It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Most Maneuverable Aircraft

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
To zaphod Ha, I am not that daft not to know that no person can take 22g's but it does go to show what the aircraft could do allthough I belive it can infact "only" make 18g's via built in limitation of the areodymanics off the aircraft! How many do you know of that can do that without going crunch?

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Id123]




posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
But what's the point of having a plane that can take 18+Gs if YOU can only take 10 or less? Most planes can take more than the pilots can with ease.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Well I understand your point off view with regards to the limitations of humans when pulling very high g's , I am sure there have been pilots that have had to in emergencys ie. ground getting closer. that have been forced to pull g's well over what they could stand. Blacking out for certain. The advatage off a plain being built to take many more is the fact that you might not have to scap the airframe due to distortion via the G forces. If the aircraft can sustain 18 g's without getting damaged its got to save money! As for the pilot well I guess they would just be happy to be alive.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
The same is true for most aircraft though...some of the airframes such as the F-14 and other high speed interceptors are ridiculously strong and can probably take 20+ Gs, it still doesnt make any difference. And yes I know that the F-14 cant pull it, I am simply noting that the airframe is theoretically capable of withstanding the associated forces.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I agree, Overbuild them and if they ever have to pull silly g's theres less chance of damage. I remeber here storys of phantom pilots ripping the engines from there mountings due high g's turns. Thats gotta be the end of that aircraft me thinks lol

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Id123]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
I don't know where you get your information, but its wrong - the demonstrations I have seen by the MiG-35, MiG-29OTV, Su-27 and Su-30 have all been breathtaking...


Ah, but can they do such maneuvers with a full tank of gas and with ordnance/pods etc... hanging from the pylons? That is the one advantage that the F-22 would hold over all other operational fighters under combat conditions... Now I'm not saying that Russian aircraft are not maneuverable, quite the contrary, but I am not convinced of their combat capability or utility...



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by RichardPrice
I don't know where you get your information, but its wrong - the demonstrations I have seen by the MiG-35, MiG-29OTV, Su-27 and Su-30 have all been breathtaking...


Ah, but can they do such maneuvers with a full tank of gas and with ordnance/pods etc... hanging from the pylons? That is the one advantage that the F-22 would hold over all other operational fighters under combat conditions... Now I'm not saying that Russian aircraft are not maneuverable, quite the contrary, but I am not convinced of their combat capability or utility...


No, airshow demonstrations are purely that - demonstrations to wow a crowd - and thats regardless of the aircraft doing the demonstration (including the F-22)

However, the operational maneuverability of the Su-30MKI and other aircraft are leaps and bounds above previous generations, even with full combat loads. Its just used in a different way.

As I said before, India would not have placed a multi billion dollar order for an Su-30 variant including specific enhancements and option packs if those enhancements and options were pointless. India was buying combat aircraft, and anything pointless on a combat aircraft is something that could potentially get you killed, but India went with a whole range of extras on their aircraft (canards, 3d thrust vectoring et al).

Russian aircraft seem to enjoy an overall negative view in most western nations citizens, and that is, someday, going to be the cause of a lot of surprise.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Using india's choice to buy the Su-30MKI as proof of Russian aircraft's superiority is a terribly weak argument. The aircraft was for one the most cost effective solution at the time, and two an interim measure to hold India until the MCA arrives.

Your posts further frustrate me every time you say something like "oh the US is going to be surprised when they get whooped some day" because you have really no proof.

As far as the specs say, aircraft like the F-22 really are the best out there. There will soon be a healthy bunch of upgraded F-15s too. And as far as the specs say, the F-15 really is still one of the best aircraft out there. Its got better speed, better range, better avionics, higher ceiling, more power than everything but the Su-30MKI and Su-35 and that can be proven with facts not assumptions spawned from someone buying it.

But if you want to play that way, thats fine. Israel bought some F-15s a while back and since than have knocked 80+ aircraft out of the sky, and the F-15 has 9 confirmed kills on the MiG-29, half of which were on arguably good pilots who were definately trained by the Russians, without loss.

