*** Posted by TIGER ***
Hi Rapier
You escaped the first missile by blacking out. What about the second?
In the real life you can face more than 1 missile an you must be prepared for this.
TIGER



[Hi Tiger,

Are you talking about potential blackout? because if I was flying a real F-16 I would try and train my body at around the 9.5G and above incase I had to make a real hard turn to avoid being hit by a SAM missle for instance. You might black out after a while but it could mean staying alive a bit longer. I know I would rather blackout after evading a missle than before.

By the way if you have any tactics for avoiding SAM's I would'nt mind hearing them as that's the area I ok on but not good.

Thanks

Rapier]

*** Posted by Rapier ***
[Hi Rapier
First of all the SU27 Flanker it's not a thrust vectoring machine.
The thrust vect. system was introduced to SU37.
And about Cobra maneuver:
1. Cobra maneuver:
It was first performed by the russian pilot Pugaciov. Second the SU27 don't uses thrust vect. system.
At speeds between 400-500 km/h the pilot pulls the nose around 80-110' and flies for 3-4 seconds.
2. Super Cobra maneuver:
It was performed by an SU37 which uses a thrust vect. system.
The maneuver consists in:
At speeds bet. 400-500 km/h the pilot pulls the nose around 140' and flies for 7-8 seconds.
Yes I'll give more inf. about SU27.
Here in Romania we are specialised in MIG29 and SU27.
I think you know that.
Try in F4 to fly at a speed around 350 kts at 7g and you'll do fine. Why 350 and not 400? because you need a smaller speed for a smaller turn radius.
By the way where are you from?
What are you studying?

TIGER]

Hi Tiger,

Well done, I was testing you on your knowledge and you have passed, only kidding. It's great that you know alot about Russian aircraft because it is important for a sim user to know his enemy so let me know anything surprising about MIG's and SU's. I was reading a really interesting article the other day about the MIG-29 V's the F-16, which I think you posted about before I'm not sure, but I was shocked to find out that the MIG-29 seems to be a very big threat to the F-16 in terms of it's armament capabilty and the head mounted targeting systems and if the F-16 was in a 45 degree position from the nose of a MIG-29 it stands a good chance of being hit bad. Is this true?

The trouble in F4 when I turn hard at 350 Knts is that the speed drops off really bad. It may be because I'm pulling back really hard and forcing too much out of the aircraft.

I was born in England but I am half Italian. In Italy there is an American AFB about 20 miles south from my home town. It's situated near a mountain area in the south of Italy. When I was a child I would watch the plane's training in the mountains. All I would hear were the sonic booms, they sounded terrifying, like loud thunder and that's when I first began to love aircraft.

I was studying at Middlesex Uni but had to pull out due to financial difficulties. I was studying Computer Science. How are you finding your course by the way? Are you enjoying yourself?

Rapier.

*** Posted by Rapier ***
[Hi Rapier
You escaped the first missile by blacking out. What about the second?
In the real life you can face more than 1 missile an you must be prepared for this.
TIGER]

Hi Tiger,

I would have to rely on the ECM, but I may be killed even before I wake up. But that's like saying what will you do if several SAM's are fired at you at the same time, will all pilots in this situation be prepared for this. I thinks it's a bit of luck at the end of the day.

Rapier

*** Posted by TIGER ***
Hi Rapier
I have on my hard disk MIG29vsF16 comparision.
My opinion about these aircraft.
1. F16 has a limit of AoA of 25'
MIG29 - 45' AoA
2. F16 has a better all around visibility.
3. MIG29 has a HMS (helmet mounted sight) which is VERY DANGEROUS for F16.
4. At slow airspeeds the MIG29 is better.
5. At higher airspeeds the F16 is better.
6. The Archer missile is far better than the Sidewinder.
7. F16 has far better avionics.
8. MIG29 has a more advanced airframe (the second advanced in the world - first is the SU27 airframe).
9. The MIG29 has IRST which can track the Falcon in most respects without using radar. F16 can't do that.
10. F16 has fly-by-wire system.
11. MIG29 is more resistant in combat due to its twin engines.
12. F16's engine overtakes with 40% the twin engines of MIG29.
13. MIG29 has the best acceleration in the world.
14. The russians BVR missile overtake the AMRAAMs talking about range.
Which is the best?
TIGER

