Tail slide MiG29 - yes Americans - no WHY?
RB Ducoty
doing the tail slide - kind of a hammerhead stall. They said most
american mil jet engines would flame out under this condition,
so they couldn't do the manuver. This might also be true of
the cobra manuver.
Can someone explain what is
different between the Russian and American engines.
--
rbd
Donald Dade
him) that it's not the engines but those backward facing vanes on top of
the inlets on the MiG-29 that scoop in air when the jet is moving
backwards that allow it to do it. General Dynamics (and this is the part
that I don't know if I can believe) reputedly refused to add similar
vanes the the Fighting Falcon for purely aethstetic reasons.
Please take this statement with a grain of salt, because I've never
had it confirmed by an independent source.
Don
Bob Keeter
>RB Ducoty (d...@mport.com) wrote:
>: On Wings last night (MiG29 show) it showed a MiG29 and an Su27
>: doing the tail slide - kind of a hammerhead stall. They said most
>: american mil jet engines would flame out under this condition,
>: so they couldn't do the manuver. This might also be true of
>: the cobra manuver.
>
>(Don't ask me why) This is especially apparent in the F-14. The cobra
>manuver, to the best of my knowledge, is very simular to the F/a-18
>Hornet Walk. As to why, don't ask me. I'm just a dumb Grade 10.
>
Simon,
The two basic reasons that the Cobra is doable in Mi's and Su's are tolerance for inlet distortion from the engine and very clean ex=
terior aerodynamics. The Russian engines and inlets are designed to tolerate an amaazingly distorted airflow into the engine. With=
the F-100's and F-101s in F-15s and F-16s, the engine has a very real possibility of stalling at these flight attitudes. At low al=
titude and in the Cobra attitude, it would be a pranged aircraft!
The very clean external aerodyamics basically means that the Russian aircraft simply "want" to fly. To get the same (approximately =
anyway) maneuverability the F-16 is a dynamically unstable aircraft; without its flight control computers (quad redundant) it would =
rapidly go out of control. That is why they did not even bother with a manual backup for the flight controls. The first Migs' and =
Su's were essentially "fly by wire"; that is if you include twisted strand steel cables! They are both inherently very stable flyer=
s (as I understand it the recovery from a cobra is to advance the throttle and let the stick float!) Since this is a _very_ unconve=
ntional flight regeime, the control surface scheduling program in the F-16s computers just dont have the algorithm. (of course if t=
hey did, you would still be flying a glider since the engine would be out!)
The F-18 "hornet walk", if we are talking about the same thing, is the high AOA, very slow pass down the flightline used in the Blue=
Angles show? That is a very stablized "tail stand" on the engines' thrust. the Cobra is a violently dynamic maneuver. Close, but=
no cigar. I'll have to admit though that if any US aircraft had a shot at doing a full fledged Cobra, the F-18 might be the one. =
OBTW, there was an interesting writeup on US aircraft and their capability to do the "cobra" in Aviation Week several months ago. T=
o me it sounded a bit like "sour grapes", i.e. that the maneuver really wasn't useful so why bother! Well, maybee not so useless if=
you had the opportunty to figure out how to use it!
respects
bk
Damien Burke
Jerk status confirmed I think! The intakes on top are for use on the ground;
the main intakes have a ramp that closes them to stop any FOD danger and the
intakes on top open up to feed the engine instead. They don't face backward
either. As for GD not adding such a thing to the F-16 because it wouldn't
look nice... excuse me while I laugh my head off.
--
[ Damien Burke | Software Engineering | Email: D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk ]
[ My world wide web home: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb ]
[ Sinclair Spectrum page: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb/speccy ]
[ European military aircraft page: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb/hangar ]
Simon Lam
: On Wings last night (MiG29 show) it showed a MiG29 and an Su27
: doing the tail slide - kind of a hammerhead stall. They said most
: american mil jet engines would flame out under this condition,
: so they couldn't do the manuver. This might also be true of
: the cobra manuver.
The Russian jets can tolerate a lot more abuse. The American jets can't.
(Don't ask me why) This is especially apparent in the F-14. The cobra
manuver, to the best of my knowledge, is very simular to the F/a-18
Hornet Walk. As to why, don't ask me. I'm just a dumb Grade 10.
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
(But it often helps)
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Erik Shilling
vector thrust. I believe there is only one American jet capable of the
cobra. the F23.
Erik Shilling
Robin Kim
>Donald Dade <da...@earthlink.net> writes:
>|> I was told (but the guy was a jerk and i don't know if I can believe
>|> him) that it's not the engines but those backward facing vanes on top of
>|> the inlets on the MiG-29 that scoop in air when the jet is moving
>|> backwards that allow it to do it.
>
>the main intakes have a ramp that closes them to stop any FOD danger and the
>intakes on top open up to feed the engine instead. They don't face backward
>either.
Not only that, the Su-27, which can also do tail slides, does not have
any auxiliary air intakes at all. The doors in the main (and only)
intakes are grates, not solid panels like in the MiG-29.
Mary Shafer
rbd> On Wings last night (MiG29 show) it showed a MiG29 and an Su27
rbd> doing the tail slide - kind of a hammerhead stall. They said
rbd> most american mil jet engines would flame out under this
rbd> condition, so they couldn't do the manuver. This might also be
rbd> true of the cobra manuver.
They're wrong--the F-15 preproduction aircraft were doing tail slides
(these are sometimes called tail slices, but I think it's just sloppy
diction) in the early '70s. I was in the MacAir control room watching
them.
Since that F-100 engine flew in more than one aircraft, I don't think
it's just the F-15, either, although I'm willing to bet that the Viper
FCS won't let you get to high enough alpha to do a good one.
I've also been watching cobras at air shows for as long as I can
remember, at least back into the '60s.
Wings is good, but not infallible. My husband and I tape them and
then snicker over the errors as we rerun the wrong bits again and
again. Sort of "Wings' Worst Hits" or something. They're
self-contradictory, too. The problem is that the folks who put the
shows together aren't technically trained, so they end up believing
anything anyone plausible tells them. Every time they feature a plane
that Ken or I worked on, we are amazed at how fundamentally wrong they
can be. You'd think we'd learn eventually.
In about 1975, there was a story, probably greatly embroidered, that I
heard from one of the MacAir pilots about a General from a foreign
country who had come to look at the F-15 because his country was
considering buying them. The General's English, however, was not
extremely good, but certainly good enough to take him on a demo
flight. As I recall, Jack Krings was the demo pilot. So they loaded
the General into the back seat, took off, and flew the demo flight.
The MacAir pilot did lots of neat stuff, culminating in a tail slide.
Then he asked the General if he wanted to fly the airplane back (to
the airfield) and the General said something like, "No, no. You land
now", so they did. When they got back to the ramp and found the
translator, it turned out that the General thought that he was being
asked if he wanted to fly _backwards_.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Maury Markowitz
> On Wings last night (MiG29 show) it showed a MiG29 and an Su27
> doing the tail slide - kind of a hammerhead stall.
MiG-29 crashes in flames at airshow. Americans - no. WHY?
Maury
Simon Lam
: I was told (but the guy was a jerk and i don't know if I can believe
: the inlets on the MiG-29 that scoop in air when the jet is moving
: that I don't know if I can believe) reputedly refused to add similar
: Please take this statement with a grain of salt, because I've never
: had it confirmed by an independent source.
He's a jerk alright. Those are used during take-off to prevent sucking in
sand and small stones from the ground.
--
Simon Lam
: The only airplanes that can do a cobra are those that have limited
: vector thrust. I believe there is only one American jet capable of the
: cobra. the F23.
Did a buzzer just go off somewhere? 8)
There are a couple of US planes without thrust vectoring that can also do
a tail slide.
Lane Smith
>They're wrong--the F-15 preproduction aircraft were doing tail slides
>(these are sometimes called tail slices, but I think it's just sloppy
>diction) in the early '70s. I was in the MacAir control room watching
>them.
Tail-slides or 'confidence maneuvers' used to be flown on new
Eagle-Drivers' second flight in the jet. It was a fun flight, even
though it was in a tub with an IP. You'd do a burner takeoff and
climbout, followed by area work culminating in tail slides. HOWEVER,
Eagle tail slides are not exactly demo-quality. I sure as heck
wouldn't want to be doing them anywhere near the ground.
Alexei Gretchikhine
> the 27 and 31 as manuverable as our unstable aircraft? Why
> haven't we bought the Russian designers and brought them over here?
> We got some German designers after we won WWII :)
You did. There are plenty examples out there.
_______________________________________________________________
Alexei Gretchikhine agr...@opie.bgsu.edu
http://ernie.bgsu.edu/~agretch/
Russian Aviation Page http://ernie.bgsu.edu/~agretch/RAP.html
RB Ducoty
b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us says...
>
>aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Simon Lam) wrote:
>>RB Ducoty (d...@mport.com) wrote:
>>: On Wings last night (MiG29 show) it showed a MiG29 and an Su27
>>: american mil jet engines would flame out under this condition,
>>: so they couldn't do the manuver. This might also be true of
>>: the cobra manuver.
>>
>>The Russian jets can tolerate a lot more abuse. The American jets can't.
>>(Don't ask me why) This is especially apparent in the F-14. The cobra
>>manuver, to the best of my knowledge, is very simular to the F/a-18
>>Hornet Walk. As to why, don't ask me. I'm just a dumb Grade 10.
>>
>
>The two basic reasons that the Cobra is doable in Mi's and Su's are
tolerance for inlet di
>stortion from the engine and very clean ex=
>terior aerodynamics. The Russian engines and inlets are designed to
tolerate an amaazingl
>y distorted airflow into the engine.
