PDA

View Full Version : Mig 21 USAF Evalution Test



stalkervision
02-02-2008, 12:00 PM
More on the Mig. USAF flight evaluation! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reVZ9aPYi9A&feature=related

stalkervision
02-02-2008, 12:00 PM
More on the Mig. USAF flight evaluation! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reVZ9aPYi9A&feature=related

roybaty
02-02-2008, 02:17 PM
Found a related video in Russian, was this guy an adviser or did he actually engage in combat???

Can anyone translate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZKOMQ-QhHQ

stalkervision
02-02-2008, 02:50 PM
There were Russian pilots flying for the chinese and N. Koreans in the Korean war. This just might be a Russian pilot that flew for the Vietnamese.

K_Freddie
02-02-2008, 03:42 PM
Well at least it sounded like an unbiased opinion from the USA side. Interesting to note the low maintenance level required - an essential ingedient for numbers in combat.

Was not the F14 to expensive to run, so withdrawn in favour of the F18. At the same time the Mig29 was around.

Was at Farnborough 2 years ago and this Mig29 outflew the F16, SAAB, and everything else on pure a/c ability. Even though it was roughly 2x the size of these other a/c. It's maintenance cost I have no idea but going with the Russian way it's probably 'cheaper' maybe.

I think the evidence is in the Luftwaffe preferring the Mig29 over others, and we know the luftwaffe have had the best planes for the past 100 years... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

luftluuver
02-02-2008, 04:05 PM
Freddie,

http://www.aeronautics.ru/mig29site2.htm

Bremspropeller
02-02-2008, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's maintenance cost I have no idea but going with the Russian way it's probably 'cheaper' maybe.

I think the evidence is in the Luftwaffe preferring the Mig29 over others </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, as for "preferrring" the Fulcrum.
The Luftwaffe knew right from the start (that is after evaluation) where it's values and weak points were.

As a DF platform, the MiG-29 was a decent fighter. Luftwaffe pilots have shown this frequently as thy came home with kill-ratios of 10:1 and more in WVR engagements.
But then again, Luftwaffe pilots are (well, were) propably the best MiG-29 drivers of the world. The only pilots comparable in ability and experience are the Indians.

But on the other side, the MiG had huge deficiencies. That was range, BVR-capability and avionics.
As for MX: one reason for the quick phase-out of the 29 was the high maintenance-costs that were due to high prices for spare-parts, set by the Russians.
Meanwhile, all Fulcrums are gone - they were sold for one (!) ‚ā¨ each to Poland.

The Typhoon does outŁerform the MiG-29 in pretty much any case. Well, save for that fancy T/V-demonstrator.
But T/V is already in devellopment for the Tiffie and may be included with Tranche III.

roybaty
02-02-2008, 05:33 PM
Well I can see why they ditched development of the MiG-29 in favor of the Sukhoi su-27, and its' descendants.

Bremspropeller
02-02-2008, 05:37 PM
No, that is actually not true.

But: why should a country be happy with a less capable plane, when it could have a world-beater instead?

A Su-30MK is pretty much the counterpart to a Strike Eagle.
Why bother to buy a MiG-29 "adv" instead, that barely comes close to the F-16?

Korolov1986
02-02-2008, 05:51 PM
Freddie,

The Luftwaffe transferred their MiG-29s to Poland several years ago. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

In the case of the F-14, the maintenance problems had to do with lack of parts (production having been stopped some 15+ years ago), and a very mixed fleet of F-14 types, with the majority having engines with a tendency to explode. Combined with a strict mission profile, the Navy wanted more bang for their buck and dumped the F-14. The F-18 without a doubt is more maintenance intensive than many "soldier proof" Russian types, but one also has to remember capabilities of these aircraft as well. Any aircraft, regardless of how rugged it is, still needs some time in the hangar at regular intervals.

When comparing the MiG-29 to contemporary types, keep in mind that the Fulcrum only retains a high performance advantage for a short period of time - think of the Bf-109: performance was excellent but endurance was not a strong point. The MiG-29 suffers from the same setback, having extremely limited endurance compared to F-16, Gripen, etc.

Quite simply, the MiG-29 was designed as a front line fighter for a tactical air force, not a strategic one. Basic capabilities that can be produced en masse were the strong points of the aircraft, along the lines of the MiG-23, MiG-21, and MiG-17 before it. Additionally, performance of the 'modernized' types does not compare at all with the raw performance of the original A type (9-12) due to increased weight (additional fuel and electronics). The MiG-29 only appears to have fallen out of favor because it's harder to put gold-plated junk on the aircraft, as opposed to the Su-27.

roybaty
02-02-2008, 05:52 PM
Bremspropeller who are you responding to?

roybaty
02-02-2008, 06:08 PM
There were issues with the early f-14 engines but they were resolved. I think the F/A-18 taking over was simply because it's newer tech, and there are budget constraints.

Korolov1986
02-02-2008, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roybaty:
There were issues with the early f-14 engines but they were resolved. I think the F/A-18 taking over was simply because it's newer tech, and there are budget constraints. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They changed engines in the B and D types, but the vast majority were A types which retained the faulty engines. The F-18 took over because it did more at a cheaper cost and did it more often than the F-14's strict role of interceptor/bomber.

FPSOLKOR
02-03-2008, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There were issues with the early f-14 engines but they were resolved. I think the F/A-18 taking over was simply because it's newer tech, and there are budget constraints. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
MiG-21 were never flown in Vietnam by soviet pilots in combat with one exception, when a Soviet instructor was caught by US pilots with a trainee in the cockpit in an unarmed MiG-21UT, and made it away safe.