Only the clueless ones think that Russian aircraft "suck". But I think that you should consider that there are two sides to this, because most eastern nations firmly believe that American aircraft "suck", in fact they feel more strongly about it than the western nations. I know this because I love to see the great aerobatic maneuvers they can do and I watch them on youtube, and I have recently stopped watching them because of the INFURIATING anti-western aircraft statements on EVERY SINGLE VIDEO. You dont believe me? Check it out for yourself. Any video, F-22 or Su-3-whatever, you will find anti western comments on it. And I love how they stop posting comments when I mention the F-15s kill record.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
You dont have to hear about them falling out of the sky, just go to youtube, you will see that when the Russian aircraft pull their maneuvers they do it at almost zero airspeed, while on the other hand the F-22 can do it at much higher speed.


You are taking youtube videos as gospel fact on the performance of an aircraft? Seriously?

Are you actually serious?

Are you seriously saying that an airshow demonstration is a demonstration of 100% of the aircrafts capabilities? Really?

Do you seriously think Sukhoi and MiG produce aircraft designed to wow airshow crowds and thats it? Seriously?

You have to be joking.


I'm not sure if you know this, but pointing your nose in different directions involves turning the aircraft, and at 350 Knots, neither aircraft will be able to turn at more than 9.5G. And if you think that Russian aircraft can just stay at the same airspeed and direction while pointing its nose everywhere you are mistaken, the minute the AOA rises, the Gs do as well, thats just how wind resistance works.


You arent sure if I know basic aerodynamics? Thanks for the tips and information.

Sometimes though its not all about performing backflips and 90 degree turns on a dime. The aircraft with the greatest maneuverability will win even in situations where the deflection required is a single degree off center - and that produces nowhere near the g force you postulate.


Originally posted by BlackWidow23
*snip*


You think you are frustrated? How about every time one of these conversations comes up theres someone who pipes up and says 'the F-15 and F-22 are the be all end all, thats it, theres no other answer'.

Every time. Every single time.

And you just did it in this one.

I have never said that the Russian aircraft I mentioned were at the top, but you seem to think I did. I'm not.

I have never said that the F-15 or the F-22 are rubbish, but you seem to think that I did. I didn't.

So whats your problem? The fact that I disagree with your assertion that the Russian aircraft have engine problems, that I disagree with your opinion that because a Russian jet puts on a low speed demo, its totally incapable of putting on a high speed demo?

Oh, and the US *is* going to be surprised someday when one of their top dog aircraft get shot down. No, not the US Defence Department, not even the US Airforce because both of them know the limits of the aircraft perfectly and try to keep the aircraft out of situations where it would ever be a possibiliy.

Who is going to be surprised then? Well, the US fan boys who have convinced themselves that their armed forces are invincible.


and I have recently stopped watching them because of the INFURIATING anti-western aircraft statements on EVERY SINGLE VIDEO. You dont believe me? Check it out for yourself. Any video, F-22 or Su-3-whatever, you will find anti western comments on it.


Your beef there is not with me, and I don't know why you mention it here.


And I love how they stop posting comments when I mention the F-15s kill record.


Yup, great kill ratio against the older generation of aircraft and second rate pilots, hardly a discussion point here.

Oh, and for your information, I have just spent the past week in Wales and the north of England watching the Eurofighter and the SU-30MKI do their stuff (and neither aircraft seemed to have any problems with high Delta-V maneuvers). You should pop over the next time they have an exercise, its well worth watching.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
From what I have heard, the problem with the super maneuverable Russian aircraft is the engines...ooh wow, they can do tons of useless flips at zero airspeed, that wont really help it. The F-22 on the other hand has the engine power to pull out of its cobras and kulbits and other maneuvers without stalling, something that cant be said for the Su-37 and MiG-35, but perhaps for the Su-47.