====================================================
Did they have to make a "trade off" for this inlet /engine capability? Are
the 27 and 31 as manuverable as our unstable aircraft? Why
haven't we bought the Russian designers and brought them over here?
We got some German designers after we won WWII :)
-rbd
Walt Shiel
>Since that F-100 engine flew in more than one aircraft, I don't think
>it's just the F-15, either, although I'm willing to bet that the Viper
>FCS won't let you get to high enough alpha to do a good one.
>
Huh? A tailslide is NOT a high AOA maneuver. In order to start a
tailslide, you have to pass thru zero airspeed in essentially a vertical
attitude -- more like a very low AOA at that point. Even getting there
does not require a very high AOA...and once the vertical climb is
established you'll have to decrease the AOA to maintain as the airspeed
drops.
>I've also been watching cobras at air shows for as long as I can
>remember, at least back into the '60s.
>
Maybe something akin to a cobra maneuver...but not the "real thing."
--
==>For All E-Mail Replies, Use "wsh...@airmail.net"
=============================================================
Walt Shiel - Author: "Cessna Warbirds, A Detailed and
Personal History of Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces"
[For More Info, E-Mail: wsh...@airmail.net]
=============================================================
dave
length of time. During an attack, for example, the enemy would think you
were leaving. Couldn't F-4's do that? I do not, however, understand the
significance of the tail slide. Would it ever be used in combat?
Christiaan Durrant
The F-18 can do it too but for reasons previously stated in this news
group doesn't:
The aircraft is below Vmca during manoeuvre,
The aircraft is overstressed doing it.
The Flanker doesn't have thrust vectoring and the FBW logic is overidden
to perform the manouevre.
Bob Keeter
<snip>
>>Jerk status confirmed I think! The intakes on top are for use on the ground;
>>the main intakes have a ramp that closes them to stop any FOD danger and the
>>intakes on top open up to feed the engine instead. They don't face backward
>>either.
>
>Not only that, the Su-27, which can also do tail slides, does not have
>any auxiliary air intakes at all. The doors in the main (and only)
>intakes are grates, not solid panels like in the MiG-29.
>
No doubt about it! The poor fellow is just plain lost. The ONLY thing that lets a jet engine go through a tail slide without stall=
ing is some really sexy internal aerodynamics in the engine and a pretty bonzo engine fuel control. In this case, the engine appear=
s to be just about immune to inlet distortion, which is a term referring to the turbulence caused by among other things, "off axis" =
flow of air into the engines inlet. With most engines, too much inlet distortion and they just quit producing thrust and start to m=
elt down!
bk
Mary Shafer
>I've also been watching cobras at air shows for as long as I can
>remember, at least back into the '60s.
>
ws> Maybe something akin to a cobra maneuver...but not the "real thing."
I've worked around airplanes since 1966 and am somewhat of an expert
on the dynamics of the airframe and my husband started working on
aircraft in 1962 and is one of the world's experts in dynamics and
control and we agree on what we saw, which was indeed the real thing.
Perhaps you might explain why you doubt my assessment?
I'm not trying an appeal to authority here; I'd really like to know
why you think that two trained observers, professionals in the
relevant disciplines, are wrong. It's not like we don't know how
airplanes fly. I might also point out that Al Bowers has said pretty
much the same thing repeatedly, although he's not old enough to go
back quite as far as Ken and I do.
Michel Ellis Chaffin
EEK now I come to think of it the standard manouvre for a Harrier(dunno about other AC)
to evade a heat seeker is to zoom so that the AC is between the Sun and the Missile, then
tailslide with a bit of VIFF to get as much displacement between the missile and the AC.
--
###############################################################################
# I know that I'm going to be like this forever # Michael Ellis Chaffin #
# Never going to be what I should # Email: mh...@osfa.aber.ac.uk #
# But if you give me just a little while # #############################
# I know I'm going to make you Bad for Good # 401C Davies Bryan, Penbryn #
# Jim Steinman. # UWA Aberystwyth SY23 3BY #
###############################################################################
Walt Shiel
>ws> Maybe something akin to a cobra maneuver...but not the "real thing."
>
>I've worked around airplanes since 1966 and am somewhat of an expert
>on the dynamics of the airframe and my husband started working on
>aircraft in 1962 and is one of the world's experts in dynamics and
>control and we agree on what we saw, which was indeed the real thing.
>
Well, I've been flying airplanes since 1968, including 13 years in the
active AF and several years in the ANG. I also have worked on several
aircraft programs as an civilian engineer (B-2, F-16, F-22, etc.).
Maybe it's a matter of definitions. I would define a no-shit Cobra as a
maneuver killing forward velocity with a high AOA and virtually no gain
in altitude...with the next step being to point the nose controllably
right back on the overshooting attacker. It requires some form of thrust
vestoring and/or flying canards to do that. How many aircraft does that
leave as contenders?
>Perhaps you might explain why you doubt my assessment?
>
I merely said that it may be possible for a variety of aircraft to do
something that looks sort of like a Cobra but does not really meet what I
understand to be the definition of a Cobra. It is what makes it a
relatively unique maneuver...albeit with very limited combat potential.
It's much like a high-g rudder roll -- you are about to die if you don't
do something and do it quickly. Purely defensive. The big difference
with the SU-27's Cobra is the aircraft is fully controllable and can put
its nose where it needs to to threaten and shoot at the opponent.
Alexei Gretchikhine
> MiG-29 crashes in flames at airshow. Americans - no. WHY?
Does any of them crash as result of hammerhead - no.
Cobra - no.
Slow speed high alfa low level pass with one engine out due to digesting a
FOD - yes. Pilot mistake (midair) - yes.
Are you saying that Americans can get alive out similar situations? - No.
Brian Elliott
>snip<
>The Russian jets can tolerate a lot more abuse. The American jets can't.
>(Don't ask me why)
>snip<
One particular area where there is a difference of views is on FOD.
I read an article about a visit to a Russian Su27 base that some F-15s
had made - I think they were from Langley. The American pilots were
evidently horrified about the state of the taxiways they were expected
to traverse to get to the runway and asked that their aircraft be towed
out to the runway where they would start the engines.
And, as people have pointed out, the Fulcrum has these intake panels
which seal up the engine intakes.
brian
Alexei Gretchikhine
> Rob:
>
> What is your source. You cannot, by looking at picture of the tail
> determinif it has vectored thrust. See above.
You can if read an article next to it. These appeared in AW&ST last
summer. I think just few moments before MAKS'95.
This installation was a second try, first looked more like ones fitted to
YF-22/23 - two dimentional "flat" TV surfaces. Interestingly, "round" VT
featured on that particular photo where two-dimentional as well.
Michel Ellis Chaffin
>I can understand the advantage of being able to fly backwards for some
>length of time. During an attack, for example, the enemy would think you
>were leaving. Couldn't F-4's do that? I do not, however, understand the
>significance of the tail slide. Would it ever be used in combat?
>
dave
>Perhaps you might explain why you doubt my assessment?
>
>I'm not trying an appeal to authority here; I'd really like to know
>why you think that two trained observers, professionals in the
>relevant disciplines, are wrong.
Mary,
I have none of your academic or professional credentials, but I have been
an aircraft and airshow observer since the Thunderbirds were flying brand
new F-100's, and I've never seen anything come close to the Cobra
Maneuver performed by the Su-27. Perhaps it's my experience, however
limited, that makes me skeptical. Tail slides are an altogether
different matter, and are routinely performed during the bi-wing
aerobatic exhibitions. What significance they have to military airctaft
or tactics is a mystery to me.
Damien Burke
|> The only airplanes that can do a cobra are those that have limited
|> vector thrust. I believe there is only one American jet capable of the
|> cobra. the F23.
Take a look at an Su-27's jet pipes. They're round; no vectored thrust there,
and it's _the_ cobra plane. There's also no such thing as an F23; YF-23 sure,
and I've never heard anything about it doing a cobra. If your argument stands,
what about the X-31 and that weird F-16 (AFTI?) with vectored thrust?
Maury Markowitz
> I was told (but the guy was a jerk and i don't know if I can believe
> him) that it's not the engines but those backward facing vanes on top of
> the inlets on the MiG-29 that scoop in air when the jet is moving
> backwards that allow it to do it.
The bleed air vanes on the -29 are there to provide air when the forward
doors are closed for FOD purposes (on landing the intakes snap shut to
keep out the dirt). Unlike modern USAF aircraft most Russian aircraft are
built to be operated from unprepared strips, so FOD is a big issue for
them. In the case of the -29 this was fairly easy to add because it has
movable ramps for shock control in the intakes that were made to move much
more than normal and be able to close it off entirely.
> General Dynamics (and this is the part that I don't know if I
> can believe) reputedly refused to add similar vanes the the
> Fighting Falcon for purely aethstetic reasons.
How about the fact that the intake is on the bottom of the plane so
there's nowhere to put them, and ther F-16 has fixed ramps so this
marginal gain would be offset by a lot of equipment. The F-15 would be
easier to mod.
Maury
Robin Kim
>eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling ) writes:
>|> The only airplanes that can do a cobra are those that have limited
>|> vector thrust. I believe there is only one American jet capable of the
>|> cobra. the F23.
>
>Take a look at an Su-27's jet pipes. They're round; no vectored thrust there,
>and it's _the_ cobra plane.
Just to muddle the issue, I've seen pictures of an experimental Su-27
variant with round pipes that DOES have vectored thrust (I think it's
called "one-dimensional"). The entire round nozzle tips move.
Note that I'm not disagreeing with your point; the Su-27 Flanker B does
not have vectored thrust.
steve hix
:On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Maury Markowitz wrote:
:
:> MiG-29 crashes in flames at airshow. Americans - no. WHY?
Sheer, blind, enormous good luck. (In addition to the continuous
training they undergo.) With continued good luck...
