4s ,F-14s & F-15s in the initial fight. Ward Carroll recounted a fight where he lost to a MiG-23 when the pilot extended and shot them in the back. 
 

Bottom line; E-M diagrams and data matters, but training tops all. What does that mean for DCS?  Excusing the minority of people who’ve studied in advance & may even fly the VSN mod as a basic training aid, most F-4E module buyers will be just like those US pilots from 1965: totally unfamiliar with analog aircraft or the F-4Es kinematic and technological capabilities & limitations. They will make the same mistakes , because they’ll do the same things they did with their Hornets and Fulcrums only to find out the hard way “lift vector on bandit and PULL” ain’t how you win in Phantom land. I anticipate a backlash from the easily frustrated players used to CCRP & AMRAAMs. 

Oh yeah, the use and tactics of the plane is quite relevant, probably more than technical charachteristics of the plane.

Even beyond that, IRL Id imagine the higher range, better radar, better missiles of the F-4E would be a bigger factor fighting the Mig-21s than the difference in aerodynamic performance.

To my understanding the nature of the aerial conflict was also a big factor benefitting the Migs. A2A action was quite rare, the US strategies were more concerned with the much bigger threat of SAM sites, which caused massive losses eg in the F-105 fleet. Meanwhile the Migs followed the concept of a "guerrilla war", which had them attempt to attack american formations (which again were more focussed on defending against air defense) in hit and run surprise attacks. Dogfighting likely wouldnt be smart either way, considering american superior numbers and the Migs lack of fuel/range. 

All of this would give Migs a big advantage in engagement, since it requires great difficulty to deal with this kind of warfare to just "even" the losses. But it also ment that the actual use and effect of north vietnamese aircraft would be quite limited, considering they couldnt openly oppose or deter attacks on their own. Even early in the war; and later the US adapted and took more decisive control of the skies, at least when it comes to air/air threats.

Without trying to downplay the Vietnamese pilots acchievements, which were a thing, to me it seems a lot of the Migs' successes seems to lie in the narratives and stories we tell about their role in the war. 

[Temetre]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb Dragon1-1:

As a matter of fact, the F-5E is an amazing dogfighter. Many stories around of Phantoms getting their clock cleaned by them. It's an amazing turner for its time. That, however, is a little beside the point. 

The MiG-21F-13 isn't quite that good, but "probably not amazing aerodynamics in turns" is very much wrong. It's so light that it can turn on a dime, and despite the wimpy engine, it'd accelerate similar to the 21bis, again because of lighter weight. Two circle it's similar to 21bis, one circle it's a lot better, and it's the tight one circle fights where the MiGs scored kills against hard wing Phantoms. It didn't have much fuel (although the engine wasn't as thirsty as on the 21bis), but then, lightweight fighters rarely do, and they did not have to fly far in Vietnam. When used like that, it's got enough to win a fight. Phantom is also a gas guzzler, BTW, it certainly has a lot of fuel by weight and volume, but definitely not by time in full AB.

Tbh, how much truth is there really in that light-weight fighters are better turners? After all, most of the time the best slow speed dogfighters seems to be giants like the F-14, 15 or SU-27. And they acchieve that via really big wings and powerful engines, which they have the capacity for due to their size. 

Now Migs do have pretty big wings compared to their weight, thats true. Even the Mig-21Bis can turn pretty hard in DCS. But what about the speed? Many planes can turn hard, stay stable, but dont benefit much from that.

I think the US actually tested Mig-21s that are closer to northvietnamese fighters in a secret programs? Same one thats cited for Mig-23s being terrible turners but incredible fast (not MLA i know^^). They said Mig-21s could turn with the F-14(A?)s for about 90 degrees, but would just bleed so much speed they couldnt keep up. 

The high AoA stability is imo and open question, especially when you slow down. Thats one point where our 21Bis is likely unrealistic too. That combined with the speed loss Im really not sure Its necessarily "amazing" turn performance or aerodynamics? Its seems all a bit more rough and brute force.

 

Mind im not trying to be contrarian here, its just whenever I try to learn about the topics, I just get so so many more questions than answers  (cuz the topic is so complex)

Edited November 6, 2023 by Temetre

[Top Jockey]

26 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Tbh, how much truth is there really in that light-weight fighters are better turners? After all, most of the time the best slow speed dogfighters seems to be giants like the F-14, 15 or SU-27. And they acchieve that via really big wings and powerful engines, which they have the capacity for due to their size. 