Uhm, the cobra and kulbit are post-stall manoeuvres. Yes, the F-22 is stalled when performing these as well.


The T/W advantage of the F-22 does mean it can accelerate away slightly quicker than all other aircraft currently in service. But for a brand new aircraft, you'd like to think it could do that.




Originally posted by BlackWidow23
And let me just point out how useless super maneuverability is in a 3-400 knot dogfight, where both aircraft are limited to 9.5G turns no matter how agile the aircraft is at low speed...



Dogfights will not always happen at 3-400 kts. Energy bleed sees to that.


If (in a knife fight) a MiG-29 OVT (or F-22 for that matter) feels they've lost the energy fight, they can go post stall and flip inside for a snap missile or gun shot. Sure, it may be last ditch (and suicide if there is another aircraft tracking you), but its better to have the option than not.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
You are missing what I am saying, I am not saying that the Russian aircraft have bad engines, they have excellent engines, I am just saying that currently the American ones ARE more efficient, ARE more powerful, and ARE more reliable. This may or may not change with the AL-41, we shall see.

If you are a good dogfighter, you will keep your speed and energy up. Your right, the suicidal pilots dont fly at 3-400 knots.

Why would you ever want to slow yourself down to a stall in a dogfight? If you are on an enemies six you have a shot anyways. If you are being chased by and F-22 and in a position where all you can do is snap the nose and fire a missile, you are already dead. The JHMCS and AIM-9X basically assure that. You cant do that type of maneuver at an F-22 behind you before the F-22 gets you.

Last generation aircraft? You didnt read my post. I'll say it again, the F-15 has killed 9 MiG-29s, half of which were flown by Russian trained pilots. Let me also add that the MiG-29 was designed specifically to counter the F-15...

I dont think that the F-22 is the end all be all, but I do firmly believe that right now they ARE the best. Ask any of the Raptor pilots, it takes at least 4 F-15s to even have a chance, in a dogfight I might add.

Dogfighting is just as much about the pilots as it is about the aircraft. Vietnam proved that, clunky aircraft with good dogfighters as pilots bested light and agile MiGs.

I do firmly assert and will do so until proven otherwise that the Russian aircraft cannot do their flips at higher speed without turning the pilots head into a piece of paper and folding it, as well as the aircraft in half.

And so what if an F-22 gets shot down some day? Losing one aircraft doesnt make it any less deadly. When we lost an F-117 in 1999, I didnt lose any confidence in it, because it has repeatedly proven itself effective in eluding radar despite the lucky shot. The same will be true for the F-22 and F-35, sure they'll be hit eventually, all aircraft are, but its not going down without first missiling 6 planes and shooting another, or without being completely overwhelmed by enemy aircraft, my proof is RED FLAG, where 4 F-15s couldnt out-dogfight a single F-22. Come talk to me when they start dropping like flies against Su-27 variants or S-300s or other such things.



Whats my problem? You are stuffing my mouth full of words I didnt say.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
You are missing what I am saying, I am not saying that the Russian aircraft have bad engines, they have excellent engines, I am just saying that currently the American ones ARE more efficient, ARE more powerful, and ARE more reliable. This may or may not change with the AL-41, we shall see.


I didn't miss what you said at all, you specifically said 'From what I have heard, the problem with the super maneuverable Russian aircraft is the engines' - what are we supposed to surmise from that?



Last generation aircraft? You didnt read my post. I'll say it again, the F-15 has killed 9 MiG-29s, half of which were flown by Russian trained pilots. Let me also add that the MiG-29 was designed specifically to counter the F-15...


Again, I did read your post, and those metrics don't matter because the aircraft we are discussing here ARE NOT THE ONES THE F-15 SHOT DOWN.

The Mig-29OVT is based on the MiG-29, but it is NOT THE SAME AIRCRAFT with the same limitations.

So again, the F-15 has a nice record, but it doesn't raise its profile in this discussion.




Dogfighting is just as much about the pilots as it is about the aircraft. Vietnam proved that, clunky aircraft with good dogfighters as pilots bested light and agile MiGs.