They have had a number of fatal accidents during training, though.
Including mid-airs (such as what nailed various Russian, Canadian,
and Italian teams in recent memory), and mechanical problems, such
as the broken elevator that took out the Thunderbirds (?) on the down
side of a loop.
:Does any of them crash as result of hammerhead - no.
Allen Clabaugh
<DRD...@lfwc.lockheed.com> wrote:
> I can understand the advantage of being able to fly backwards for some
> length of time. During an attack, for example, the enemy would think you
> were leaving. Couldn't F-4's do that? I do not, however, understand the
> significance of the tail slide. Would it ever be used in combat?
The F-4 (at least in the USN) practiced what's known as a rudder reversal
way back before Top Gun got started. It wasn't recommended as a tactical
maneuver. Run a video of the cobra some time and time how long the
aircraft is less than 300 knots and how long it's relative position over
the ground is stationary. You're a sitting duck for anyone with a .22.
Not a good idea in combat.
Allen Clabaugh a.cla...@cowan.edu.au
Edith Cowan University
Perth, Western Australia
Alexei Gretchikhine
> You know, if you were a REALLY cynical and skeptical kind of
> person, you could almost think that they pranged their birds
> on purpose. Within just a few months of seeing those
> humbled Russian pilots floating down on the ole silk, the Air
> Force bus a handful of their ejection seats! Particularly
> with the FOD incident, it was a pretty good advertisement!
Seats are good, but I am sure if they had another chance they'd rather
keep the jets:) Does anybody knows what's happening with these seats?
Brian Elliott
>On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Maury Markowitz wrote:
>> MiG-29 crashes in flames at airshow. Americans - no. WHY?
Sorry to bring it up but I remember an A-10 crashing at the Paris Air
Show, and there are others.
I assume you are talking about the TsAGI Test Pilots collision at
Fairford which I witnessed. As I have posted before, pilot error is not
confined to one side or the other.
brian
Robin Kim
><op...@ihlpf.att.com> (Robin Kim) writes:
>>
>>>Take a look at an Su-27's jet pipes. They're round; no vectored
>>>thrust there, and it's _the_ cobra plane.
>>
>>Just to muddle the issue, I've seen pictures of an experimental Su-27
>>variant with round pipes that DOES have vectored thrust (I think it's
>>called "one-dimensional"). The entire round nozzle tips move.
>
Thanks to Alexei for pointing out where I saw this picture.
>You cannot, by looking at picture of the tail
>determine it has vectored thrust. See above.
As Alexei said in his post, the accompanying text explained all. Even
without it, the way the nozzles extended unusually far back and were
drooping downward (if I remember correctly) was a pretty good tip
off. :^)
Damien Burke
|> In <4e62s9$4...@ssbunews.ih.att.com> op...@marconi.ih.att.com (Robin Kim)
|> writes:
|> >
|> >Damien Burke <D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
|> >>eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling ) writes:
|> >>|> The only airplanes that can do a cobra are those that have limited
|> >>|> vector thrust. I believe there is only one American jet capable
|> of the
|> >>|> cobra. the F23.
|> >>
|> thrust there,
|> >>and it's _the_ cobra plane.
|> >
|> >Just to muddle the issue, I've seen pictures of an experimental Su-27
|> >variant with round pipes that DOES have vectored thrust (I think it's
|> >called "one-dimensional"). The entire round nozzle tips move.
|> >
|> does
|> >not have vectored thrust.
|> >
|>
|> What is your source. You cannot, by looking at picture of the tail
|> determinif it has vectored thrust. See above.
I would guess the round pipes of a standard Su-27 are in no way identical to
those of the thrust-vectoring version Rob's seen - the extra hardware you'd
need to make different parts of the exhaust feathers move in different
directions wouldn't be inside the pipe, so they'd be visible on the outside;
the end of the pipe would still look round in an un-vectored state though.
Brian Elliott
>Damien Burke <D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling ) writes:
>>|> The only airplanes that can do a cobra are those that have limited
>>|> vector thrust. I believe there is only one American jet capable of the
>>|> cobra. the F23.
>>
>>Take a look at an Su-27's jet pipes. They're round; no vectored thrust there,
>>and it's _the_ cobra plane.
>Just to muddle the issue, I've seen pictures of an experimental Su-27
>variant with round pipes that DOES have vectored thrust (I think it's
>called "one-dimensional"). The entire round nozzle tips move.
>Note that I'm not disagreeing with your point; the Su-27 Flanker B does
>not have vectored thrust.
That's the Su-35 and I have seen photos of two of them with differing
shapes of jet nozzles; they were pictured in Flight International
magazine some months back.
brian
Brian Elliott
>What is your source. You cannot, by looking at picture of the tail
>determinif it has vectored thrust. See above.
>Erik Shilling
See my accompanying posting, Flight International some months had
pictures of two of the Su35s with the vectored thrust jet nozzles. The
first had an angular arrangement - sort of box like - which I suppose
was the prototype technology demonstrator. The other one had the more
normal jey pipes swivelled from their normal position. I understand
that this picture caused the photographer (a very friendly Russian
gentleman that I met last year) to have a visitation from some rather
unfriendly state security personnel.
brian
Erik Shilling
aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Simon Lam) writes:
>
>
>: What is your source. You cannot, by looking at picture of the tail
>: determinif it has vectored thrust. See above.
>
see a round exhaust pipe move up down left or right. I've seen them
widen and think but not point somewhere else.
Travel in the F-22 is limited, I think to 5 degrees
ERik
Erik Shilling
(Damien Burke) writes:
>
op...@marconi.ih.att.com (Robin Kim) writes:
>|> >Damien Burke <D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>|> >>eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling ) writes:
>|> >>|> The only airplanes that can do a cobra are those that have
limited
>|> >>|> vector thrust. I believe there is only one American jet
capable cobra. the F22.
>|> >>Take a look at an Su-27's jet pipes. They're round; no vectored
>|> thrust there,
>|> >>and it's _the_ cobra plane.
>|> >
>|> >Just to muddle the issue, I've seen pictures of an experimental
Su-27
>|> >variant with round pipes that DOES have vectored thrust (I think
it's
>|> >called "one-dimensional"). The entire round nozzle tips move.
>|> >
>|> >Note that I'm not disagreeing with your point; the Su-27 Flanker B
>|> does
>|> >not have vectored thrust.
>|> >
>|> Rob:
>|>
>|> What is your source. You cannot, by looking at picture of the tail
>|> determinif it has vectored thrust. See above.
>
>I would guess the round pipes of a standard Su-27 are in no way
identical to those of the thrust-vectoring version Rob's seen - the
extra hardware you'd need to make different parts of the exhaust
feathers move in different directions wouldn't be inside the pipe, so
they'd be visible on the outside; the end of the pipe would still look
round in an un-vectored state though.
I would not consider a guess to be a reliable source.
Erik
Brian Varine
>
> In <4e62s9$4...@ssbunews.ih.att.com> op...@marconi.ih.att.com (Robin Kim)
> writes:
> >
> >Damien Burke <D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling ) writes:
> >>|> The only airplanes that can do a cobra are those that have limited
> >>|> vector thrust. I believe there is only one American jet capable
> >>|> cobra. the F23.
> >>
> thrust there,
> >>and it's _the_ cobra plane.
> >
> >Just to muddle the issue, I've seen pictures of an experimental Su-27
> >variant with round pipes that DOES have vectored thrust (I think it's
> >called "one-dimensional"). The entire round nozzle tips move.
> >
> >Note that I'm not disagreeing with your point; the Su-27 Flanker B
> does
> >not have vectored thrust.
> >
> Rob:
>
> What is your source. You cannot, by looking at picture of the tail
> determinif it has vectored thrust. See above.
Okay, whats your source? Just about the whole @*#& newsgroup will tell you
the SU-27 DOES NOT HAVE VECTORED THRUST, neither does the MiG-29. They both
do "Cobra's" and "Skyhooks". US planes can do a cobra according to many folks
here who have seen it and I believe them! Why would they lie? The people
saying this are folks who work at places like NASA and various Air commands,
are you saying they have no idea what they are talking about?
--
==============================================================================
Brian R. Varine <var...@ucs.orst.edu>
http://www.orst.edu/~varineb
Oregon Freqs/Military.jpgs/Russian ECM list/car ECM eval
He who owns the electromagnetic spectrum, owns the battlefield!
When in doubt, JAM IT!!!!
STOP HIGHWAY ROBBERY------JOIN THE NMA!
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQBtAzDwm6oAAAEDAOjurmD0Ft9VXTvnVVOf5uOLbsSB4PuidmW+aDjV7F7+KRSb
fakuNHXVEhBYwTINVVnIjiSik12UcCv8UZXj/x9hAXBJXCk+v/8y9w6zk1Gu1iXC
/HYnR/zJIyVohkIJwQAFEbQmQnJpYW4gUi4gVmFyaW5lIDx2YXJpbmViQHVjcy5v
cnN0LmVkdT4=
=NYjj
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Simon Lam
: MiG-29 crashes in flames at airshow. Americans - no. WHY?
You haven't been to enough airshows. I've seen enough US and British
aircraft crash and burn to know that laws of probability works for
western aircraft too.
--
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
(But it often helps)
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Simon Lam
: What is your source. You cannot, by looking at picture of the tail
: determinif it has vectored thrust. See above.
Then just how do you tell if it has thrust vectoring? I have yet to see a
round exhaust pipe move up down left or right. I've seen them widen and
shink but not point somewhere else.
Curmudgeon
forth:
>In article r...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca, (Simon Lam) writes:
>:Erik Shilling (eri...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>:: The only airplanes that can do a cobra are those that have limited
>:: vector thrust. I believe there is only one American jet capable of the
>:: cobra. the F23.