Now Migs do have pretty big wings compared to their weight, thats true. Even the Mig-21Bis can turn pretty hard in DCS. But what about the speed? Many planes can turn hard, stay stable, but dont benefit much from that.

I think the US actually tested Mig-21s that are closer to northvietnamese fighters in a secret programs? Same one thats cited for Mig-23s being terrible turners but incredible fast (not MLA i know^^). They said Mig-21s could turn with the F-14(A?)s for about 90 degrees, but would just bleed so much speed they couldnt keep up. 

The high AoA stability is imo and open question, especially when you slow down. Thats one point where our 21Bis is likely unrealistic too. That combined with the speed loss Im really not sure Its necessarily "amazing" turn performance or aerodynamics? Its seems all a bit more rough and brute force.

 

Mind im not trying to be contrarian here, its just whenever I try to learn about the topics, I just get so so many more questions than answers  (cuz the topic is so complex)

 

 

I somewhat kind of see your point.

But that doesn't invalidate that airframes like F/A-18C (and MiG-29A also), can possibly be better than those (in bold) on several aspects in a slow speed dogfight ...

 

edit:

F-15 pilot Garry Goff, clearly admited the superiority of the Hornet in slow speed ACM - vídeo below, from 34:30 onwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w877J-B6IXU&ab_channel=AircrewInterview

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Top Jockey

[Kalasnkova74]

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

Mind im not trying to be contrarian here, its just whenever I try to learn about the topics, I just get so so many more questions than answers  (cuz the topic is so complex)

 

Welcome to the Party Pal! Air combat discussions are ladders- you never get an answer, just another rung to launch the next question. Literally billions of dollars are spent on these questions and even the think tanks don’t have answers. 
 

Jokes aside, where the lightweight fighters “win” over the big hardware is cost-per-effect. Not necessarily slow speed dogfighting , which is a rare flight regime (for good reason). We can see this with Southeast Asia whenever a pair of MiGs forced a USAF strike package to jettison bombs. We have a massive formation of 40 expensive aircraft that cost $10000+ per hour to fly on a 6-8 hour mission , and the sortie is ruined by two MiG-21s ringing up a $10k per hour bill combined. Guerrilla warfare in the air, indeed. This dynamic in the late 1960s pushed General Momeyer to green light Operation BOLO. 
 

In DCS -so far- this dynamic doesn’t matter as unlike a certain OTHER air battle game, players don’t have to pay for modules after the initial purchase (thank Zeus). But if other module makers adopt HB’s parts wear function, some of the core logistical challenges of real world air campaigns will be present in the game. If you have to choose between an F-4E and an F-5, a trained pilot will pick the F-4E. But if the F-4E has a bad radar and wonky Sparrow rails for lack of parts vs a fully mission capable F-5, now the question gets interesting. 

[Temetre]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Top Jockey:

I somewhat kind of see your point.

But that doesn't invalidate that airframes like F/A-18C (and MiG-29A also), can possibly be better than those (in bold) on several aspects in a slow speed dogfight ...

 

edit:

F-15 pilot Garry Goff, clearly admited the superiority of the Hornet in slow speed ACM - vídeo below, from 34:30 onwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w877J-B6IXU&ab_channel=AircrewInterview

True, I was actually considering to make a point about the F-16 (great dogfighter yet limited in one turn), but that would complicate the point. It was easier to limit it to the pre-80s fighters, where modern technology made it possible to fit more tech and optimization into smaller fliers. 

 

Maybe its a bit of a tangent, but I do think we can even strengthen the point when we look "why" the F-18 and Mig-29 can be so capable dogfighters. Theyre not one-turn agile for free, but rather because they made trade offs. For one, the Hornet and Mig-29 are surprisingly heavy I find; about 11 tons of empty weight. Thats closer to the F-15 with 13 tons, than the tiny Mig-21Bis with 6.3 tons.

And the Mig-29 mainly sacrifices payload and fuel load (+poor avionics), its dogfighting performance comes partially from burning silly amounts of fuel. Meanwhile the Hornet sacrifices high speed performance and limits high-G maneuvering. Either got limited range compared to bigger fliers.