Vietnam proved a lot of things, one of which is you don't need the best to beat your enemy.



I do firmly assert and will do so until proven otherwise that the Russian aircraft cannot do their flips at higher speed without turning the pilots head into a piece of paper and folding it, as well as the aircraft in half.


They won't be doing flips at high speed, those are airshow tricks and have no place in anything. But an airshow demonstration is not the entire envelope of the aircraft.

Again, I invite you to come to the UK and sit on a Welsh mountain top next time India brings their Su-30MKI units here, you *will* be amazed.


When we lost an F-117 in 1999, I didnt lose any confidence in it


The day before the F-117 was shot down, it was the dogs bollocks, invincible to all those fan boys, nothing could touch it.

The day after it was shot down, it was 'old technology, obsolete and ready for retirement' to all those fan boys.

It was quite funny to see it happen on various forums.



Whats my problem? You are stuffing my mouth full of words I didnt say.


The problem is, you did say them.

On another note, think about the role the next generation of aircraft will play in the next 20 years. Theres no scope for them fighting the war they were designed for, instead they are going to be dropping bombs on third rate countries in the hunt for terrorists.

The US just spend $20billion developing and $70billion procuring an aircraft that won't do that job any better than the aircraft its replacing - the F-15.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Just to interject into you 2 gentlemen`s heated disussion - but the SU-27 was built to fight the F-15 , not the much shorter legged MiG-29 - and when the germans tested the MiG-29A and the report went straight to moscow - the faults were corrected and the advantages improved - yes the germans said in WVR not alot could beat the MiG-29A but it was very short ranged and the radar was basically crap - this was taken on board - A2A refueling , better non smokey engines and a radar that could do its job - the later MiG-29`s are a totally new aircraft.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Hey guys! Just wanted to drop in and share a video with you! This is by far

my favorite aircraft, it might be a little old by todays standards but it is still

one of the most maneuverable and elegant aircraft in the world and

can hang with any f-16, f-18, Mig-29, su-27 in a dog fight!

Here is the vid of the French AirForce Mirage 2000

The video is great quality and shows some nice low altitude high speed flying

over the sea. You wont be disapointed!



edit - to add: Its great quality for youtube.



[edit on 21-7-2007 by Clandestino]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference if you're flying a plane capable of pulling 22Gs, or 10Gs, because the PILOT is the weak link. No human in existence can come anywhere NEAR pulling 22Gs. Most pilots have a really hard time handling 8-9Gs, and that's with G suits, and other assistance in the plane.


Yea, which is exactly why I think that R&D should be focusing more on UCAV's instead of manned aircraft.
A pilot thats sitting in front of a computer screen hundreds of miles away, joystick in hand, will be a much more effective combat pilot than the one sitting in the cockpit.
First of all the obvious, not having to worry about the pilots G-Force restrictions the plane would be able to make any maneuvers that it could structurally handle.
Also, in my opinion, I think the pilot of the UCAV would take a lot more risks and be far more aggressive, given the fact that should he make a mistake it wouldnt cost him his life, as it would if he were in a manned fighter aircraft.
So, yes I know I went slightly off topic, my apologies to the OP but I thought it was worth mentioning.
Now as far as what i think is more maneuverable, its hard to say. From what I hear, maneuverability may be a moot point in the next gen stealth aircraft, aside from the need to outrun and out maneuver a anti-aircraft missile.
I seen a story about a single f-22 going up against 15 F-15 interceptors and the F-15 pilots claim that they were shot down before they even detected the F-22 on their systems.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Stunt planes in the Redbull Airrace and such, regularly pull up and over 10g's. Humans can easily pull over 10g's... the only problem is... not for long.

If I'm not mistaken the record was about 15g's in a Edge 540. It was for a few seconds... or maybe less though.

[edit on 22/7/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   
When I said engines, I was referring to the T/W ratio of these aircraft, not the quality of the engines themselves. The engines are excellent, and the planes are heavy.

