Flat spins can happen because of excessive AoA or unusual combinations of AoA and roll/rudder. Not directly because of G-load.
4G at something like Mach3 is barely a turn.
I can fairly belive that MiG-25’s aerodynamic limitations won’t allow it to do something like 8G at 700kph, but it’s certainly able to do that at high speeds when structural integrity is not considered
From the rather comprehensive look at the Belenko airframe. Specific quotes:
"Belenko’s particular aircraft was brand new, representing the very latest Soviet technology.
Welding was done by hand and construction was relatively crude. As in many Soviet aircraft, rivet heads were left exposed in areas that would not adversely affect aerodynamic drag.
The aircraft was built of a nickel-steel alloy and not titanium as was assumed (though some titanium was used in heat-critical areas). The steel construction contributed to the craft’s massive 64,000 lb (29,000 kg) unarmed weight.
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 decommissioned the airframe."
I would say that dubious build quality, combined with some truly heavyweight engineering would make for an airframe you DEFINITELY would not want to subject to any high-G turns - at any speed really. Whether the aerodynamics or structure let go first would be a coin-toss to be honest.
Edit to add - I’m not disputing the MiG-25 would be a fun addition. However there seems to be this strange fixation with arguing that it would be far more agile than it really was. Even the MiG-31 - the ‘ultimate Foxbat plus deluxe’, heavily revised and toughened - has some very stringent limits.
ODIN - OE Data Integration Network
Foxhound limited to 5G.
You don’t understand what you’re writing about at all. Welding was performed by a special machine. Not manually
The weight of an empty plane is 20000kg, not 29
I’m quoting from the Western observations of the Belenko airframe that landed in Japan. They would’ve been able to tell if it was machine-welded or hand-welded.
So they were either unable to tell the difference (not likely - let’s be honest, every expert was flown in as soon as they had the chance to have a look at a MiG-25 in the metal)…
Or the welding quality was so bad that they couldn’t believe it was done via machine. I’m entirely able to believe that to be honest, having seem the welding on a MiG-23, 21 up close…
29,000kg was ‘unarmed’ - so likely including fuel load.
There have long been official documents for the MiG-25 from the manufacturer’s factory
Cold War Jets Walkaround 2 - Tornado F3 & MiG 25 Foxbat
Timestamp 2:43
Timestamp 3:58
I’d be horrified if someone had done that workmanship to my car - much less something that would hoon through the air at nearly Mach 3.
This is an access hatch and it may have changed in the process or been damaged or lost and welded authentic
If you’re talking about propellers, they’re not from an airplane.
paint jobs work wonders at hiding defects
Are we getting the mig-25 in the game? I didn’t see it in the tech tree but neither in previous suggestions and considered
why are they using socket cap screws then rivets is this a prototype mig 25 ?
What does the paint have to do with it? If it is clear that the museum exhibit was poorly maintained
this is not a prototype. It is clear that the bolts are not from the aircraft. Most likely, the original bolts were either lost or damaged.
The same would likely happen to nearly any fighter aircraft ever built.
But it nonetheless demonstrates just how much the aircraft was physically capable of pulling aerodynamically
I give up. Half the forum seems to be convinced that the MiG-25 is a dogfighter…
It really wasn’t designed to turn and burn.
Clearly this is a dog fighter, the Tu-22 is as well :D
I never said it was a dogfighter.
But pretending that it doesn’t meet at least a base level of maneuvering capability to be added to the game is not accurate.
And it certainly exceeds the “hurr-durr, it thrust brick” that exists in the general sphere.
Again, I think you are understating quite how low the basic abilities of the airframe are when it comes to chucking it around the sky. We’re talking about a very heavy aircraft with a low thrust-weight ratio and very high wing loading. This is leaving side the g-limits - which give a basic (although crude) comparison of a jet’s ability to do hard maneuvering.
Name one jet ‘fighter’ in the game that had a real-life G-limit of less than 5G. Yes, WT adds up to another 50% on top - but the starting figures are valid as a baseline. I can’t off the top of my head think of anything close.
How many times do you have to read that the 4.5G number comes from the risk of aileron reversals which are not relevant in-game and is not the airframe structural limit to understand it?
Gaijin will use the 4.5 g figure - the published figure in the flight manual - as they do for every other aircraft. So we’re back to square one.
(Also note the ‘loaded G-limit’ was actually less than the absolute of 4.5G - 2.2G with drop tanks. That would NOT be imposed for reasons of control surface reversal - it would be indicative of a structural reason to avoid overstressing the airframe.)