 

Of course thats true for older fliers as well: Eg the Mig-21 is considered a better dogfighter in DCS than the Mirage F-1, but pays for that partially due to drawbacks like small fuel tanks, simpler avionics and overuse of its "emergency afterburner". Even that more limited dogfight performance came at a cost, being smaller didnt just make it easier to have agile birds.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Temetre

[Temetre]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb Kalasnkova74:

Welcome to the Party Pal! Air combat discussions are ladders- you never get an answer, just another rung to launch the next question. Literally billions of dollars are spent on these questions and even the think tanks don’t have answers. 

Tbh thats why I like these discussions though, even if we dont got a clear answer, we can play around with ideas and thoughts, and slowly build up a vague mental image thats just a bit closer to reality.

Its not that common because Im better at phrasing nowadays, just sometimes people get frustrated (maybe over not knowing the answers themselves^^) and think im being purposefully contrarian or so.

vor 12 Minuten schrieb Kalasnkova74:

Jokes aside, where the lightweight fighters “win” over the big hardware is cost-per-effect. Not necessarily slow speed dogfighting , which is a rare flight regime (for good reason). We can see this with Southeast Asia whenever a pair of MiGs forced a USAF strike package to jettison bombs. We have a massive formation of 40 expensive aircraft that cost $10000+ per hour to fly on a 6-8 hour mission , and the sortie is ruined by two MiG-21s ringing up a $10k per hour bill combined. Guerrilla warfare in the air, indeed. This dynamic in the late 1960s pushed General Momeyer to green light Operation BOLO. 

100%! Nobody would build light fighters if it wasnt for cost, and especially those early to mid cold war fighters were fielded in insane numbers.

Thats why I dont have that much of a time that a super expensive F-4E edges out some lighter mass produced fighters. Especially considering the F-15 really hit home on the "big fighter" part, becoming arguably the most succesful fighter of all times.

vor 12 Minuten schrieb Kalasnkova74:

In DCS -so far- this dynamic doesn’t matter as unlike a certain OTHER air battle game, players don’t have to pay for modules after the initial purchase (thank Zeus). But if other module makers adopt HB’s parts wear function, some of the core logistical challenges of real world air campaigns will be present in the game. If you have to choose between an F-4E and an F-5, a trained pilot will pick the F-4E. But if the F-4E has a bad radar and wonky Sparrow rails for lack of parts vs a fully mission capable F-5, now the question gets interesting. 

Honestly, maybe the more hardcore fans might not enjoy that idea, but Im sure Id enjoy some basic logistics/RPG style system where you manage aircrafts also based on wear and repair/flight cost/time. Over the course of a dynamic campaign like Liberation maybe.

Where maybe you fly an F-4 but want to fly it 'lighter' to keep wear down, or switch to a cheaper aircraft to give the big one time to repair.

 

Wouldnt be realistic in itself, but could gamify the elements of aircraft maintenance and logistics, and connect it into a gameplay loop. Either way im really curious what modders will do with this wear and tear system.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Temetre

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

Tbh, how much truth is there really in that light-weight fighters are better turners? After all, most of the time the best slow speed dogfighters seems to be giants like the F-14, 15 or SU-27. And they acchieve that via really big wings and powerful engines, which they have the capacity for due to their size. 

That's because they all have large wings to carry their large-a$$ payload around. With said payload, they're not much of a turning-wonder either.

LWFs are cool, because they can achieve a high kill-ratio against suppsoedly superior fighters, when using the right tactics. Back in the day the tech-gap between a MiG-21 and an F-4E with four Sparrows was mostly a paper-thing, as the F-4E (given no external IFF capability is at hand or Combat Tree mod is installed) has zero SA as to the nature of what it has locked. So you're down to a V-ID pass and all you tech advantage just went down the sink.

When flying low level your radar is going to be a royal pain in the butt and locking somebody co-altitude or even look-down is going to be frustrating. Say goodbye to Mr "Sparrow in ya Face".

The nature of the fights of those CW jets is much different to the AMRAAM-fest at 20NM that TV-screen operators are used to.

 

What's often forgotten when discussing the MiGs is their sh1tty armament and their narrow engagement-zones (WEZ) during the time of those wars we're usually taking for benchmarking them against western jets.

 

9 minutes ago, Temetre said:

And the Mig-29 mainly sacrifices payload and fuel load (+poor avionics), its dogfighting performance comes partially from burning silly amounts of fuel. Meanwhile the Hornet sacrifices high speed performance and limits high-G maneuvering. Either got limited range compared to bigger fliers.