Modern MiG-29s by words of "Swifts" aerobatic team commander Dyatel has such maneuver potential, that no human pilot can withstand it - he will fade away long befor MiGs limits will be reached.

TheGozr
02-03-2008, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">exception </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If only the word exception is used that mean that the "never flown" have no sens.

"For the Mig29" how do you know that they were not Human ?

HuninMunin
02-03-2008, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There were issues with the early f-14 engines but they were resolved. I think the F/A-18 taking over was simply because it's newer tech, and there are budget constraints. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
MiG-21 were never flown in Vietnam by soviet pilots in combat with one exception, when a Soviet instructor was caught by US pilots with a trainee in the cockpit in an unarmed MiG-21UT, and made it away safe.

Modern MiG-29s by words of "Swifts" aerobatic team commander Dyatel has such maneuver potential, that no human pilot can withstand it - he will fade away long befor MiGs limits will be reached. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too bad it will remain, as Brems has put it quite descriptively, a fancy T/V-demonstrator.
Maybe a Libelle could help out on withstanding those g-forces though.

Apart from that, the usage of T/V has yet to be proven to give any significant advantage.
It seems to me that quick AoA change equals quick directional change in some peoples minds.

FPSOLKOR
02-03-2008, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGozr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">exception </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If only the word exception is used that mean that the "never flown" have no sens.

"For the Mig29" how do you know that they were not Human ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was not fully correct with exception: I should have said "Never were engaged in combat". In september 1972 Soviet instructor with a Vietnamese pilot in the front cabin were engaged by 4 Phantoms. Soviet pilot avoided at least 2 missile launches (2 in each). When American pilots launched third attack MiGs engine stalled due to lack of fuel. From this point there are two versions:
1 MiG was shot down, but pilots ejected.
2 It made it to home, but crashed due to overrunning the runway.

Didn't understand you replic about MiG-29...

TheGozr
02-03-2008, 12:22 PM
Are you saying that Dyatel is an Alien ? an ET guy ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FPSOLKOR
02-03-2008, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Too bad it will remain, as Brems has put it quite descriptively, a fancy T/V-demonstrator.
Maybe a Libelle could help out on withstanding that g-forces though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Brems is a GOD! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
Actually, I personally think that we came to a point where a computer can take over pilots place. Maybe a remotely controlled ones - I also think that most LO pilots can fight better then RL pilots...

Dyatel is a human... At least he drinks beer like human... And he is rather interesting person to talk to. Apart of that, he is the only person whom I know who pushed MiG-29 to his personal limits. The coming of an OVT version (if it will ever make it to production line) makes MiG-29 a plane that I definitely wouldn't want to meet in the air as an enemy... Presuming that it is piloted by a well trained pilot.

HuninMunin
02-03-2008, 12:24 PM
He says that the T/V Fulcrum can generate Gs no human pilot can withstand.

TheGozr
02-03-2008, 12:26 PM
LOL... thx i know i'm just pulling your legs.. but i agree that human pilots days are counted in battle..

Now what is "most LO pilots "

Airmail109
02-03-2008, 12:29 PM
Erm the Swedish have created a g-suit that allows the pilot to pull 13gs.

HuninMunin
02-03-2008, 12:30 PM
I don't quite agree.
The Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and Raptor are for shure right on the edge of human capabilities.
But those will be in service for decades to come and it might well be that a better part of the century will have gone by when UAVs finaly make for the majority of airforces around the world.

FPSOLKOR
02-03-2008, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Now what is "most LO pilots " </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most pilots that fly a "Lock On" simulators.

FPSOLKOR
02-03-2008, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I don't quite agree.
The Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and Raptor are for shure right on the edge of human capabilities.
But those will be in service for decades to come and it might well be that a better part of the century will have gone by when UAVs finaly make for the majority of airforces around the world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps, perhaps... But it has more to do with computer (they have to react correctly, or even gain real AI) and comunications (communication lines have to be really secure from different types of interference) technology, then with airframes and engines.

TheGozr
02-03-2008, 12:35 PM
Do you mean like me ....LOL.. well knowing all the corners I would say for now.... "NO"

roybaty
02-03-2008, 12:37 PM
Seriously??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Erm the Swedish have created a g-suit that allows the pilot to pull 13gs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TheGozr
02-03-2008, 12:38 PM
It's not a question of pulling a 13 g's number... it's sustained numbers that is important...

FPSOLKOR
02-03-2008, 12:47 PM
Correct. 13Gs alone won't do any good. (Keeping in mind that most modern fighters have a max structural limit of +12 -3,5, and some even 4) But introduction of planes like MiG OVT may soon make a computer chip production a lot cheaper then training a human pilot. It is actually cheaper now, but I believe that no software was yet created (maybe), and existing communications are too prone to interference or even interception. When this problems will be overcome - we will get our first X-fighter with an R2D2 on board...

TheGozr
02-03-2008, 12:52 PM
What would be even better is a way to controls aircraft at distance with cameras sensors etc.. and the pilot is in a room somewhere flying virtually ..

The whole plane become the pilot not a replacement of just the pilot will cost much more that way.

FPSOLKOR
02-03-2008, 01:03 PM
And thousands of eager virpils around the world willing to try themselves in combat without risking their lives. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
And as a trainer - PCs with millions of flying hours and thousands battles to establish weaknesses and strong points!