>Too bad it isn't going to see service. (I think you meant the F-22.)
>I'm less certain about the Su-27, but I didn't think the MiG-29 had
>thrust vectoring.
>It certainly flew an impressive Cobra at the Salinas, CA airshow a couple
>years back. Appeared to pitch up fully with just elevator. Lots of it..
>:Did a buzzer just go off somewhere? 8)
>:There are a couple of US planes without thrust vectoring that can also do
>:a tail slide.
>Lots of them, actually, even a few jets.
>
>But, then, a tail slide is not the same thing as the Cobra.
At the Paris Air show this past June, the MIG's demo included a
"cobra", whereas the Su did not. Not that the Su was any less
impressive....
Curmudgeon
Simon Lam
I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW!!! I already answered a buggering elephant manure
load of E-mail about this!~!! I was thinking of one thing and typein
about another. Sorry for temper but the next guy or girl who picks me out
because of this is going to pay for it.
Matthew Saroff
>sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>>ws> Maybe something akin to a cobra maneuver...but not the "real thing."
>>
>>I've worked around airplanes since 1966 and am somewhat of an expert
>>on the dynamics of the airframe and my husband started working on
>>aircraft in 1962 and is one of the world's experts in dynamics and
>>control and we agree on what we saw, which was indeed the real thing.
>>
>Well, I've been flying airplanes since 1968, including 13 years in the
>active AF and several years in the ANG. I also have worked on several
>aircraft programs as an civilian engineer (B-2, F-16, F-22, etc.).
>Maybe it's a matter of definitions. I would define a no-shit Cobra as a
>maneuver killing forward velocity with a high AOA and virtually no gain
>in altitude...with the next step being to point the nose controllably
>right back on the overshooting attacker. It requires some form of thrust
>vestoring and/or flying canards to do that. How many aircraft does that
>leave as contenders?
Hi,
I remember reading about an interview with Su's chief aerodynamic designer,
and he said that at high angles of attack, the center of lift on the SU-27
moves back, which is one of the reasons that they even consider doing it
close to the ground. The pitch-down is not particularly controllable, but
it is predictable.
BTW, in testing both the F-14 and the F-15, they achieved angles of attack
greater than 90 degrees. Of course in the case of the F-14, they didn't
realize until later what happens when you mix high AoA with some adverse
yaw.....
Alexei Gretchikhine
> In <4e79h1$s...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
> aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Simon Lam) writes:
> >
(my editor might have screewed who said what)
> >: What is your source. You cannot, by looking at picture of the tail
> >: determinif it has vectored thrust. See above.
> >
> >Then just how do you tell if it has thrust vectoring? I have yet to
> see a round exhaust pipe move up down left or right. I've seen them
> widen and think but not point somewhere else.
The best example with round nozzle which points up to 90 degrees down of
centerline of the airframe is Yak-141/41. I have heard that modification
of this engine can be use as an alternative for MiG Project I.42.
Of course you won't get this radical trust vectoring on new MiG, but the
principle they used on Yak can be used to prduce a 3D nozzle with
afterburner.
Chris Douglas
>
> You know, if you were a REALLY cynical and skeptical kind of
> person, you could almost think that they pranged their birds
> on purpose. Within just a few months of seeing those
> humbled Russian pilots floating down on the ole silk, the Air
> Force bus a handful of their ejection seats! Particularly
> with the FOD incident, it was a pretty good advertisement!
>
> got him out of that mess in condition to walk away!
>
> Respects
> bk
Last year Aviation Week ran a story on the Russian seats (I don't
remember the designation), and how American designers were so impressed
by their performance. It's particularly embarassing considering that
Communist States (in general quite rightly) are assumed to care much
less about the lives of their individual pilots--yet their seats are
certainly the ones I'd rather be sitting in when my plane was nosing in
(though they're also the only parts of the USSR I'd ever have considered
residing in...)
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Douglas - cdou...@origin.ea.com
Production Designer/Animator - Origin Systems, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------
The mindless corporate entity for which I work has
no opinions. Those expressed must be my own.
-----------------------------------------------------
Bob Keeter
Maury Markowitz
Alexei Gretchikhine <agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU> wrote:
> Does any of them crash as result of hammerhead - no.
> Cobra - no.
> Slow speed high alfa low level pass with one engine out due to digesting a
> FOD - yes. Pilot mistake (midair) - yes.
> Are you saying that Americans can get alive out similar situations? - No.
Alex, it was a joke! I was making fun of the original post.
Maury
Bob Keeter
>sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>
>>it's just the F-15, either, although I'm willing to bet that the Viper
>>FCS won't let you get to high enough alpha to do a good one.
>>
>Huh? A tailslide is NOT a high AOA maneuver. In order to start a
>tailslide, you have to pass thru zero airspeed in essentially a vertical
>attitude -- more like a very low AOA at that point. Even getting there
>does not require a very high AOA...and once the vertical climb is
>established you'll have to decrease the AOA to maintain as the airspeed
>drops.
From one point of view you could consider a tailslide a 180 deg AOA,
but that isn't the important part. High, but _conventional_ AOA causes
distortion of the airflow into the inlets of the engines. The distorted
flow messes up the internal aerodynamics the the point that some engines
will simply "go out". A falling aircraft, even if its nose is still pointed vertically, has a very "wierd" airflow into the front e=
nd of the engine. Unless you have a pretty amazing engine (some do) this "back
pressure" can cause engine stalls, surging, etc.
bk
Bob Keeter
>Did they have to make a "trade off" for this inlet /engine capability? Are
>the 27 and 31 as manuverable as our unstable aircraft? Why
>haven't we bought the Russian designers and brought them over here?
>We got some German designers after we won WWII :)
>
>-rbd
>
I'm sure that there's no free lunch, but _very_ careful
design work is the best way to minimize compromises in
your aircraft. I do not know what trades were made,
obviously, the trades were not too detrimental to the
other capabilities of the aircraft. (Take note that
when Germany re-united, they kept the East German Mig-29s
on active duty; and the Teutonic logic and practicalilty
is legendary.) The Mig was not optimized for air show
spectacles, its an absolutely first rate fighter, and the
Germans knew it.
If you check, Aviation Week about a year ago ran a
technical comparison of the technical performance
of F-16s (our one truely unstable aircraft, designed
as such for maneuverability). It was a very interesting
comparison in that the Mig was at least equal to the
F-16 without the complication of unstable aerodynamics.
More recently, there was an article in Av Leak on
the DACT between _clean_ USAFE F-16s and Luftwaffe
Mig-29s with external tanks, etc. Suffice to say
that the F-16s were claimed to eventually get a shot,
but the _FIRST_ shot was from the Mig.
As for why we havent snagged any of the Russian designers,
I'd say that was a very good question. I'm sure that its
been contemplated, and for all weknow, been done. If so
it would still take a while for any products of their
labors to show up on flightlines. If it hasn't happened
yet, it will happen soon. They are just plain too good
at what they do not to try to acquire some of that
expertise. Unfortunately, some of their basic design
approaches are different enough from ours as to be
discounted as impractical, archaic, or just plain
stupid by the adherants of "high tech".
Dont get me wrong, the Russian planes could be beat
in air to air combat and there were inevetably some
performance compromises, but they are still eye-
watering, flatout pretty flying machines. With pilots
of equal skill and currency, they are every bit
as good as any other operational aircraft for air
combat, and probably quite a bit better than most.
Respects
bk
Donald Dade
>>Since that F-100 engine flew in more than one aircraft, I don't think
>>it's just the F-15, either, although I'm willing to bet that the Viper
>>FCS won't let you get to high enough alpha to do a good one.
>>
I think what Mary meant was that if you don't have a velocity vector, how
can the FCS possibly derive your AOA? In such the a situation, the F-16
FCS would probably go WHAT THE !@#$. It is a high AOA maneuver in the
sense that the FCS knows that something ain't normal, and the situation
is nothing like the one necessary to keep the already marginally stable
plane from departing. The FCS probably wouldn't let you get even close to
such a situation.
Don
Sweetcorn Mike
>Wait a minute, Simon....a TAIL SLIDE is not the same maneuver as a COBRA. No
>Cobra. Thrust vectoring has nothing to do with tail slides, but everything to
>do with Cobras -- although I do believe that a full-flying canard can
>accomplish much the same thing.
Wait a minute Walt thrust vectoring dosn't actually have anything to do
with Cobra's either(neither do Canards!) The Cobra can be done by a
Sukhoi 27 and a Mig29 (Despite posts saying that other AC can do it as
well I wil believe it when I see it) neither of which has(in the
incarnation that did the manouvre) had either Thrust Vectoring or
Canards.
A Cobra needs the AC to be able to cope with massive inlet distortion,
which would lead to a compressor stall in most western AC, and very high
rates of pitch at high angles of attack which unstable AC are unlikely to
be able to do.
#########################################################################
######
# I know that I'm going to be like this forever # Michael Ellis Chaffin
#
# Never going to be what I should # Email:
mh...@osfa.aber.ac.uk #
# But if you give me just a little while #
#############################
# I know I'm going to make you Bad for Good # 401C Davies Bryan,
Penbryn #
# Jim Steinman. # UWA Aberystwyth SY23
3BY #
#########################################################################
######
Jacob M McGuire
MiG29 - yes .. by Bob Kee...@owens.ridgecr
> technical comparison of the technical performance
> of F-16s (our one truely unstable aircraft, designed
> as such for maneuverability). It was a very interesting
> comparison in that the Mig was at least equal to the
> F-16 without the complication of unstable aerodynamics.
> More recently, there was an article in Av Leak on
> the DACT between _clean_ USAFE F-16s and Luftwaffe
> Mig-29s with external tanks, etc. Suffice to say
> that the F-16s were claimed to eventually get a shot,
> but the _FIRST_ shot was from the Mig.