Don't forget about those silly engine blocker-doors and the louvers inside the strakes. Nice idea, but useless. I'd rather take the amount of fuel that could have been installed.

9 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Of course thats true for older fliers as well: Eg the Mig-21 is considered a better dogfighter in DCS than the Mirage F-1, but pays for that partially due to drawbacks like small fuel tanks, simpler avionics and overuse of its "emergency afterburner".

I'm not sure the 21 is a better dogfighter. It's easier to to fly in some aspects, but it's cockpit ergonomics are dog sh1t. Having a HOTAS system where you could map important functions on a stick that doesn't exist in the real jet mitigates that issue quite a lot. Also, the F1 is a much better mission oriented aircraft.

Just ask the iraqi pilots that had to take salt-pills flying the MiG. Just having a decent air conditioning system in the F1 made the aircraft a lot more effective.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Bremspropeller

[Temetre]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Bremspropeller:

That's because they all have large wings to carry their large-a$$ payload around. With said payload, they're not much of a turning-wonder either.

Yeah, its often a side-effect of other requirements. Another part of why the Navy planes like F14/18/4 were good dogfighters is probably because they needed the slow speed charachteristics anyway, for carrier ladings (and the F-4 still needed slats).

Or how high altitude flight needs big wings, and so does dogfighting.

But in the end, bigger planes could fit that capability easier! Hence I wouldnt be surprised if the slatted F-4E is a quite capable plane compared to contemporaries, even though I dont expect miracles.

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Bremspropeller:

LWFs are cool, because they can achieve a high kill-ratio against suppsoedly superior fighters, when using the right tactics. Back in the day the tech-gap between a MiG-21 and an F-4E with four Sparrows was mostly a paper-thing, as the F-4E (given no external IFF capability is at hand or Combat Tree mod is installed) has zero SA as to the nature of what it has locked. So you're down to a V-ID pass and all you tech advantage just went down the sink.

When flying low level your radar is going to be a royal pain in the butt and locking somebody co-altitude or even look-down is going to be frustrating. Say goodbye to Mr "Sparrow in ya Face".

The nature of the fights of those CW jets is much different to the AMRAAM-fest at 20NM that TV-screen operators are used to.

 

What's often forgotten when discussing the MiGs is their sh1tty armament and their narrow engagement-zones (WEZ) during the time of those wars we're usually taking for benchmarking them against western jets.

Yeah, I imagine theres a much bigger skill flour for those cold war jets. A bad pilot will be much more detrimental, and I dont think the F-4/Mig-21 will be that far apart in A2A combat, at least down low. The small size will be an advantage too.

Tho Id note at least our DCS F-4E will have IFF. I wonder if Pave Spike has A2A mode for identification... gotta ask Zabu on the discord or so.

And in a short range engagement where a Mig-21 doesnt need to worry much about fuel that alone takes a lot of pressure, similar how its with the Mig-29 and its crazy engines.

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Bremspropeller:

Don't forget about those silly engine blocker-doors and the louvers inside the strakes. Nice idea, but useless. I'd rather take the amount of fuel that could have been installed.

Yeah no question, the Mig-29 still got some strange design choices and weird compromises 

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Bremspropeller:

I'm not sure the 21 is a better dogfighter. It's easier to to fly in some aspects, but it's cockpit ergonomics are dog sh1t. Having a HOTAS system where you could map important functions on a stick that doesn't exist in the real jet mitigates that issue quite a lot. Also, the F1 is a much better mission oriented aircraft.

Just ask the iraqi pilots that had to take salt-pills flying the MiG. Just having a decent air conditioning system in the F1 made the aircraft a lot more effective.

Ive also heard that the Mirage F1 is actually better than the Mig-21Bis in DCS if you just take a bit less fuel.

And IRL soviet planes are its own story anyways. Most of the time, they have a pretty poor track record (and idk if thats just training like people sometimes claim).

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Welcome to the Party Pal! Air combat discussions are ladders- you never get an answer, just another rung to launch the next question. Literally billions of dollars are spent on these questions and even the think tanks don’t have answers. 
 

Jokes aside, where the lightweight fighters “win” over the big hardware is cost-per-effect. Not necessarily slow speed dogfighting , which is a rare flight regime (for good reason). We can see this with Southeast Asia whenever a pair of MiGs forced a USAF strike package to jettison bombs. We have a massive formation of 40 expensive aircraft that cost $10000+ per hour to fly on a 6-8 hour mission , and the sortie is ruined by two MiG-21s ringing up a $10k per hour bill combined. Guerrilla warfare in the air, indeed. This dynamic in the late 1960s pushed General Momeyer to green light Operation BOLO. 
 