[Hi Tiger,

Well done, I was testing you on your knowledge and you have passed, only kidding. It's great that you know alot about Russian aircraft because it is important for a sim user to know his enemy so let me know anything surprising about MIG's and SU's. I was reading a really interesting article the other day about the MIG-29 V's the F-16, which I think you posted about before I'm not sure, but I was shocked to find out that the MIG-29 seems to be a very big threat to the F-16 in terms of it's armament capabilty and the head mounted targeting systems and if the F-16 was in a 45 degree position from the nose of a MIG-29 it stands a good chance of being hit bad. Is this true?

The trouble in F4 when I turn hard at 350 Knts is that the speed drops off really bad. It may be because I'm pulling back really hard and forcing too much out of the aircraft.

I was born in England but I am half Italian. In Italy there is an American AFB about 20 miles south from my home town. It's situated near a mountain area in the south of Italy. When I was a child I would watch the plane's training in the mountains. All I would hear were the sonic booms, they sounded terrifying, like loud thunder and that's when I first began to love aircraft.

I was studying at Middlesex Uni but had to pull out due to financial difficulties. I was studying Computer Science. How are you finding your course by the way? Are you enjoying yourself?

Rapier.]

*** Posted by Rapier ***
[Hi Rapier
I have on my hard disk MIG29vsF16 comparision.
My opinion about these aircraft.
1. F16 has a limit of AoA of 25'
MIG29 - 45' AoA
2. F16 has a better all around visibility.
3. MIG29 has a HMS (helmet mounted sight) which is VERY DANGEROUS for F16.
4. At slow airspeeds the MIG29 is better.
5. At higher airspeeds the F16 is better.
6. The Archer missile is far better than the Sidewinder.
7. F16 has far better avionics.
8. MIG29 has a more advanced airframe (the second advanced in the world - first is the SU27 airframe).
9. The MIG29 has IRST which can track the Falcon in most respects without using radar. F16 can't do that.
10. F16 has fly-by-wire system.
11. MIG29 is more resistant in combat due to its twin engines.
12. F16's engine overtakes with 40% the twin engines of MIG29.
13. MIG29 has the best acceleration in the world.
14. The russians BVR missile overtake the AMRAAMs talking about range.
Which is the best?
TIGER .]

Hi Tiger,

I dont know? Looking at what you said you would have to say that the MIG-29 is slightly better. But why have F-16's in "Operation Allied Force" been so sucessfull in downing these MIG's. I think the F-16 (and NATO planes) have some type of secret/sophisticated radar system that only the pilots know how to use. Other than the AWACS telling the pilots where the bandits are I dont see what else the AWACS can do apart from vector the F-16's towards the enemy. It is strange dont you think? I dont like to take anything away from the pilots by the way I think they are doing a great job.

Is the ARCHER better because it is a younger missle then the AIM, (I dont know how long ARCHERS have been around) dont forget there are a few different types of AIM missle, but the AIM is old and has been improved throughout it's lifetime.

I am sorry for my knowledge on Russian aircraft, so forgive me, like I say you probably know more about Russian aircraft than I do.

What do you think Tiger? Is the MIG or F-16 better?

