fighter performance analysis: F-4 vs MiG-21

Mishanbgd SG

The first book in "Fighter Performance in Practice" serie is now available:
Phantom versus MIG-21
-How to do split-S in MiG-21 within 3000 ft: Unexploited low speed maneuverability-

authors: Predrag Pavlovic and Nenad Pavlovic.

publisher: Naucna KMD (Scientific KMD), Belgrade, Serbia. 2009. format B5 24*17 cm, softback, 104pp. highly illustrated - 53 graphs, 13 tables and 15 photos.

seller: eBay.com http://cgi.ebay.com/Fighter-Performance-Practice-Phantom-versus-MIG-21-/290431956256?cmd=ViewItem&pt=US_Texbook_Education&hash=item439f17f520

ISBN 978-86-6021-017-5

The book deals with practical aspects of performances with operational limitations. Why aircraft does not turn sideways or why lift is limited, does it stops at certain angle of attack as textbooks teach, why the envelope curve is dented at transonic speeds, what limits aircraft at max speed, how aircraft that has ceiling 50,000 feet can fly to 70,000 ft and in record flights to 100,000 ft, why take-off speed definition is outdated are some of the issues dealt with simple words and graphically.

It is the first in series about aircraft performance, direct comparison of what the two particular aircrafts are capable of. This time, these are two supersonic cold war legends, F-4 Phantom II and MiG-21. The aim is to compare the two aircraft under the same terms at proportionally same weights and defined conditions using official manufacturer data but in easily understandable format. That includes take-off, climb, acceleration, max and min speed, ceiling 1-g and dynamic, turns – maximum attainable, structural, actuator power or aerodynamic and thrust limited, range and endurance, descent and landing performance. One could find completely opposite facts than previously thought.

The book also explains how it was possible for MiG to do a Split-S maneuver within 3000 feet during one wartime situation, the figure which aircraft operators couldn’t duplicate in latter date, nor it was in aircraft manual. The chapter resolves unexploited low speed maneuvering capability useful to aircraft operators.

Asromanista2001 SG

no one interested in these outdated flying coffins lah !!!!

Mishanbgd SG

There are plenty of AF today which does not have excess money...

As shown during testing in US, 21 can kick F-15's ass if engaged in low speed maneuvering. 21 had only guns and first generation IC missiles. With helmet cued R-73 every fighter that has ability to fly and fight while slow (during US evaluation it was flown to 70 kt during vertical rolling scissors).

Mishanbgd SG

Maybe opinion from EU and US helps...

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=98015&page=2

Shotgun SG

There are plenty of AF today which does not have excess money...

The MiG-21 can be capable of some really incredible feats. It can get into scissors with an F-15, slow to 110 knots and still be able to fly.

weasel1962 SG

Its thoroughly misleading.

A WW1 fokker triplane can fly at 100 knots, shoot at any aircraft in front of it, cost 200 times less and out-turn the F-15 at that speed. I doubt if anyone will suggest the triplane can whack a F-15 on those bases alone.

Mishanbgd SG

Yeah, but MiG-21 can fly Mach 0.5 faster than some most modern fighters..

Point is that although old design with many flaws it can, especially if armed with R-73, make life difficult to any new fighter. If properly flown.

With proper tactics and under many circumstances BVR missiles, radars and Stealth...may not always work.

Shotgun SG

The MiG-21 has been thoroughly evaluated to be quite a remarkable jet when it comes WVR in a knife fight. What the book is trying to dismiss was a myth that the MiG-21 is an inferior dogfighter. It can in fact hold its own against Eagles and Vipers in the WVR fight.

SBS2601D SG

The MiG-21 can be capable of some really incredible feats. It can get into scissors with an F-15, slow to 110 knots and still be able to fly.

The Mig has a lower wing-loading than the F-15.

Mishanbgd SG

Thanks Shotgun...

Of course, '21 is long outdated in most aspects of fighter abilities. But if some Air Force has them, why shouldn't they make most of it. As Agressor pilots confirmed, in dogfight it can hold it's own against 4th generation fighters (only if flown beyond some administration limits) and if armed with helmet cued missiles, it can be sound solution for AFs that are not laying on money.

Shotgun SG

Its a bit of a stretch to say that the -21 (even the Bison) is suitable for budget air forces to adopt as a front line fighter. Though it still demands respect in both the WVR and BVR arena, the cost of maintaining it may offset its low initial acquisition costs. Older planes are often take longer to fix resulting in the aircraft spending a disproportionate amount of time in the hangar. This also reduces the operational readiness of the air force.

A friend who used to work on both Phantom (aka flying brick) and Tomcat engine tells me the differences of old and new engines. In the older days, people who built engines were still sort of unfamiliar and placed crucial components in very inaccessible areas of the engines. As they got better, newer engines had their crucial components placed in more accessible areas. This drastically reduced the amount of time it takes to troubleshoot and fix the engines.

The lesson from the -21 Bison upgrades don't tell us that the MiG-21 is still a viable system. It tells us what are the components that are critical for an aircraft to be a viable air combat system. Good eyes (radars, sensors), speed and endurance(engines), and weapons. The Indians and the Israelis took the right components and threw it in to the old MiG-21 made it viable in the modern air combat arena again.

SBS2601D SG

The MiG will always lack the crucial range. By virtue of its position of the engine and the air-intake.

Mishanbgd SG

Its range is not shorter than other fighter's of its generation (M 3C, Draken, Lightning...), its role is not offensive. Less known is that its engine spec.fuel consumption at supersonic speeds (and combat radius) is better than that of modern fighters.

Life cycle cost...my expirience tells me that country should not buy fighters that are beyond country's technological level. '21 can be maintained with tin and hammer. It is right that newer systems are built with maintenance simplicity in mind (for hi tech nations). We for example can maintain US planes by ourselfs, but for newer French planes we can easily pullout components but we must send modules to them for maintenance (and even whole engine) and our financial management are going nuts.

US Agressor MiG-21 showed it can beat new fighters only if flown beyond administrative limits, otherwise it is like F-4.