I would not use a F-5 to simulate a Foxbat. Hell the F-5 is more maneuverable than the Foxbat.
The Azarakhsh, Iran's first domestically manufactured combat aircraft.
- Thread starter Dirty Ed
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Use a cinder-block tied to a rocket to simulate a Foxbat.
Exactly, The Foxbat was fast and nothing more.
US Navy, Marine and Airforce Aggressor squadron use the F-5 to simulate Migs in general not a particular one.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
Well hell! I really didn't know we had a squadron of F-5s that we used as aggressors. Guess they're keeping the AV-8s company. I should probably try to learn a little more about the fixed wingers... geez, don't Marines still fly F4U's?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
You could say to an extent the same thing about the Phantom, but it was somewhat manouverable i guess
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
ALOT MORE! The Mig-25 is the only aircraft an F-4 could totally turn inide of. If I remember correctly (it was posted here) the Mig-25 could only sustain about 3 or 4 Gs in a turn before it starts shedding it's pylons and wings. Definitely not a dog fighter.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Seriously?! With a built in fudge factor of 1.5 (perhaps not a soviet safety margin?), that would equate to a design limit of 2g to 2.7g. That can't be true. The bloody wings would come off in a hard landing.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"Maximum acceleration (g-load) rating was just 2.2 g (21.6 m/s²) with full fuel tanks, with an absolute limit of 4.5 g (44.1 m/s²). One MiG-25 withstood an inadvertent 11.5 g (112.8 m/s²) pull during low-altitude dogfight training, but the resulting deformation made the airframe worthless."
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
Better for shooting down bombers i suppose
Matt308
Glock Perfection
In what context are those absolute limits? Are they airframe (wingbox) derived limits or those derived from tank attachment equipment limitations? Seems awfully low for airframe limits on a Mach 2.9 "fighter". Those types of limits could easily be encountered during a highspeed out of trim condition. Amazing.
Interesting to note that a similar event occurred during an RS-71 flight at Mach 3. Apparently the aircraft was testing yaw characteristics in flight and suffered a catastrophic airframe failure resulting in both pilots exiting the airframe at 80,000ft. The pilot survived (RWO did not), awakening just prior to contact with the ground and opening his chute. He was picked up by a farmer (can't recall the state) in the farmer's helicopter and rushed to medical help.
Makes one wonder where Mach 3 domestic flights are occurring in SUA with ranchers underneath.
Interesting to note that a similar event occurred during an RS-71 flight at Mach 3. Apparently the aircraft was testing yaw characteristics in flight and suffered a catastrophic airframe failure resulting in both pilots exiting the airframe at 80,000ft. The pilot survived (RWO did not), awakening just prior to contact with the ground and opening his chute. He was picked up by a farmer (can't recall the state) in the farmer's helicopter and rushed to medical help.
Makes one wonder where Mach 3 domestic flights are occurring in SUA with ranchers underneath.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It's real simple - there's a G meter in the cockpit - don't exceed it or it's Siberia...
This is a wide known story - it shows how deadly the Blackbird could be...
Well controlled airspace A airspace goes from 18,000 to 60,000 feet MSL - above that anything could go.
I would suspect lower than that, the USAF operated them in restricted airspace (MOAs). There are also military high speed corridors in which military aircraft could go over mach 1.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Agreed. But not without notice. MOA and perhaps SUA are certainly what comes to mind, but at Mach 3 those corridors go by REAL quick. And SUA are more dynamic in establishment, thus MOA is the more likely candidate. What a couple of minutes? including acceleration from Mach 1 to Mach 3 and reverse? A "wide known story" perhaps to some, but the analogy to a military airframe that is inherently limited to such a low level analog g-meter seems rather dubious.
Hey call me skeptical.
Like all DoD (and other intl mil orgs) the airframes are operationally limited to preserve stated airframe lifecycles. The operational context for the ultimate load limit is integrally important to any discussion. Be it maintaining lifecycle limits to ensure safe operating characteristics or ultimate load during combat before the structure suffers plastic deformation or catastrophic failure.