Regards

Rapier

*** Posted by TIGER ***

Hi Rapier
Who's the better?
I'm telling you.
I forgot to say that the F16 has a smaller RCS with make the F16 harder to detect than the MIG29 and F16 can maintain energy better.
It's hard to say who's the better because both aircraft seems to be equal.
I prefer F16 in BVR combat and MIG29 in close combat. As I said it very diff to compare. It depends on pilot ability.
Do you know other aircraft which performed Cobra? (question)
Regards
TIGER

[Hi Tiger,

I dont know? Looking at what you said you would have to say that the MIG-29 is slightly better. But why have F-16's in "Operation Allied Force" been so sucessfull in downing these MIG's. I think the F-16 (and NATO planes) have some type of secret/sophisticated radar system that only the pilots know how to use. Other than the AWACS telling the pilots where the bandits are I dont see what else the AWACS can do apart from vector the F-16's towards the enemy. It is strange dont you think? I dont like to take anything away from the pilots by the way I think they are doing a great job.

Is the ARCHER better because it is a younger missle then the AIM, (I dont know how long ARCHERS have been around) dont forget there are a few different types of AIM missle, but the AIM is old and has been improved throughout it's lifetime.

I am sorry for my knowledge on Russian aircraft, so forgive me, like I say you probably know more about Russian aircraft than I do.

What do you think Tiger? Is the MIG or F-16 better?

Regards

Rapier]

*** Posted by TIGER ***
Hi Rapier
About AIM9.
The most advanced AIM9 is 5 years behind the Archer.
I know it is hard to believe but russians have more advanced dogfighting missiles. That's the true.
TIGER

[Hi Tiger,

I dont know? Looking at what you said you would have to say that the MIG-29 is slightly better. But why have F-16's in "Operation Allied Force" been so sucessfull in downing these MIG's. I think the F-16 (and NATO planes) have some type of secret/sophisticated radar system that only the pilots know how to use. Other than the AWACS telling the pilots where the bandits are I dont see what else the AWACS can do apart from vector the F-16's towards the enemy. It is strange dont you think? I dont like to take anything away from the pilots by the way I think they are doing a great job.

Is the ARCHER better because it is a younger missle then the AIM, (I dont know how long ARCHERS have been around) dont forget there are a few different types of AIM missle, but the AIM is old and has been improved throughout it's lifetime.

I am sorry for my knowledge on Russian aircraft, so forgive me, like I say you probably know more about Russian aircraft than I do.

What do you think Tiger? Is the MIG or F-16 better?

Regards

Rapier]

*** Posted by Rapier ***
[
Hi Rapier
Who's the better?
I'm telling you.
I forgot to say that the F16 has a smaller RCS with make the F16 harder to detect than the MIG29 and F16 can maintain energy better.
It's hard to say who's the better because both aircraft seems to be equal.
I prefer F16 in BVR combat and MIG29 in close combat. As I said it very diff to compare. It depends on pilot ability.
Do you know other aircraft which performed Cobra? (question)
Regards
TIGER
]


Hi,

Yes it is difficult to compare and I think also pilot ability counts. I dont know any other aircraft that perform the Cobra, apart from the SU-37. That's the only one I can think of.

Rapier.

*** Posted by Rapier ***
[Hi Rapier
About AIM9.
The most advanced AIM9 is 5 years behind the Archer.
I know it is hard to believe but russians have more advanced dogfighting missiles. That's the true.
TIGER
]

Hi Tiger,

Interesting! Why they have not developed a better AIM than the Russian missles. Is this a weak spot of NATO aircraft. Maybee it's like you/they say they hope to hit their target/s at BVR because they know the danger that Russian missles pose at close range. I can definitely confirm that MIG-29 in F4 can be hard to fight in close quarters because of their turning ability at low speed. What I try to do is keep the speed up and turn hard when they are about to turn so I dont fall into their trap. They lose alot of airspeed when they turn and suffer more when they try to force an angle onto my tail.

There was another thing I wanted you to explain to me if you could. How comes the MIG-29 has the 40 or so degrees AOA than the F-16?