Weather or not the fanboys opinoin changed is irrelevant as far as the facts go, because the educated people know the real facts. You also must understand that it was only after it was shot down that it truely became old tech, vulnerable tech.

However this changes nothing. Yes it was hit, however it has still proven to be the most effective attack aircraft ever flown, one loss for hundreds of SAM flyovers... this is my overall point, despite not being invincible, these aircraft are ridiculously effective and will remain so for the forseeable future. It is a tremendous advantage.

And I dissagree, the US just spent 70BN on creating an aircraft superior in every way shape and form to the F15.

I know that airshow tricks are not the entire envelope of the aircraft, I am just noting that the capability to pull those maneuvers at low speed is useless in a dogfight, where Gs limit both aircraft to the same turning rate despite canards and fancy 3D thrust vectoring. Tactics override everything.

Your comment concerning Vietnam is irrelevant, but since you went there, I will to. I want to point out that after they finally put a gun on the clunky ugly phantom, it killed the superagile MiGs with ease, 10 to 1.

Finally, I want to say that the current F15s do not have the old limitations either. While not acquiring the sane drastic airframe changes as the MiG35, Some already and 150+ of them will soon carry AESA and JHMCS, basically enough to beat anything currently in a dogfight except maybe the F22.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Finally, I want to say that the current F15s do not have the old limitations either. While not acquiring the sane drastic airframe changes as the MiG35, Some already and 150+ of them will soon carry AESA and JHMCS, basically enough to beat anything currently in a dogfight except maybe the F22.



How can that be?


Sure the F-15 has a T/W ratio inferior to the MiG-29 OVT and the Su-30 MKI series.



By your own yardstick that would mean the F-15 hasn't much chance



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by RichardPrice
I don't know where you get your information, but its wrong - the demonstrations I have seen by the MiG-35, MiG-29OTV, Su-27 and Su-30 have all been breathtaking...


Ah, but can they do such maneuvers with a full tank of gas and with ordnance/pods etc... hanging from the pylons? That is the one advantage that the F-22 would hold over all other operational fighters under combat conditions... Now I'm not saying that Russian aircraft are not maneuverable, quite the contrary, but I am not convinced of their combat capability or utility...


So here's the question then..

If you have a Raptor all filled up on fuel and it encounters a hostile requiring WVR merging(while its still on pregnant on fuel), then does its internal fuel displacement have absolutely no bearing on its manueverability?

It is obvious that manueverability is compromised when an a/c is burdened with heavy external loads like fuel pods and bulky BVR missiles.

But when any a/c encounter hostiles requiring WVR merge early on during mission clock, then I think it would be prudent for it to detach all the external 'heavies' (fuel pods, non-WVR missiles/mud-moving munitions) and reprofile its loadout for high-G WVR combat.
And as for WVR missiles causing notable asymmetirc energy bleeds; well I wouldn't put my money on it.

The MKI can do most of its hi-g combat manuevering with full loadouts w/o losing much, though there is a definite loss of 'smoothness' in manuevering.

Also fuel tanks with asymmetric amounts of fuel may contribute to the lack of smoothness but I guess only pilots would be able to give testament to that.

As for supersonic TVC manueverability; I believe the MKI can do whatever the Raptor can in the 'pitching' vertical axis at rated speeds esp since this axis is more forgiving towards the airframe at supersonic speeds(and it is the only TVC axis available to the Raptor).
However carrying out 'yawing' and 'rolling' TVC manuevers at supersonic speeds would be quite demanding on the airframe due to asymmetric forces on the wings.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Also saying that the MKI was a stop-gap till the MCA is like saying that the F-15 was a stop gap till the Raptor.
They are different generations of aircraft.
I'm sure the TVC combat capabilities of the MKI contributed to it being selected for the IAF.
Otherwise the lesser manueverable non-TVC MKK(PLAAF) versions were definitely available for picking.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join