What makes me a little skeptical is any discussion of low g ultimate loads without understanding this operational context, weapon/ext fuel loadout, and restrictions imposed to maintain airframe integrity over the lifecycle of the airplane.
Hey call me skeptical.
Like all DoD (and other intl mil orgs) the airframes are operationally limited to preserve stated airframe lifecycles. The operational context for the ultimate load limit is integrally important to any discussion. Be it maintaining lifecycle limits to ensure safe operating characteristics or ultimate load during combat before the structure suffers plastic deformation or catastrophic failure.
What makes me a little skeptical is any discussion of low g ultimate loads without understanding this operational context, weapon/ext fuel loadout, and restrictions imposed to maintain airframe integrity over the lifecycle of the airplane.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
But remember, above 60,000 there is no controlled airspace and that's where the Blackbird lives - technically it could go right over a major city at mach 3 legally.
Well that's the way it's done - BTW I worked on Russian aircraft and they all have this low tech G meter which is used to determine when an aircraft is over G'd beyond it's limits.
That's why you have "PDMs" and other airframe overhaul programs.
If you're talking about the Mig-25, those numbers have been available for years as after the Belenko incident western analysts have been able to see the aircraft up-close and personal. As far as the SR-71, that's a known fact widely published and verified by those who worked on the airframe (including myself).
Matt308
Glock Perfection
All points are well made. Regarding MOA/SUA, the environmental aspects (sonic boom effects) are what seems out of place here. I would love to have seen the flight path of a Mach 3 flight over CONUS. While military operations are subject to civil regulations, the USAF SPO do make all efforts to abide by civil regulations. Knowing some sizes of the larger MOA/SUAs, I would have thought that this would have been an offshore exercise.
I think that perhaps my engineering background is leading me to my analytical conclusions. I note that many of your comments appear to be validated from a pilots perspective. And I don't intend my comment to be negative. I don't dispute your comments. But I do wonder about the derivation of those limits, as these limits are derived from an operational context that is dependent upon multiple parameters, not solely upon a single flight analog g-meter.
As an example, ultimate loads are established not only upon airframe dynamics, but also upon aircraft loadout (e.g. external tanks), external load configuration, age, engineering safety margins, operational safety margins, etc.
I think that we are more in alignment than disagreement, but approaching the problem from perhaps two different perspectives.
I think that perhaps my engineering background is leading me to my analytical conclusions. I note that many of your comments appear to be validated from a pilots perspective. And I don't intend my comment to be negative. I don't dispute your comments. But I do wonder about the derivation of those limits, as these limits are derived from an operational context that is dependent upon multiple parameters, not solely upon a single flight analog g-meter.
As an example, ultimate loads are established not only upon airframe dynamics, but also upon aircraft loadout (e.g. external tanks), external load configuration, age, engineering safety margins, operational safety margins, etc.
I think that we are more in alignment than disagreement, but approaching the problem from perhaps two different perspectives.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
MOA 2508 - I used to live in the area - 50 miles away you could hear sonic booms all the time. I know the SR ran in that MOA when they were still flying them out of Plant 42. 4.4 Panamint MOA/ATCAA
Hey no problem - 28 years in aviation, i've worked with a lot of engineers who have thought very analytical!
You're right - see in viewing this as a pilot you need something direct and finite like a gage staring you right in the face. Although a pilot may know the fundamentals of what is going on with his aircraft stress-wise, it's that simple gauge that will be the voice telling him he has a problem and when to report it. Rolling this into pilots from the old Soviet Union, even more so as many of these folks received little vocational training outside the parameters of being a military pilot, hence the simple G meter. I do know for Russian or Eastern European aircraft, they are real big in checking asymmetry if there is any indication the airframe was over stressed.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Thanks!
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
