Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

avon1944 wrote:

Corous wrote:

if the flanker is not pulling something outrageous like 20Gs, that should NOT happen.

Actually the structural limits on the Su-30 is "13G's" while there are very few pilots who handle more than "9G's." Even less the number of pilots who sustain "9G's."

Adrian

Well I wonder what the sustained G-limit is on the flanker...supposedly the Mig-29 is not a sustained 9G platform like the Viper (even the Fulcrum is stated to be able to execute 9G manuevers but only for a very limited duration)...you push it too hard at 8-9 Gs and the aircraft can split into two.

F-16.net Sponsor

blain2 wrote:

Quote:

supposedly the Mig-29 is not a sustained 9G platform like the Viper (even the Fulcrum is stated to be able to execute 9G manuevers but only for a very limited duration)...you push it too hard at 8-9 Gs and the aircraft can split into two.

WRONG. The basic MiG-29A/UB can't pull 9Gs with the full internal fuel load, once it gets somewhere below 75% (quote from memory) it can pull 9Gs for as long as the pilot can. There is no way an airframe could whitstand a certain G loading only for a limited time..either it can take X amount of Gs or it can't!

I think you are wrong on this RoAF. I do agree and I expect the Mig-29 to pull sustained Gs but the fact is if the aircraft is not designed properly and considering safety factors for military designed jets is usually 1.5% roughly. Also the quality of the manufacturing (considering India a long time user was frustrated by the glitches in the machine) suggest that it may not be capable to pull sustained Gs. But then if u look at Russian high quality Aluminum ore and established Aviation industry, u would difinitely expect the desired gs. If I remember correctly I have also read a US Viper pilots Interview who flew the German Mig-29s and claiming the machine cannot sustain Gs like the F-16 can. Secondly as I am sure u would also be aware of the interface sophistication issue as he stated 'what u can do in a Viper with a touch of a button u need to press 3 in Mig-29 to achive the same result.' Having a little background in aerodynamics I would point out humbly to the fact that the US fighter jets especially ones for interceptor and AA roles being long designed with a good major emphasis on the Sustained rate of turn. Thus reason for not going after a delta wing which gives good instantaneous rate but looses energy faster. Although both have pros and cons US has never opted for a delta n canard like EU and France. I also personally feel the wing sweep used on the Mig-29 would make it loose energy faster than a Viper. Anyways from engineering point of view it puts a good amount of work for the design and production engineers. US has been best in materials maybe now EU is ahead according to some cuz of use of composites. But personally I would rule out structural complications for the sustained Gs in this case ,rather than aerodynamics may also cause the Mig-29 to pull less sustained Gs although it may have a better instantaneous rate of turn. The Mig-29 on paper is supposed to outperform the Viper at certain low altitude flight profiles. But I guess its just on paper and one more thing that Russians lack are the readiness of the aircraft. IF a sudden need arises to scramble a good amount of Mig-29s you would find due to many reasons half the fleet is grounded.lol So although the claim of Blain 2 is doubtfull but there is a possibility. I think as RoAF pointed that Mig29 can do 9Gs but i have a feeling maybe on new versions and the German versions is still doubtful. I will try to find the actual article in AFM ,it could clear alot of these doubts.

By the way Structural damage can clearly occur post limit load until ultimate load is reached so if not designed properly or abused n pushed far past this region the aircraft can definitely be damaged according to theory. This is a general V-n diagram illustrating this. Ignore the values used.

Will do some research , find that article and come back to you to discuss in detail.

saker-hawk wrote:

Quote:

I think as RoAF pointed that Mig29 can do 9Gs but i have a feeling maybe on new versions and the German versions is still doubtful

The structure is the same for almost all MiG-29s in service
9.12 variant (MiG-29 S Fulcrum A) - the German machines were in this cathegory, nothing special about them
9.13 variant (MiG-29 SM, SE, SK, Fulcrum C) - the most common variant in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus
All of the planes mentioned above can pull 9Gs with light external stores and without a full internal fuel load. SUSTAINED Gs for long times is not what they were designed for - you could get Bingo fuel rather quickly if you dogfight too much in a Fulcrum.
They were designed to kill in the first pass or if they missed after the first turn - that's why they had good instantaneous turn rate, HMS and used to launch R-60s or R-73s in pairs.

new versions? K, M2, OVT are all prototypes
SMT is deployed only in limited numbers in Russia and Algerian ones will be upgraded.

Well sir then the Mig-29 has not been upto the mark from the initiation of its design. It was basically to counter the F-16 which has a good sustained rate of turn. To outclass it in the first instantaneous turn and shoot it down has been a dream of Mig designers given the fuel consumption makes Mig-29 into a point defence fighter. On the other hand the F-16 has a good range and with the latest conformal fuel tanks its even better. Mig-29 maybe good for point defence but even now they cannot compare with a Viper.

Quote:

the fuel consumption makes Mig-29 into a point defence fighter

Exactly.
That's why the new variants (K, M2, OVT) have the big dorsal spine, eliminated the slot intakes on top of the fuselage, structural wing tanks ( the original Fulcrum does not hold fuel in its wings), 2 extra pylons (to free the inboard ones for drop tanks) - all just to get more fuel in it.

RoAF wrote:

blain2 wrote:

Quote:

supposedly the Mig-29 is not a sustained 9G platform like the Viper (even the Fulcrum is stated to be able to execute 9G manuevers but only for a very limited duration)...you push it too hard at 8-9 Gs and the aircraft can split into two.

WRONG. The basic MiG-29A/UB can't pull 9Gs with the full internal fuel load, once it gets somewhere below 75% (quote from memory) it can pull 9Gs for as long as the pilot can. There is no way an airframe could whitstand a certain G loading only for a limited time..either it can take X amount of Gs or it can't!

I quote my information from an interview with a USAF pilot who had done ACM with the German Fulcrums (look up "Schlemming with the Fulcrum") and I think its mentioned in there.

Oh found it. Here it is:

Quote:

Besides visibility, I expected better turning performance," McCoy continued. "The MiG-29 is not a continuous nine-g machine like the F-16. I tried to do some things I normally do in an F-16. For example, I tried a high-AOA guns jink. I got the Fulcrum down to about 180 knots and pulled ninety degrees of bank and started pulling heavy g's. I then went to idle and added a little rudder to get the jet to roll with ailerons. The pilot took control away from me in the middle of these maneuvers because the airplane was about to snap. I use the F-16's quick roll rate like this all the time with no problem."

blain2, usually the MiG two-seater variants have less performance than the single-seat ones, they are not fully combat capable as the F-15/16/18 B/D.
e.g. MiG-23/29UB have no radar
max. G loading for MiG-23MF/MS/ML/MLD is 8, while the two-seater UB can take only 7Gs, same for the MiG-21 - I guess this is also the case here.

Ok that was the only point I was trying to verify.

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Israeli F-16s to face Indian SU-30MKI's in 2005