Belenko is meaningless. Pilot without political bias and manual’s disagree. Your source is “I did the math in my head” you have no clue how hot it actually gets. Pulling the number from who knows where.
Again no source = no counterargument
It literally says that the nickel-chromium melts around 1300 degrees. And It deforms well before the melting temperature. It exactly matches with the claims of Belenko.
Again, documentation from the same govt that caused the Chernobyl disaster doesnt necessarily match what science say.
I’m not asking about source of melting point of the metal haha.
You don’t have a source for the engine getting that hot.
And again you’re getting your political bias in the way of logic thinking. Chernobyl is completely different thing
Buddy youre using completely wrong term there, boiling occurs thousands of degrees after the melting point, metals doesnt hold any structural strength before they boil as they are in a liquid phase… they are two differnet phase changes.
In another words… Water melts/turns into ice at about 0C and starts to boil at 100C. Im sure everyone can tell the difference between how cold ice and how hot boiling water is
Spoiler
And also can’t turn for anything. You will consistently lose turn fights to tornadoes in this brick.
That won’t be modeled unless some serious bias comes in, as almost every topteir plane with geometric-variable inlets has this effect, especially the TF-30 F-14s.
3 Likes
https://war-book.ru/mikoyan-gurevich-mig-25-istrebitel/
1000°C at Mach 2.8, that gives about 1200-1300 at mach +3.2… and again and again… Somehow the words of Belenko are “fake” because it doesn’t align with what you believe in. And one of the reasons Algerian pilots, as @racimazzedine said, never go +2.8 is as not to kill the engines. Someone has to explain why pilots from two continents are complaining about the same thing?
I have absolutely no political bias against the USSR. I just acknowledge that their bureaucracy were pathological liars, pretty much like everywhere else in fact, but it was still on an other level. The parallel with Chernobyl is that they repeatedly misrepresented the operational condition/quality of what their industry produced in order to avoid being convicted of embezzlement.
I used the wrong wording, yes. The melting occurs around 1300, boiling the double of it, and creeping/alloy deformation a few hundreds degrees before the 1300 mark. Hence consistent Mach +3.2 with such a simple alloy is just fantasy land…
1 Like
Your source is an article? HAHAHA this is a joke man. Also again youre making stuff up it being 1000 degrees at 2.8 does not mean it has to be that much higher at +3.2 just making stuff up again. Same two pilot lies again. One of those is just fake, 0 proof anecdote. what is next you make a drawing in MS paint and tell me its real document?
At this point, what would be laughable between the words of a pilot (Belenko) and a document approved for reading by the same people who blew up Chernobyl.
A rhetorical question, of course…
No source no argument gg next
›Belenko is not a source
We’re going in circles, it’s alright.
Soviet and Algerian pilots were/are setting a max speed of Mach 2.8 just for fun. What they complain about is fictive because the soviet bureaucracy paper from the 70’s say so.
Belenko is not as trustworthy as the others due to political pressure. Indian pilot and others disagree without any political pressure. You just pick and choose whichever made up source suits you best. But when you have real pilots words on video recording then you just ignore it
1 Like
Just a brief correction: Soviet bureaucracy was incredibly fastidious. The bureaucrats kept documentation quite accurately, even when the information presented by the party and/or development bureaus was generally exaggerated to stoke fear in the west. There is some evidence from the soviets themselves that the mig 25 can achieve a bit over mach 3 for a very brief period, but it effectively requires the platform to be assessed for integrity, rebuilt, and the engine scrapped. For want of better terms, I am a bit tired writing this.
Haven’t the documentation to hand at present, sadly. Have not come across mach 3.2 being a consistent figure though.
1 Like
You are wrong. Flight above Mach 3 reduced engine life but did not lead to it being scrapped.
I’m certain you believe so.
First document was later adjusted under actual combat conditions, allowing for way longer flights on full afterburner and at higher speed. 2.83 is just the safe engine limit that won’t risk reducing engine life. And the other documents you have linked do not disagree with me in anyway.
I’m aware flying above 2.83 stresses the airframe, but anyone suggesting it melts the engine is wrong. It simply causes a shortened lifespan of both engine and airframe, exactly why the restrictions were lifted under actual combat
1 Like
Can we see it/them?
Never said they melt once they go above 2.83, dont claim things I never said. I know its the safe engine limit within heat/time constraints. Enough heat added to the engine and you’ll see damage. Go above it and and it will be high enough that you’ll easily pass the threshold trying to reach Mach 3.1( for example )as the acceleration time from Mach 2.83 is longer than the time it takes for it to get hot enough and damage the engine leading to a midflight failure. Could come from a previous flight where the pilot flew more than 5 minutes at Mach 2.7, caused damage by heat stress/fatigue/deformation on the blades and a loss of clearance against the outer shroud leading to a failure on the next flight.
It can go past 2.83, it has done it. You can over heat it doing and lose clearance. At that speed stability wont be enough and a vibration can cause a blade to hit the casing, something breaks or gives and you are fire ball in the sky.
It not just stress to airframe, fuel heat up and that affect combustion performance. Also as you can read, the dampers can provide sufficient stability up to 2.83.
3 Likes
We are certain the blue players will low ball the MiG-25 with great pleasure.
Little details like MiG-25 higher ClMax than F-15 do not dissuade them.
I recall a falsehood peddled that R-40 (AIM-7F level deltaV) was like an AIM-7E lol
And now we got “mach 2.83 only cuz it breaks” and other gems.
1 Like
Could come from a previous flight where the pilot flew more than 5 minutes at Mach 2.7, caused damage by heat stress/fatigue/deformation on the blades and a loss of clearance against the outer shroud leading to a failure on the next flight.
Source?
Can we see it/them?
Finding MiG-25 documentation is already hard enough, claims made by plane designer and pilots is closes we may get.
They have said that all restrictions were lifted under actual combat and that speed near or above mach 3 doesnt melt engine, only reduce engine life