As we all argued about earlier, the external tanks give the MiG a
range that just begins to approach that of the F-16, and the MiG will
always have external tanks on a combat mission, practically, and the
reason that the MiG got the first shot is because the planes were
limited to short-range missiles, otherwise the MiGs probably would of
sucked heinous AMRAAM death.
Andreas Barbiero
agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU says...
>
>On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
>
>Cobra - no.
>Slow speed high alfa low level pass with one engine out due to digesting a
>FOD - yes. Pilot mistake (midair) - yes.
>Are you saying that Americans can get alive out similar situations? - No.
>
>Alexei Gretchikhine agr...@opie.bgsu.edu
> http://ernie.bgsu.edu/~agretch/
>Russian Aviation Page http://ernie.bgsu.edu/~agretch/RAP.html
>
>
>
Manuever!
Accidents happen on all sides, they are tragic. I remember reading that a
MiG-29 pilot ejected during an airshow stunt gone wrong and despite not having
his parachute fully open, (he was low to the ground) he was out flying again
in a few hours.
BTW, the Cobra is impressive, but has NO direct military value whatsoever.
Lots of skill and a hot plane- YES, combat maneuver- NO
Andreas
MARK DONALDSON
>You can if read an article next to it. These appeared in AW&ST last
>summer. I think just few moments before MAKS'95.
>This installation was a second try, first looked more like ones fitted to
>YF-22/23 - two dimentional "flat" TV surfaces. Interestingly, "round" VT
>featured on that particular photo where two-dimentional as well.
I don't recall YF-23 having vectoring nozzles. Instead, its nozzles are
recessed for additional IR masking.
Corsair
__________________________________________________________
CAG of the "VF-84 Jolly Rogers" Simulation Squadron
__________________________________________________________
Web CAG of The Unofficial "Jolly Rogers" Site
http://www-home.calumet.yorku.ca/mdonalds/www/home.htm
__________________________________________________________
The 3 Rules of ACM:
* Speed is Life
* Lose Sight - Lose Fight
* If You're Not Cheating - You're Not Trying Hard Enough
__________________________________________________________
Jussi Saari
On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Jacob M McGuire wrote:
> > More recently, there was an article in Av Leak on
> > the DACT between _clean_ USAFE F-16s and Luftwaffe
> > Mig-29s with external tanks, etc. Suffice to say
> > that the F-16s were claimed to eventually get a shot,
> > but the _FIRST_ shot was from the Mig.
> As we all argued about earlier, the external tanks give the MiG a
> range that just begins to approach that of the F-16, and the MiG will
> always have external tanks on a combat mission, practically, and the
I wouldn't be so sure. Carrying the centerline tank prevents the MiG
from firing its gun so I doubt if the MiGs really use it so often,
especially on intercept missions. And don't forget that when long range is
needed MiG-23s or Su-27s could be used instead MiG-29s.
> reason that the MiG got the first shot is because the planes were
> limited to short-range missiles, otherwise the MiGs probably would of
> sucked heinous AMRAAM death.
Theres no point in making a mock combat just to prove that a fighter
which has BVR weapons usually wins a BVR fight against one that hasn't.
If the F-16 had had AMRAAMs then the MiG should have had R-77s.
Jussi
David Setser
>Does any of them crash as result of hammerhead - no.
>Cobra - no.
>Slow speed high alfa low level pass with one engine out due to digesting a
>FOD - yes. Pilot mistake (midair) - yes.
>Are you saying that Americans can get alive out similar situations? - No.
Only because the MiG-29 and SU-27 have superior ejection seats. A lot of
organizations are VERY interested in the Russian K-36 seat - including the
US Air Force, which bought one for testing.
At least there was a bright side to crashing all those airplanes at airshows!
--
Dave Setser - dse...@world.std.com
Pilot and Professional Passenger
"If man were meant to fly, he'd have been born with a propeller on his nose"
Alexei Gretchikhine
> >Slow speed high alfa low level pass with one engine out due to digesting a
> >FOD - yes. Pilot mistake (midair) - yes.
> >Are you saying that Americans can get alive out similar situations? - No.
>
> Only because the MiG-29 and SU-27 have superior ejection seats. A lot of
> organizations are VERY interested in the Russian K-36 seat - including the
> US Air Force, which bought one for testing.
I am sure waiting to see F-16 getting out of low speed high alfa FOD.
Isn't it what you imply? ;)
Stephen M. Ryan
: > organizations are VERY interested in the Russian K-36 seat - including the
: > US Air Force, which bought one for testing.
The ACES II remains the superior ejection seat, unless you're talking
about ejection at speeds over 600 kts. The Russian K-36 is *much* heavier
and slower due to its design capability for ejection at 750 kts. This is
accomplished in part by having a large metal shield swing up in front of
the pilot during the sequence to keep the wind blast from shredding him.
This design adds a great deal of weight to the seat (the seat is nearly
300 lbs heavier than ACES II) and slows it down. I was told by an expert
on ACES at Kelly AFB that the Mig-29 pilot that ejected out of his "cobra"
manuever in Paris would have gotten a full chute with an ACES II, based on
the time available before the pilot hit the ground. There are trade-offs
to any design, and the Russians wanted to have greater high-speed
survivability in exchange for a slightly reduced low-altitude capability.
The ACES designers felt low-altitude ejections were the most important,
because they are more frequent than opportunities to eject at speeds
greater than 650 kts. The F-111 capsule design is the exception--the
aircraft mission envisions doing Mach 1 at 200 feet during combat, so the
capsule is the only sure system to keep the crew from being killed when
they hit the airstream.
Steve Ryan
Simon Lam
: >Then just how do you tell if it has thrust vectoring? I have yet to
: see a round exhaust pipe move up down left or right. I've seen them
: widen and think but not point somewhere else.
: Travel in the F-22 is limited, I think to 5 degrees
F-22 has rectangular nozzles.
Bob Keeter
>I can understand the advantage of being able to fly backwards for some
>length of time. During an attack, for example, the enemy would think you
>were leaving. Couldn't F-4's do that? I do not, however, understand the
>significance of the tail slide. Would it ever be used in combat?
>
Flying backwards isn't the object. Except for the Harrier in a hover,
there isn't any aircraft I've ever seen that can "fly" backwards.
The fact that a jet aircraft can even execute a tail slide betrays
a degree of control (over the aircraft and engine) that _WOULD_ have
a great deal of use in A-A combat.
Regards
bk
Alexei Gretchikhine
> on ACES at Kelly AFB that the Mig-29 pilot that ejected out of his "cobra"
> manuever in Paris would have gotten a full chute with an ACES II, based on
I don't have an article from AW&ST handy, but I reassure you that it was
no "cobra" he ejected out. BTW, it was low speed K-36 performance that
saved his butt.
______________________________________________________________
Stephen M. Ryan
: On 28 Jan 1996, Stephen M. Ryan wrote:
: > on ACES at Kelly AFB that the Mig-29 pilot that ejected out of his "cobra"
: > manuever in Paris would have gotten a full chute with an ACES II, based on
: I don't have an article from AW&ST handy, but I reassure you that it was
: no "cobra" he ejected out. BTW, it was low speed K-36 performance that
: saved his butt.
I was not denigrating the Russian seat, but asserting that the ACES II is
better in that situation. The K-36 has a different envelope, so the
performances of the 2 seats will be different in different ejection
situations (K-36 will outperform in some, ACES in some). K-36 saved part
of his butt, the muddy ground saved the rest of it when he hit with a
streamer instead of a chute. I don't really remember what maneuver he
was doing, just that he was low and slow.
Regards,
Steve Ryan
Simon Lam
: about ejection at speeds over 600 kts. The Russian K-36 is *much* heavier
: and slower due to its design capability for ejection at 750 kts. This is
: accomplished in part by having a large metal shield swing up in front of
: the pilot during the sequence to keep the wind blast from shredding him.
: This design adds a great deal of weight to the seat (the seat is nearly
: 300 lbs heavier than ACES II) and slows it down. I was told by an expert
: manuever in Paris would have gotten a full chute with an ACES II, based on
: to any design, and the Russians wanted to have greater high-speed
: survivability in exchange for a slightly reduced low-altitude capability.
: The ACES designers felt low-altitude ejections were the most important,
: because they are more frequent than opportunities to eject at speeds
: greater than 650 kts. The F-111 capsule design is the exception--the
: aircraft mission envisions doing Mach 1 at 200 feet during combat, so the
: capsule is the only sure system to keep the crew from being killed when
: they hit the airstream.
Does anyone know if the MiG-29 is Zero-Zero?
Can someone please explain to me the details of the F-111's capsule system?
Ulf Schorling
Americans - no WHY?":
> >
> >The two basic reasons that the Cobra is doable in Mi's and Su's are
> tolerance for inlet distortion from the engine and very clean ex=
> >terior aerodynamics. The Russian engines and inlets are designed to
> tolerate an amaazingly distorted airflow into the engine.
>
I agree with you about the more tolerant engines concerning air intake
distortion. As far as I know the Mig-29 ( perhaps the SU too ) uses it's
auxiliary air-inlet ( used for taxing on dirt strips ) to support it's air
intake during these maneuvers.
But I have to disagree on the very clean exterior areodynamics.
The Mig-29, a fine example of russian mil jets, is of a very crude outer
finish. You wont find a western jet with up to 5-7 mm displacement of
outer-skin-elements, but the Mig-29 has it.
So they have their pros and cons.
But one thing is for sure, the lack of money and "high tech" in the east
made their engineers more creative in solving the problems they had.