In DCS -so far- this dynamic doesn’t matter as unlike a certain OTHER air battle game, players don’t have to pay for modules after the initial purchase (thank Zeus). But if other module makers adopt HB’s parts wear function, some of the core logistical challenges of real world air campaigns will be present in the game. If you have to choose between an F-4E and an F-5, a trained pilot will pick the F-4E. But if the F-4E has a bad radar and wonky Sparrow rails for lack of parts vs a fully mission capable F-5, now the question gets interesting. 

The dynamic campaign might also help with that.

On one side I just want a dynamic campaign there the computer deal with everything (based on historic doctrine, assets and finances) and I just lead my flight/squadron. I would like info that shows us strafing German trains for 6 weeks leads to less German assets on D-day. But I don't real wanna go about planing the air campaign for overlord.

But would also like a strategic mode, were you also sit with a calculator, massive amounts of caffeine pills l at night and worry a about all those Mk82s that my F4s keep dropping at first sight of a MiG17s.  Or that we are running out of Mk82s(real thing) and have to use Korea and even ww2 vintage bombs and now my aircraft carriers keep catching fire.

[Dragon1-1]

4 hours ago, Temetre said:

Tbh, how much truth is there really in that light-weight fighters are better turners?

The figure that matter in a turn in wing loading. A lightweight fighter will usually have a lightly loaded wing. This means that less AoA is needed for everything, be it flying straight or turning. More AoA means more drag, and it also brings you closer to stalling the wing (it's actually not speed that matters in stall, it's AoA). In a fight, the fighter with a lower wing loading will bleed speed slower and be able to turn tighter without stalling out.

Also, light weight = better thrust to weight ratio, given similar engine performance. This is particularly relevant to the MiG-21, but also to the F-16. Both gained a lot of weight as they got upgraded, and while the engine upgrades kept up and even provided better T/W than earlier versions, the wings didn't increase in size. This means that for most part, an earlier, lighter version would actually be preferable in a tight turning fight.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

I'm not sure the 21 is a better dogfighter. It's easier to to fly in some aspects, but it's cockpit ergonomics are dog sh1t. Having a HOTAS system where you could map important functions on a stick that doesn't exist in the real jet mitigates that issue quite a lot. Also, the F1 is a much better mission oriented aircraft.

Just ask the iraqi pilots that had to take salt-pills flying the MiG. Just having a decent air conditioning system in the F1 made the aircraft a lot more effective.

This did not seem to hinder VPAF MiG jocks from handing the Phantom phlyers their butts in the air over Vietnam. Ergonomics are what they are on the MiG-21, that's true, I don't map anything to HOTAS that's not there IRL. Still, you don't really need to fiddle with switches in a dogfight, there's the dial to select missiles or gun, but that's it, and it's no worse than the gunsight dial on the F-5E. Visibility is a concern, but it can be worked with.

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

And IRL soviet planes are its own story anyways. Most of the time, they have a pretty poor track record (and idk if thats just training like people sometimes claim).

Training is the big difference between 2nd (USSR and its allies) and 3rd world countries. Soviet pilots, and also VPAF (and similarly Polish, East German, Hungarian and so on), were relatively highly trained and very much knew how to dogfight. Iraqi MiGs fared poorly because they were flown by Iraqi pilots, with none of this training, and it showed. Even today, Iran is  pretty much the only country in the region not aligned with the US that has an air force that's worth a damn.

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

Yeah no question, the Mig-29 still got some strange design choices and weird compromises 

That particular is actually easily explained: the MiG-29, like all MiGs before it (the MiG-23's huge wheels are also because of that), had to operate from dirt airstrips. The intake blockers are FOD protection, and the louvres are to allow air to enter the engine from the top. They're far from useless, especially when all your real airbases are radioactive craters, and you're operating from some farmer's field hastily stomped into something solid by a few regiments of grunts. When they aren't, the system is a cool looking waste of space, but it was included for a specific purpose.

[Bremspropeller]

19 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Still, you don't really need to fiddle with switches in a dogfight, there's the dial to select missiles or gun, but that's it, and it's no worse than the gunsight dial on the F-5E.

The contemporary 21s had a different cockpit setup.

