This reality is in your sick imagination (Again, only Western data)…There are no wars that consist of duels of planes or tanks…This is the common work of all branches of the armed forces … List of aircraft losses of the Vietnam War - Wikipedia (turbopages.org)
At the bottom of the site is a fairly complete list of Vietnam’s aerial victories … «Фантом» против МиГа: противостояние во вьетнамском небе (topwar.ru)
All sources are not Russian…
2 Likes
Plane was underperforming in slow speed rate even before the weight increase.
Yes, but I don’t know if they’ll accept it with only one test… knowing how this usually goes they certainly won’t accept the part where I calculate what actually sustained turn time would be without a test getting values close to them (the problem with this is that it’s very hard at least without a stick to keep speed and altitude very consistent).
I think its a good idea to mention their answer to the previous report of being “correct in their own testing” and then mentioning how they increased the weight without adjusting. So even if your testing isnt the best it still has strong backing from a logical perspective
More F-4 lost of AAMs counted as losses from SAM. And it’s small part of this Polish casino advertisement
at least the MiG-25 has a different ratio, about 6 of them were shot down, not 8. At the same time, he himself shot down about 11 aircraft.2 F-15s were also shot down in aerial combat.One exactly the wreckage of the Israeli F-15 is in the museum of the 2nd indirectly US Air Force aircraft.The phantom has negative statistics, not positive as here.About the MiG-21 is also funny
3 Likes
MiG-29 rate test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNPqnrilstw
23.1 seconds, 15.58 deg/sec. ~200kt
MiG-29 sustained G at 200kt : 3.2 G
Horizontal component of this G force = Gy = sqrt(G^2-1) = 2.93G
Degree/seconds for a given speed and G force = (180/π) * (Gy*9.81) / (Speed in m/s) .
In our case it would be 16.62 deg sec.
With this deg sec projected sustained turn time at 200kt sea level should be 21.66 seconds.
Removed previous post/calculations as they contained some errors and this test is more accurate than the one posted before
and we also live in a world of pink ponies and green elephants
open the original source, The practical aerodynamics of the MiG-29 is better indicated there
I’m wondering if the German manual is accurate as I’ve heard they reduced performance of the motor to enhance the mean time between failures.
Thanks for laughing, but I’m not going to discuss this crazy picture with you
1 Like
why do this if it says lies
1 Like
@BBCRF and @SlowHandClap
if you need to discuss a picture, politics or F-15 kill to death ratios go in another thread, write here if you want to discuss something about the MiG29
4 Likes
i was about to say something like that, ty
It’s kinda relevant to the thread though, because even after the MiG-29 was stealth buffed today Russia mains are still crying it’s not enough.
Are you not the guy who claims the MiG-29 would be faster if they increased the mass, with zero proof?
You can’t conduct polite discussion, you’re here to bait and troll and you’ve done a terrific job of derailing the thread. Please leave.
7 Likes
Can’t even try to get an accurate fm for the mig29 without it being russian mains crying. Meanwhile the f16 is a completely ahistorical ufo…
Yes I am, when I am done doing this bug report I’ll answer to you.
Anyway I’m pretty sure I gave you a physical explanation on why that would happen (or at least why the MiG29 wouldn’t be slower). Effective airflow is the airflow at he end of the wing, and, as the air NEEDS to be deflected downwards to produce lift, effective airflow is tilted a bit compared to relative airflow.
Instead of writing this I suggest you spend some time reading this: Lift-induced drag - Wikipedia
1 Like
He’s only here to pester you and everyone else, you’re feeding him grade A entertainment by responding.
1 Like
Yeah I know, at least if he reads something about aerodynamics he may troll using actual physics lol
You gave me a physical explanation according to your physics, which you yourself admitted was wrong in that thread. Forgive me if I’m not slightly sceptical of other claims you make afterwards. More interesting is how @MiG_23M keeps interjecting into that thread with toddler-level understanding of physics saying how mass doesn’t influence missile top speed at all. I’m sure even you can concede he’s wrong on that point?