Cya
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulf Schorling |
U...@doomsday.shnet.org |
USMTSc...@T-Online.de |
|
Only the spirit of attack, born in a --------+--/ \--+--------
brave heart will bring success to any O (_) | | (_) o
fighter aircraft, no matter how highly | ( ) |
developed it may be. (Galland) +---------+
(_)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Stephen M. Ryan
: Does anyone know if the MiG-29 is Zero-Zero?
: Can someone please explain to me the details of the F-111's capsule system?
: --
Don't know about the Mig for sure, but I would guess "yes". You have to
remember that zero-zero assumes no downward velocity. The Mig pilot in
question was probably below 0 feet altitude in that sense because of his
downward velocity when he ejected, which is probably why he did not get a
full chute from a 0-0 seat.
I know something about the F-111 capsule. It is a rocket-propelled system
that can be initiated by either crewmember using a centrally located
handle and trigger. The crew compartment will get approx. 400 feet
altitude from 0 feet, and two large chutes deploy to carry the capsule
down. THe capsule is surrounded by a large self-inflating bladder that
serves to cushion impact and function as a raft for the capsule on water.
I believe the capsule stays pressurized during high-alt ejections. There
is survival gear stowed in the crew compartment at all times. The system
is very survivable, although there have been a number of fatal or
disabling injuries that are usually caused by ocillation of the capsule
under the chutes. Striking the ground hard on a downward swing does bad
things to your body. This is the same reason they changed the B-1A capsule
for the B-1B ACES II system. A three-chute system was experimented with
(for added stability) but only served to increase the incidence of
entangling the chutes. Despite the bad press resulting from a relatively
few bad injuries or fatalities, it has roughly an 80% survival rate. Not
as good as ACES II, which has around 96% (including "out-of-envelope"
ejections), but not bad considering what the system has to do.
Steve Ryan
Viper
> If you check, Aviation Week about a year ago ran a
> technical comparison of the technical performance
> of F-16s (our one truely unstable aircraft, designed
> as such for maneuverability). It was a very interesting
> comparison in that the Mig was at least equal to the
> F-16 without the complication of unstable aerodynamics.
> More recently, there was an article in Av Leak on
> the DACT between _clean_ USAFE F-16s and Luftwaffe
> Mig-29s with external tanks, etc. Suffice to say
> that the F-16s were claimed to eventually get a shot,
> but the _FIRST_ shot was from the Mig.
In fact, I'm quite senile, but if I can recall correct, it said some
more. It said that in one-vs-one or simple engagements like that, MiGs
took the price. However in MANY-on-MANY, dirty, dangerous clashes, F-16s
seemed to beat the hell out of MiGs. I think it had something to do with
F-16 radar. Vipers could keep track on almost all MiGs, which gave them
superior understanding of the situation, but MiGs had Archer-like
thingies, and Helmet-Mounted-Sight, which gave them advantage in 1-on-1
or similar small engagements. But I think it suites perfectly fine the
old Soviet Doctrine, which called for everything airborne to be commanded
by ground controllers, ground based radars etc. There is MiG-31, and
MiG-31M now of course... But still, this is a major flaw, I guess, to fly
blind...
Comments?
-=# Viper #=-
Damien Burke
>In <4e7vcu$h...@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk> D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk
>(Damien Burke) writes:
>>
>op...@marconi.ih.att.com (Robin Kim) writes:
>
>>|> >Damien Burke <D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>|> >>eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling ) writes:
>>|> >>|> The only airplanes that can do a cobra are those that have
>limited
>>|> >>|> vector thrust. I believe there is only one American jet
>capable cobra. the F22.
[snip]
>>I would guess the round pipes of a standard Su-27 are in no way
>identical to those of the thrust-vectoring version Rob's seen - the
>extra hardware you'd need to make different parts of the exhaust
>feathers move in different directions wouldn't be inside the pipe, so
>they'd be visible on the outside; the end of the pipe would still look
>round in an un-vectored state though.
>
>I would not consider a guess to be a reliable source.
At least I said it was a guess; unlike your simple assertion that only
vectored thrust a/c can do a cobra, which is patently untrue. Anyway, I would
not consider *anything* on usenet a reliable source unless backed up by other
references.
--
[ Damien Burke | Software Engineering | Email: D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk ]
[ My world wide web home: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb ]
[ Sinclair Spectrum page: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb/speccy ]
[ European military aircraft page: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb/hangar ]
MARK DONALDSON
>>Then just how do you tell if it has thrust vectoring? I have yet to
>see a round exhaust pipe move up down left or right. I've seen them
>widen and think but not point somewhere else.
>Travel in the F-22 is limited, I think to 5 degrees
However, the F-22's "paddles" at the rear of the craft (the moving part of the
vectoring system) are easily visible. From the footage I saw of the engine
tests, the angle looked to be greater than 5 degrees (but less than 45).
Viper
Hi there!
If we're still talking of the same ejection this thread was talking about
a couple of days ago, then I'd say it was almost head on collision (both
29s were climbing, possibly at the bottoms of the loops, so I'm not sure
about slow... But then again, I don't have a very good memory... :-) )
and a rather nasty one. You probably seen THE pic! Well, in the article,
(the one from AW&ST), it was stated, black upon newspaper, that Zvezda is
a better seat. And that it outperformed ACES-2, or performed the same,
while in slow speed ejections, and REALLY OUTPERFORMED ACES-2 in high
speed ejections. To put it simple, Zvezda's "survival envelope" _covered_
the one of ACES-2, which means, it performed no worse at slow speeds, and
saved pilots at high speeds that would be stone-cold-dead if they "chose"
to eject with ACES-2. In fact I don't remember reading anything about "ACES
outperform in some". I do remember though, that Americans were shocked,
when they found out that Russians _DO_ care about their pilots ( should I
spell it out ? Care _MORE_ about their pilots than Americans do!). That's
why the issue of buying (Hmmmm.....?) Zvezda was ever brought up: not because
"... in some, ... in some", but because Zvezda was clearly better!
BTW, do you know anything about _helo_ crew extraction systems?
Comments? Charges? Flames?
-=# Viper #=-
steve hix
:dave <DRD...@lfwc.lockheed.com> wrote:
:>I can understand the advantage of being able to fly backwards for some
:>length of time. During an attack, for example, the enemy would think you
:>were leaving. Couldn't F-4's do that? I do not, however, understand the
:>significance of the tail slide. Would it ever be used in combat?
:>
:Flying backwards isn't the object. Except for the Harrier in a hover,
:there isn't any aircraft I've ever seen that can "fly" backwards.
Any ol' J3/Taylorcraft/Luscombe/Auster/... with a steady 30-knot headwind.
Watched a friend of mine land a Citabria under those conditions,
and we were so bemused that we almost forgot to go out and
tie the poor guy down once he was grounded.
Bob Keeter
>Did a buzzer just go off somewhere? 8)
>There are a couple of US planes without thrust vectoring that can also do
>a tail slide.
>--
_Exactly_ which US JET aircraft can do a tail slide without the engines
blowing out as soon as the plane starts to fall backwards?
Do you wish to reconsider?
bk
Alexei Gretchikhine
> ejection from an aircraft, pointed at the ground and coming down hill
> fast (like the SU-27 that fodded an engine and acted like a lawn dart!)
> is MUCH harder than "zero-zero".
Shouldn't it be a MiG-29 or are you talking about Italian accedent involved
Su-27?
_______________________________________________________________
Alexei Gretchikhine agr...@opie.bgsu.edu
Ed Rasimus
I see no reason to reconsider. US jet engines are nowhere near so
sensitive. In twenty-three years of flying a range of US jets, I
never, repeat NEVER, experienced an in-flight flameout.
Engines don't "blow-out" because of reversal of surrounding airflow.
They do suffer stagnation and stalls due to disruption of the intakes,
either at high AOA or due to shock waves in the intakes. Tail slides
are not at high AOA nor are they trans-sonic. It's more like a strong
tail wind during ground operations.
As for some aircraft that I've experienced tail slides in: T-37, T-38,
F-105 and F-4 all pass the test. The real issue in tail slides is
controllability to remain vertical until zero airspeed and into the
slide. Whether or not you get an actual reversal in older aircraft
(prior to FBW) is a function of luck, but it does happen, and the only
flameouts likely are during sudden throttle movements during the
eventual end-swapping which causes the intake airflow disruption.
Bob Keeter
>:Flying backwards isn't the object. Except for the Harrier in a hover,
>:there isn't any aircraft I've ever seen that can "fly" backwards.
>
>Any ol' J3/Taylorcraft/Luscombe/Auster/... with a steady 30-knot headwind.
>
>Watched a friend of mine land a Citabria under those conditions,
>and we were so bemused that we almost forgot to go out and
>tie the poor guy down once he was grounded.
>
Point well taken! Should have known that in this venue must specify
_airspeed_ not _true_! Ha!
Have a good one
bk
Dennis Jensen
eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling ) wrote:
>In <4e7vcu$h...@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk> D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk
>(Damien Burke) writes:
>>
>op...@marconi.ih.att.com (Robin Kim) writes:
>
>>|> >Damien Burke <D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>|> >>eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling ) writes:
>>|> >>|> The only airplanes that can do a cobra are those that have
>limited
>>|> >>|> vector thrust. I believe there is only one American jet
>capable cobra. the F22.
>
>>|> thrust there,
>>|> >>and it's _the_ cobra plane.
>>|> >
>>|> >Just to muddle the issue, I've seen pictures of an experimental
>Su-27
>>|> >variant with round pipes that DOES have vectored thrust (I think
>it's
>>|> >called "one-dimensional"). The entire round nozzle tips move.
>>|> >
>>|> >Note that I'm not disagreeing with your point; the Su-27 Flanker B
>>|> does
>>|> >not have vectored thrust.
>>|> >
>>|> Rob:
>>|>
>>|> What is your source. You cannot, by looking at picture of the tail
>>|> determinif it has vectored thrust. See above.