Regards

Rapier

*** Posted by TIGER ***
Hi Rapier
The MIG29 airframe is more advanced in terms of aerodinamics not construction (the construction is desastrous) than the airframe of F16 like I said and this helps MIG29 to fly at high AoA without loosing control. In the F16 this is limited to 25'. Advanced aerodinamics is all about. The russians seems to be the first in the world when it come to this.
TIGER

*** Posted by Rapier ***
[Hi Rapier
The MIG29 airframe is more advanced in terms of aerodinamics not construction (the construction is desastrous) than the airframe of F16 like I said and this helps MIG29 to fly at high AoA without loosing control. In the F16 this is limited to 25'. Advanced aerodinamics is all about. The russians seems to be the first in the world when it come to this.
TIGER
]

Hi,

I think the MIG-29 is more advanced than the F16 (in terms of airframe)because it is younger. Like if you were to design an F1 car you would design it on the lessons learned from the past, but every now and again something new will be designed and it will fly great. I would'nt say that the Russian's are the most advanced in terms of aerodynamics, but they seem to know what they are doing and understand the concept well. I'm sure you will agree that there is still alot to learn in this area with new concepts on Laminar flow dynamics and the rest. We will have to wait till the future to see what new and exiting things come to the forefront.

I dont know what it is but I think there is something missing in the MIG-29 design that I cant put my finger on. When I was looking at the MIG-29's at the Farnborough airshow I noticed people laughing at the 2 MIG-29's sitting on the static display. I was taking photo's at the time and overheard what the people standing next to me were saying. At the time a couple of maintainace crew were covering the canopy's with canopy covers because it was raining. The people were laughing because water was leaking to the inside and causing the canopy to steam up. When I took a look I was amazed to see that water was indeed leaking in and that the second MIG (which was hiding behind the first) was badly beaten up and in some area's the paint was peeling off. I could not believe how badly these planes had been treated and looked after.

Do you think they looked bad because of the quality of the materials used to construct the aircraft was low?

Regards

Rapier

*** Posted by TIGER ***
Hi Rapier
When it comes to good materials the russians must be excluded.
First of all during the Cold War the russians were designig aircraft without thinking about pilot's safety just because in their mentality of comunists the man must give his life in war. This mentality led the russians into disastrous aircraft catastrophes. Even now I don't think they changed their mentality. If the russians will be a day a state like United States in terms of democratic and economic mentalities I'm sure that their aircraft will be the first in the world.
This is my opinion. If I can help you with some more inf. just let me know.
TIGER (the Su27 pilot)







[Hi,

I think the MIG-29 is more advanced than the F16 (in terms of airframe)because it is younger. Like if you were to design an F1 car you would design it on the lessons learned from the past, but every now and again something new will be designed and it will fly great. I would'nt say that the Russian's are the most advanced in terms of aerodynamics, but they seem to know what they are doing and understand the concept well. I'm sure you will agree that there is still alot to learn in this area with new concepts on Laminar flow dynamics and the rest. We will have to wait till the future to see what new and exiting things come to the forefront.

I dont know what it is but I think there is something missing in the MIG-29 design that I cant put my finger on. When I was looking at the MIG-29's at the Farnborough airshow I noticed people laughing at the 2 MIG-29's sitting on the static display. I was taking photo's at the time and overheard what the people standing next to me were saying. At the time a couple of maintainace crew were covering the canopy's with canopy covers because it was raining. The people were laughing because water was leaking to the inside and causing the canopy to steam up. When I took a look I was amazed to see that water was indeed leaking in and that the second MIG (which was hiding behind the first) was badly beaten up and in some area's the paint was peeling off. I could not believe how badly these planes had been treated and looked after.

Do you think they looked bad because of the quality of the materials used to construct the aircraft was low?