Here's a PFM:

Similar to the FL:

 

19 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

This did not seem to hinder VPAF MiG jocks from handing the Phantom phlyers their butts in the air over Vietnam.

That's because they had different circumstances. Soviet style intercepts worked well against the Groundhog-Day route-planning of the USAF. The wars in the middle east were a lot more dynamic and hence less favouring the MiGs.

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Bremspropeller

[Temetre]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Dragon1-1:

The figure that matter in a turn in wing loading. A lightweight fighter will usually have a lightly loaded wing. This means that less AoA is needed for everything, be it flying straight or turning. More AoA means more drag, and it also brings you closer to stalling the wing (it's actually not speed that matters in stall, it's AoA). In a fight, the fighter with a lower wing loading will bleed speed slower and be able to turn tighter without stalling out.

Also, light weight = better thrust to weight ratio, given similar engine performance. This is particularly relevant to the MiG-21, but also to the F-16. Both gained a lot of weight as they got upgraded, and while the engine upgrades kept up and even provided better T/W than earlier versions, the wings didn't increase in size. This means that for most part, an earlier, lighter version would actually be preferable in a tight turning fight.

That framing doesnt make sense. Big fighters have bigger engines and wings to make up for wingload and T/W.  In fact, they have an easier time, because bigger planes are generally more efficiency in terms of internal volume. That is why big fighters like the F-15 are more versatile and powerful across the board, compared to smaller planes.

In fact, most "light fighters" actually got pretty high wingloading, and that btw includes the F-16. The late Mig-21 was also considered rather sluggish, because upgrades and increased fuel load added to the wing load.

With thrust to weight, the F-16s powerful engine is even the exception. Most 3rd gen fighters got much weaker T/W than the F-4. And that btw includes the Mig-21Bis, which has a very poor T/W-ratio in dry thrust. The "emergency afterburner" is a bit of a gimmick, more like a desperate attempt to get some more thrust out of the engine. Its extremely wasteful in a plane that has too little fuel in the first place, and AFAIK has some reliablity issues.

 

In reality, its pretty much the opposite: Small planes have to make many more copromises than bigger jets, hence often worse TW and wing loads. Aka they are less agile.

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Dragon1-1:

This did not seem to hinder VPAF MiG jocks from handing the Phantom phlyers their butts in the air over Vietnam

They didnt, Migs had a massive tactical advantage waging a defensive "guerilla war", while american jets focussed on SAM-threats, and at the end of the war they still got consistently defeated. 3:1 kill rate of Phantoms btw.

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Dragon1-1:

Training is the big difference between 2nd (USSR and its allies) and 3rd world countries

Yup, training and maintenance is always blamed for the failures of soviet planes, yet nobody can explain why western export planes performed so much better. Or why the soviets are so bad at training other air forces (yet better with their own?).

Not to mention, we literally know the soviets trained their pilots less than western users. Their planes had inferior avionics and shorter lifespan flight hours (allowing less training).

I find it very doubtful that the same planes wouldve been that much better in soviet hands. That idea just seem biased when taken this far, and mostly rely on "paper numbers".

Edited November 6, 2023 by Temetre

[Top Jockey]

13 minutes ago, Temetre said:

That framing doesnt make sense. Big fighters have bigger engines and wings to make up for wingload and T/W.  In fact, they have an easier time, because bigger planes are generally more efficiency in terms of internal volume. That is why big fighters like the F-15 are more versatile and powerful across the board, compared to smaller planes.

In fact, most "light fighters" actually got pretty high wingloading, and that btw includes the F-16. The late Mig-21 was also considered rather sluggish, because upgrades and increased fuel load added to the wing load.

With thrust to weight, the F-16s powerful engine is even the exception. Most 3rd gen fighters got much weaker T/W than the F-4. And that btw includes the Mig-21Bis, which has a very poor T/W-ratio in dry thrust. The "emergency afterburner" is a bit of a gimmick, more like a desperate attempt to get some more thrust out of the engine. Its extremely wasteful in a plane that has too little fuel in the first place, and AFAIK has some reliablity issues.

...

 

 

And then comes the Mirage 2000C : with empty weight around 7.600 kg ... and an almost unbeatable low wingloading.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Top Jockey

[Dragon1-1]

7 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The contemporary 21s had a different cockpit setup.

If nothing else, that one is more ergonomic. The radar is right below the gunsight, and there's no pylon selector, because you only have two (so it's probably a switch somewhere). The MiG-19, with the weapon selector located conveniently on the side wall, so it probably uses a similar knob.