>>
>>I would guess the round pipes of a standard Su-27 are in no way
>identical to those of the thrust-vectoring version Rob's seen - the
>extra hardware you'd need to make different parts of the exhaust
>feathers move in different directions wouldn't be inside the pipe, so
>they'd be visible on the outside; the end of the pipe would still look
>round in an un-vectored state though.
>
>I would not consider a guess to be a reliable source.
>
>
>
Erik
A year or so ago they had an airshow at Avalon, near Melbourne, Australia. One
of the static and flying exhibits was an Su-27, which did the Cobra on two
separate occasions. Looking at the manoeuvre through binoculars, there was
definately no thrust vectoring, just a very rapid pull-back on the stick.
Closer inspection of the aircraft also gave no indication of thrust vectoring.
Just standard turkey feathers.
The F-15 Eagle has been tested to +120' AOA, and the F-14 to +90' AOA (source
International Defense Review, circa 1980).
Dennis
Bob Keeter
>
>Does anyone know if the MiG-29 is Zero-Zero?
>
I think I remember that it was, but not sure. Just so that there is no
misunderstanding, "zero-zero" is not by any means the most difficult
ejection scenario that a seat has to handle. What that means is that
a safe ejection can be accomplished with the aircraft sitting still on
the ground. An ejection from an aircraft in the landing pattern with
a positive sink rate and some airspeed could be more demanding. An
ejection from an aircraft, pointed at the ground and coming down hill
fast (like the SU-27 that fodded an engine and acted like a lawn dart!)
is MUCH harder than "zero-zero".
>
>Can someone please explain to me the details of the F-111's capsule system?
>--
The capsule was the whole section of the aircraft around the cockpit. When
blown out, it looked a lot like some of those small lifting body things that
NASA used to drop from B-52s. I believe that, based on flight conditions, it
either deploy a drag chute from the rear to slow down or would immediately
pop the main chute and float down like a space capsule.
Regards
bk
Alexei Gretchikhine
> I agree with you about the more tolerant engines concerning air intake =
=20
> distortion. As far as I know the Mig-29 ( perhaps the SU too ) uses it's =
=20
> auxiliary air-inlet ( used for taxing on dirt strips ) to support it's ai=
r =20
> intake during these maneuvers.
Sukhoi _does not_ have auxilury inlets, canards, vectored trust and other=
=20
bells and wisles you might want to think of. I doubt that Fulcrum=20
actually make a use of its aux. inlets while performing a cobra or=20
tail-slide. PIlots are hand full of other things to worry besides opening=
=20
and closing inlets. These are used for rough field operations to avoid=20
FOD. Although it is possible to get airborn and reach 800 kmh with closed=
=20
inlets, I don't think it helps in high AOA flight or tail-slide.
> But I have to disagree on the very clean exterior areodynamics.
> The Mig-29, a fine example of russian mil jets, is of a very crude outer =
=20
> finish. You wont find a western jet with up to 5-7 mm displacement of =20
> outer-skin-elements, but the Mig-29 has it.
> So they have their pros and cons.
I think the best example is to have a look at MiG-25 (which was done by=20
US experts with help of young Leutanant Belenkoo). You will find that=20
supersonic interceptor lacks flash rivets in some areas on the skin.=20
Americans were amazed by backwardness till it became clear that there=20
were reason to use flash rievets cause this did not degrade performance=20
at all.
> But one thing is for sure, the lack of money and "high tech" in the east =
=20
> made their engineers more creative in solving the problems they had.
> Cya
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ulf Schorling |
> U...@doomsday.shnet.org |
> USMTSc...@T-Online.de |
> |
> Only the spirit of attack, born in a =AD--------+--/ \--+--------=AD
> brave heart will bring success to any O (_) | | (_) o
> fighter aircraft, no matter how highly | ( ) |
> developed it may be. (Galland) +---------+
> (_)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
> ## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
>=20
>=20
Viper
> The other (also from AW&ST) was the discussion over whether Aerojet
> engines or Russian (or Ukranian i believe) rocket motors were to be used in
> the next generation US boosters.
Yeah. I know. (and here we're starting to walk on a very thin ice: I'm
real senile...) In fact, as far as I can remember, the only two foreign
(or perhaps the only two? Damn, can't remember a thing!) companies both
were ex-Soviet. One proposed something like NK-33, and the other probably
RD-180. (Right? :-) ). Both were quite old I guess (one of them was
developed for 1960's-1970s Soviet space exploration program. The other
one is a bit newer, but still, not like those 1990's shiny american toys...
:-) ), but still, looks like they're the only competitors... :-).
However, I still can hear those squealing voices about commies, foreign
developed military hardware (And not so military too. BTW, I heard that
one of the reasons that BGT-Sidewinder [one neat looking thingie!] was
slaughtered as AIM-9X participant was that it was German-developed.
Probably not the main reason, but an important one!) etc. Some folks are
ready to squeal RED=BAD 24 hours a day. And the RD-180 is no exception.
Soviets, never had this attitude! ( :-) ) At least among themselves. They
new very well the advantages of western developed electronics ( etc.),
quitely bought is, and duplicated, reverse-engined, copied, or simply
installed in their own military hardware. WAY TO GO!
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| | ...Never take half-measures! ...Only unlimited, |
| -=# Viper #=- | overwhelming, preventive strikes... |
| | Viper. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------------+
Tapio V{ist|
> But I have to disagree on the very clean exterior areodynamics.
> The Mig-29, a fine example of russian mil jets, is of a very crude outer =
=20
> finish. You wont find a western jet with up to 5-7 mm displacement of =20
> outer-skin-elements, but the Mig-29 has it.
> So they have their pros and cons.
I've seen a couple of MiG-21:s. The finish of the body is terrible, but=20
the intake is smooth as silk. Not like a showroom shine, but no sharp=20
edges. IMHO they seem to know which parts are significant.
Their designers are so good that the scrappy workmanship can't ruin their=
=20
planes!
=09Tapio V=E4ist=F6
=09tapio...@lut.fi=09=09http://www.lut.fi/~vaisto
David Hyde
> _Exactly_ which US JET aircraft can do a tail slide without the engines
> blowing out as soon as the plane starts to fall backwards?
> Do you wish to reconsider?
Nope. Within operational limits, probably none. With proper flight
clearance (gotta keep the paperwork straight), at least T-2's and F/A-18's.
Dave 'BTDT' Hyde
na...@windvane.umd.edu
Viper
> Do you wish to reconsider?
Reconsider?
NEVER.
"If you failed achieving something the first time, destroy any evidence you
ever tried!"... :-)
(Please note, that this message has nothing to do with my actual beliefs
about US aircraft doing tail slide. I always said, and always will, that
Russians make one hell of a steel equipment, engines including... :-)
Seriously! It's just that little problem with Indian MiG-29s engines...
But hell, Mirage-2000s are falling apart too, so, it's not a big deal, I
guess it's something about those Indians... :-) [Just A JOKE!])
Bob Keeter
I _hate_ to disagree with anyone who agrees with me but. . . . . .
>I agree with you about the more tolerant engines concerning air intake
>distortion. As far as I know the Mig-29 ( perhaps the SU too ) uses it's
>auxiliary air-inlet ( used for taxing on dirt strips ) to support it's air
>intake during these maneuvers.
>But I have to disagree on the very clean exterior areodynamics.
>The Mig-29, a fine example of russian mil jets, is of a very crude outer
>finish. You wont find a western jet with up to 5-7 mm displacement of
>outer-skin-elements, but the Mig-29 has it.
>So they have their pros and cons.
The "auxiliary air-inlet" is used ONLY when the inlet ramps are in a completely
closed position shutting off normal inlet flow. They do this to prevent "vacuum
cleaning" the runways and taxiways during ground ops. Only one of the aircraft
has this upper surface door, the Su, I think. And the "exterior aerodynamics"
that I was referring to was not the surface finish, but rather the sizing and
placement of control surfaces, wings, weight distribution, etc.
>But one thing is for sure, the lack of money and "high tech" in the east
>made their engineers more creative in solving the problems they had.
>
Truer words have never been spoken. Just because someone chooses a different way
to do business than I might does not immediately make him wrong, particularly if
he ends up with some very good answers!
Respects
bk
Bob Keeter
Apologies for whacking the bandwidth.
bk
Bob Keeter
Bob Keeter
>Hi there!
>
>If we're still talking of the same ejection this thread was talking about
>a couple of days ago, then I'd say it was almost head on collision (both
>29s were climbing, possibly at the bottoms of the loops, so I'm not sure
>about slow... But then again, I don't have a very good memory... :-) )
>and a rather nasty one. You probably seen THE pic! Well, in the article,
>(the one from AW&ST), it was stated, black upon newspaper, that Zvezda is
>a better seat. And that it outperformed ACES-2, or performed the same,
>while in slow speed ejections, and REALLY OUTPERFORMED ACES-2 in high
>speed ejections. To put it simple, Zvezda's "survival envelope" _covered_
>the one of ACES-2, which means, it performed no worse at slow speeds, and
>saved pilots at high speeds that would be stone-cold-dead if they "chose"
>to eject with ACES-2. In fact I don't remember reading anything about "ACES
>outperform in some". I do remember though, that Americans were shocked,
>when they found out that Russians _DO_ care about their pilots ( should I
>spell it out ? Care _MORE_ about their pilots than Americans do!). That's
>why the issue of buying (Hmmmm.....?) Zvezda was ever brought up: not because
>"... in some, ... in some", but because Zvezda was clearly better!
>
Read the same article but my "Av Leak" had already come to a full stop landing
in the trash bin! Its always a human failing to denigrate ones enemies, i.e.
they do things "old fashoned", they cant do this or that, or look how stupid
that system is. In this case and a few others, we are beginning to find out
that our former enemies were neither stupid, old-fashoned nor slouches at
engineering either.