Regards

Rapier



]

*** Posted by Rapier ***
[Hi Rapier
When it comes to good materials the russians must be excluded.
First of all during the Cold War the russians were designig aircraft without thinking about pilot's safety just because in their mentality of comunists the man must give his life in war. This mentality led the russians into disastrous aircraft catastrophes. Even now I don't think they changed their mentality. If the russians will be a day a state like United States in terms of democratic and economic mentalities I'm sure that their aircraft will be the first in the world.
This is my opinion. If I can help you with some more inf. just let me know.
TIGER (the Su27 pilot)
]

Hi Tiger,

This is amazing! They put the aircraft before the pilot! I cant understand why they did not concentrate on pilot saftey and comfort. Pilot safety because if the aircraft is only partly destroyed and the pilot mildly injured he could fly back to base and they both could live to fight another day and comfort because this is important and stops bad physical problems from ocurring from G over the years as well as being able to operate well. I did not know this! This is crazy thinking! Think of all the great pilots Tiger that have died to this kind of thinking?

This is very interesting Tiger! I knew pilots were expendable, but this takes the cake.

By the way what do you think of Flanker 2.0. It's due to come out soon for sim users, looks amazing. You can practice doing the Cobra then Tiger!

By the way what are the main differences between the SU-27 and SU-35, I think it's SU-35?

Regards

Rapier.






]

*** Posted by TIGER ***

Hi Rapier
The Flanker 2.0 is the most awaited sim for me after Falcon 4.0.
The graphics look fantastic and I think the flight model of the Su27 is 99% real. (Only the russians can do that)
I recomend to you to buy this sim because you'll learn more about a true fighter (dogfighter)
About dif. I'll write them down later.
TIGER



[Hi Tiger,

This is amazing! They put the aircraft before the pilot! I cant understand why they did not concentrate on pilot saftey and comfort. Pilot safety because if the aircraft is only partly destroyed and the pilot mildly injured he could fly back to base and they both could live to fight another day and comfort because this is important and stops bad physical problems from ocurring from G over the years as well as being able to operate well. I did not know this! This is crazy thinking! Think of all the great pilots Tiger that have died to this kind of thinking?

This is very interesting Tiger! I knew pilots were expendable, but this takes the cake.

By the way what do you think of Flanker 2.0. It's due to come out soon for sim users, looks amazing. You can practice doing the Cobra then Tiger!

By the way what are the main differences between the SU-27 and SU-35, I think it's SU-35?

Regards

Rapier.






]

*** Posted by TIGER ***

Hi Rapier
Give your email or something to contact you because in a few days I'll be absent and I don't think I'll be so often on the Internet.
If I can't contact you I want to say it is a pleasure to talk with you.
My email is mircea@std.ici.ro.
My address is :
Str. Bodesti Nr.9 , bloc 29A, sc. A
Ap 1, Sector 2, Bucharest
Romania
And my full name is : Raureanu Iulian(Julian) Mihai(Michael) "TIGER"
Best regards for you
TIGER

[
Hi Tiger,

Well done, I was testing you on your knowledge and you have passed, only kidding. It's great that you know alot about Russian aircraft because it is important for a sim user to know his enemy so let me know anything surprising about MIG's and SU's. I was reading a really interesting article the other day about the MIG-29 V's the F-16, which I think you posted about before I'm not sure, but I was shocked to find out that the MIG-29 seems to be a very big threat to the F-16 in terms of it's armament capabilty and the head mounted targeting systems and if the F-16 was in a 45 degree position from the nose of a MIG-29 it stands a good chance of being hit bad. Is this true?

The trouble in F4 when I turn hard at 350 Knts is that the speed drops off really bad. It may be because I'm pulling back really hard and forcing too much out of the aircraft.

I was born in England but I am half Italian. In Italy there is an American AFB about 20 miles south from my home town. It's situated near a mountain area in the south of Italy. When I was a child I would watch the plane's training in the mountains. All I would hear were the sonic booms, they sounded terrifying, like loud thunder and that's when I first began to love aircraft.

I was studying at Middlesex Uni but had to pull out due to financial difficulties. I was studying Computer Science. How are you finding your course by the way? Are you enjoying yourself?

Rapier.]