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

In fact, most "light fighters" actually got pretty high wingloading, and that btw includes the F-16. The late Mig-21 was also considered rather sluggish, because upgrades and increased fuel load added to the wing load.

The modern F-16 is an exception here, and that's mostly because it put on some serious weight over the years, while the wings stayed the same. Early versions turned really well, and they had good T/W, as well. Most light fighters actually have very low wing loadings compared to their contemporaries. They pay by more primitive avionics, short range and (usually, there are exceptions) limited weapons load. The F-5 is one example, the Hornet is another, as are most MiGs, which were all made with a "light fighter" mindset, due to different Soviet needs.

In a turn fight, a light fighter typically has an advantage in one circle, due to being able to turn harder, thus drawing a smaller circle. The bigger, heavier jets usually have an advantage in a two circle fight and in vertical, because while they may not be able to turn as hard, they're able to sustain their turn rate and also accelerate better.

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

Yup, training and maintenance is always blamed for the failures of soviet planes, yet nobody can explain why western export planes performed so much better.

They didn't always, although the US also took greater care to export their training and maintenance along with the jets themselves, so they have a better record. They were also cagey about selling to the 3rd world at all, Iran was considered a solid US ally in Shah days, and overall few countries got US jets. Notice that the most notable actions of non-US operated Phantoms are by Israel, whose training quality was always top notch. Western jets in the 3rd world were mostly French and British designs, and their record in local conflicts is decidedly mixed.

Yes, Soviets were not as good as the US about training, but they were competent, and so were their Pact allies. Certainly more so than Iraqis. Their problem was that aviation always played second fiddle to ground forces. The lopsided US kill/loss ratio in Vietnam is the result of two things: TOPGUN, and USAF writing off some VPAF kills as "landing accidents" (that is, plane got shot up so much it augured in on landing).  Soviets did not really have anything like TOPGUN, which was the real revolution in thinking about pilot training, followed by Red Flag, which mostly did the same thing for the USAF.

Finally, kill/loss ration doesn't tell the whole story. A Phantom that punched off its bombload to fight the MiG was almost as good as one that was shot down. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[SgtPappy]

39 minutes ago, Temetre said:

In fact, most "light fighters" actually got pretty high wingloading, and that btw includes the F-16. The late Mig-21 was also considered rather sluggish, because upgrades and increased fuel load added to the wing load.

With thrust to weight, the F-16s powerful engine is even the exception. Most 3rd gen fighters got much weaker T/W than the F-4. And that btw includes the Mig-21Bis, which has a very poor T/W-ratio in dry thrust. The "emergency afterburner" is a bit of a gimmick, more like a desperate attempt to get some more thrust out of the engine. Its extremely wasteful in a plane that has too little fuel in the first place, and AFAIK has some reliablity issues.

Note that the traditional definition of wingloading means less and less with aircraft that have lifting bodies or LERX because those create lift that isn't really accounted for using just wing loading alone. Also as mentioned, the earlier F-16 was super light and was originally designed to only be a WVR fighter compared to the multi-role beast of today. It turned better than anything before it at lower speeds, 1 or 2 circle.

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

If nothing else, that one is more ergonomic. The radar is right below the gunsight, and there's no pylon selector, because you only have two (so it's probably a switch somewhere). The MiG-19, with the weapon selector located conveniently on the side wall, so it probably uses a similar knob.

Clearly it is. It's so ergonomic, they passed on giving the pilot a view anywhere ahead, so he can focus on that switch. Somewhere.

The FL was modified to four pylons at some time.

The PFM and FL are my favourite 21s, but that cockpit is not. The gunsight protrudes very far into the cabin and you literally have to look around it.

Even the "no frills" F-13 sports-model isn't much better and it's sight is just there so the aircraft doesn't look incomplete. I mean, it looks impressive...

...but the gyro tumbles at ridiculously low g values.

Looking through the Arab accounts - some of those pilots had been trained by the RAF or some RAF syllabus - it seems that the weapon-performance was one of the biggest detriments and many a kill opportunity was just lost because of poor performance and reliability or inferior weapon-capability.

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Finally, kill/loss ration doesn't tell the whole story. A Phantom that punched off its bombload to fight the MiG was almost as good as one that was shot down. 