Two specific examples, even neglecting the SU-27, Mig-29 and several other very
_interesting_aircraft, come to mind. First these ejection seats are absolutely
1st rate even if one choses to quibble about some "corners of the envelope".
The other (also from AW&ST) was the discussion over whether Aerojet engines or
Russian (or Ukranian i believe) rocket motors were to be used in the next
generation US boosters. Would it suffice to say that the Russian and Ukranian
engines are still in the competition?
bk
Bob Keeter
Bob Keeter
Alexei Gretchikhine
> U...@doomsday.shnet.org (Ulf Schorling) wrote:
> >I agree with you about the more tolerant engines concerning air intake
> >distortion. As far as I know the Mig-29 ( perhaps the SU too ) uses it's
> >auxiliary air-inlet ( used for taxing on dirt strips ) to support it's air
> >intake during these maneuvers.
>
> The "auxiliary air-inlet" is used ONLY when the inlet ramps are in a completely
> closed position shutting off normal inlet flow. They do this to prevent "vacuum
> cleaning" the runways and taxiways during ground ops. Only one of the aircraft
> has this upper surface door, the Su, I think. And the "exterior aerodynamics"
It is MiG-29 which has the auxiliary inlets, amen to that.
I was thinking about the possibility of using them to drop the radar
signature of the a/c. As I mentioned earlier MiG-29 can go up to 800km/h
with main intakes closed and engines fed by aux. ones only. If you
assume that considerable part of the RCS comes from refections from the
compressor, could one help the situation by covering compressor blades?
Same thing with Sukhoi which has a FOD deflecting grid in its intakes.
While I am positive that MiG-29 driver can open and close intake doors at
any moment he(she) wants, I believe that grids on Su-27 are slaved to
main gear. Whenever gear goes up, the grids go up too. Nevertheless, this
grid is something like F-117 has to cover its blades althogh not as fine (more
than 3cm?). Let's say you can engage this grid without letting gear down.
Would it help with RCS? Assume that a/c are clean and has no external
loads. Any thoughts?
Stephen M. Ryan
: The capsule was the whole section of the aircraft around the cockpit.
: When blown out, it looked a lot like some of those small lifting body
: things that NASA used to drop from B-52s. I believe that, based on
: flight conditions, it either deploy a drag chute from the rear to slow
: down or would immediately pop the main chute and float down like a space
: capsule.
If you can imagine the F-111 with the nose chopped off and the rest of
the airplane behind the canopy missing, surrounded by a big inflated
donut, with two large chutes overhead, you have the picture. No drag
chute needed; the space capsule idea is pretty accurate.
The B-58 and the XB-70 both used individual capsule ejection seats with
mixed results. The XB-70 was 1 for 2 (pilot survived, copilot's seat
didn't light), but I don't have stats on the B-58.
Steve Ryan
Martin Sagara
: Bob Keeter (b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
: : The capsule was the whole section of the aircraft around the cockpit.
: : When blown out, it looked a lot like some of those small lifting body
: : things that NASA used to drop from B-52s. I believe that, based on
<snip>
: If you can imagine the F-111 with the nose chopped off and the rest of
: the airplane behind the canopy missing, surrounded by a big inflated
<snip>
: The B-58 and the XB-70 both used individual capsule ejection seats with
: mixed results. The XB-70 was 1 for 2 (pilot survived, copilot's seat
: didn't light), but I don't have stats on the B-58.
The first three B-1A prototypes also used an ejectable crew module.
The fourth B-1A prototype used conventional ejection seats as do all
production B-1Bs. The B-1A ejection module was used once and resulted
in the death of the pilot. The module landed in a nose down attitude
which resulted in a large forward deceleration. An FB-111A and the
number 3 prototype B-1A are on display at the Wings Over The Rockies
Air and Space Museum in Denver, Colorado.
Martin Sagara "Never before have so many,
Research Associate understood so little,
Wings Over The Rockies Air and Space Museum about so much"
Hangar No. 1, Old Lowry AFB
Denver, Colorado USA James Burke speaking about
(303) 360-5360 technology in "Connections"
http://www.abwam.com/air&space
msa...@rmii.com
Wayne Johnson
>Same thing with Sukhoi which has a FOD deflecting grid in its intakes.
>While I am positive that MiG-29 driver can open and close intake doors at
>any moment he(she) wants, I believe that grids on Su-27 are slaved to
>main gear. Whenever gear goes up, the grids go up too. Nevertheless, this
>grid is something like F-117 has to cover its blades althogh not as fine (more
>than 3cm?). Let's say you can engage this grid without letting gear down.
>Would it help with RCS? Assume that a/c are clean and has no external
>loads. Any thoughts?
I'm sure that anything that would obscure the turbine would help.
However (working from memory, now) the F-117's grid is also jagged on
the leading edges to help break up the signature. So besides the
small aperture, the jagged leading edge reduced the signature made by
the grid itself - which, if seen in the oblique, would just be another
reflective surface.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Brian Morrison
phen M. Ryan) writes:
:>
:>Bob Keeter (b_ke...@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us) wrote:
:>
:>: The capsule was the whole section of the aircraft around the cockpit.
:>: When blown out, it looked a lot like some of those small lifting body
:>: things that NASA used to drop from B-52s. I believe that, based on
:>: down or would immediately pop the main chute and float down like a space
:>: capsule.
:>If you can imagine the F-111 with the nose chopped off and the rest of
:>The B-58 and the XB-70 both used individual capsule ejection seats with
:>mixed results. The XB-70 was 1 for 2 (pilot survived, copilot's seat
:>didn't light), but I don't have stats on the B-58.
:>Steve Ryan
According to a book I have by Bill Gunston, the B58 escape system wasn't
accepted as 'working' by USAF until 1963, when a brown bear survived ejection
at 1060mph and 45000 feet.
I remember seeing some film of a rocket sled test of the full three crew
ejection system. During this test, either the centre or rear ejectee's face
plate was smashed by a piece of flying debris. I don't know whether this led
to Stanley modifying the sequence to close the seat eyelids before blowing
the canopy panels.
I don't have any information on in service use.
Anyone else know anything.
--
Brian Morrison b...@fenrir.demon.co.uk
Hubert Rawlinson, in his mid-forties and still unusual.... - Viv Stanshall
Ken Koller
: : The capsule was the whole section of the aircraft around the cockpit.
: : When blown out, it looked a lot like some of those small lifting body
: : things that NASA used to drop from B-52s. I believe that, based on
: : flight conditions, it either deploy a drag chute from the rear to slow
: : down or would immediately pop the main chute and float down like a space
: : capsule.
: If you can imagine the F-111 with the nose chopped off and the rest of
: the airplane behind the canopy missing, surrounded by a big inflated
: donut, with two large chutes overhead, you have the picture. No drag
: chute needed; the space capsule idea is pretty accurate.
: The B-58 and the XB-70 both used individual capsule ejection seats with
: mixed results. The XB-70 was 1 for 2 (pilot survived, copilot's seat
: didn't light), but I don't have stats on the B-58.
The B-1A used an ejection capsule similar to the F-111, but a crash at
Edwards AFB in the early 80s killed the chief test pilot of the program
when the air bag device on his side of the capsule failed to deploy.
--
Ken Koller
kko...@adnetsol.com
Brian Morrison
ara) writes:
:>The first three B-1A prototypes also used an ejectable crew module.
:>The fourth B-1A prototype used conventional ejection seats as do all
:>production B-1Bs. The B-1A ejection module was used once and resulted
:>in the death of the pilot. The module landed in a nose down attitude
:>which resulted in a large forward deceleration. An FB-111A and the
True, but the reason for the death was that the pilot's seat was either not
locked or the attachments failed and the seat moved forward into the
instrument panel. ISTR that the reason for the attitude of the capsule was
that one of the canopy attach straps was not released by an explosive sear
bolt. Had the seat styayed where it was, he would have either been bruised or
maybe cracked a rib or three
:>number 3 prototype B-1A are on display at the Wings Over The Rockies
:>Air and Space Museum in Denver, Colorado.
:>
:>Martin Sagara "Never before have so many,
:>Research Associate understood so little,
:>Wings Over The Rockies Air and Space Museum about so much"
:>Hangar No. 1, Old Lowry AFB
:>Denver, Colorado USA James Burke speaking about
:>(303) 360-5360 technology in "Connections"
:>http://www.abwam.com/air&space
:>msa...@rmii.com
S. Sampson
>in the death of the pilot. The module landed in a nose down attitude
>which resulted in a large forward deceleration.
One of my older brothers was a Crew Chief on the F-111 at Mt Home in the
early 70's. He lost his crew to that infernal invention (crew capsule).
Seems it hit so hardit crippled the contents to the point where they'll never
walk again, let alone fly. I'd rather take my chances in a chute and get the
hell away from metal parts...
Dave Barak
(Brian Morrison) wrote:
> According to a book I have by Bill Gunston, the B58 escape system wasn't
> accepted as 'working' by USAF until 1963, when a brown bear survived ejection
> at 1060mph and 45000 feet.
That may be well and fine, but did the bear make it through the review
board to fly again? <G>
--
Dave Barak
Line of Sight Entertainment
"I link, therefore I spam."
Dave's Cultural Wasteland
http://www.flinet.com/~barak
Dave Riddel
--
Dave Riddel http://www.gil.com.au/~riddel/f111g.html
rid...@gil.com.au http://www.gil.com.au/~riddel/
Dave Riddel
capsule...There is a sad looking example at RAAF Amberley.
--
Dave Riddel
rid...@gil.com.au http://www.gil.com.au/~riddel/