That's a pretty important point as well - mainly the VPAF was pretty pragmatic abot that approach. Sometimes they'd bait the fighters into throwing their bombs away, or going MiG-shopping some obvious bait-MiGs and leving the hapless bombers alone. Bernard Fipp (USN A-4 guy) wrote on one of those occurances in "Triple Sticks":

The fighter dudes were good at football, but bad at chess...

 

[Dragon1-1]

Just now, Bremspropeller said:

Clearly it is. It's so ergonomic, they passed on giving the pilot a view anywhere ahead, so he can focus on that switch. Somewhere.

If you remember where it is, flipping a switch is easy. And that pic makes the view ahead seem worse than it really is. Straight forward it's no worse than the F-4 or the Bis with one of the overhead panels fitted. Either way, it's not as bad as you think, in DCS we have to fiddle about with the mouse, but in a real jet you have muscle memory and can feel this stuff out without looking. The MiGs' biggest sin is having important stuff on the right wall, but even then, it's nothing you need to fiddle with in a dogfight.

You don't need the gyro in a dogfight, either, in WWR you just use your eyes. I'm not surprised about the biggest problem being the weapons, seeing as they were stuck with a missile not far removed from AIM-9B (itself not exactly a paragon of reliability), and probably an inferior export version, at that. The R-60 came on much later MiG-21 models.

[Bremspropeller]

3 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

If you remember where it is, flipping a switch is easy.

In theory it is. If you're engaged in a fast developing situation, possibly dehydrated because you've sat in readyness for an hour or two, things are a little different. Especially if the neighboring switch that completely feels the same does something entirely different and possibly decisive in the opponent's favor. Things are different, when you can die for real.

4 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

And that pic makes the view ahead seem worse than it really is. Straight forward it's no worse than the F-4 or the Bis with one of the overhead panels fitted.

I know what both the F-4E and the -21PFM fwd view looks like, as I've sat in the former and stuck my face into the cockpit of the latter. The Phantom's the winner here. Albeit not exactly by a mile.

The good news for the early -21 pilot is that nobody yet had the bright idea of installing a make-up mirror which would rob you of your view into the turn at the benefit of not seeing anything behind you, twice.

7 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Either way, it's not as bad as you think, in DCS we have to fiddle about with the mouse, but in a real jet you have muscle memory and can feel this stuff out without looking.

Again, in theory it is.

If it was no biggie, we'd not spent dozens of millions on human factor research in man-machine interfaces. The F-4 also went through a couple of field-fiddles where they'd put rubber-extensions onto important switches, so you actually could find them when needed and without looking inside.

18 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You don't need the gyro in a dogfight, either, in WWR you just use your eyes.

Actual guncam footage proves the opposite.

[Dragon1-1]

If it's anything like the MiG-19, then the selector to switch from missiles to guns is a big ol' knob on the side wall. It doesn't look like it'd be hard to find in a pinch (I bound it to a similar knob on my throttle base, this works fine). Pylon selector is a switch, you're supposed to set to both before you get into the dogfight. I'm not sure how it is on the Phantom (other than with AIM-4, which required an inordinate amount of switchology worse than anything ever put on a MiG), but the MiGs we have in DCS don't have a whole lot of things you really need to fiddle with in the middle of a fight. Sure, there are better ways to switch between missiles and the gun, but it's not enough to state that this somehow makes the MiG a worse dogfighter.

MiG's bad ergonomics are felt mostly when operating the radar, which on the Bis is fairly obtuse and badly located, and the ADF, which is on the right wall. Also, notice that I was talking about K-13, which doesn't have a radar screen at all. It has a radar gunsight like the MiG-17 and the Sabrejet.

Incidentally, this variant has its forward visibility no worse than the Bis. As far as dogfighting goes, this variant is probably the best, and that's what Phantom was, for most part, facing in Vietnam.

[Smyth]

37 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

As far as dogfighting goes, this variant is probably the best, and that's what Phantom was, for most part, facing in Vietnam.

Wut? VPAF operated only a tiny number of MiG-21F-13, which did not last very long. The overwhelming majority of Vietnamese MiG-21 in that conflict were cannon-less -PF and -PFM variants, armed with nothing but 2x Aim-9B clones. Those were not dogfighters, but they didn't need to be for the strategic war they were fighting.

Some -MF had showed up by the time the air war restarted in 1972.

The dogfights that made the 21F-13 a famous opponent to the Phantom mostly took place in Nevada in 1968.