1. Introducing the smashing new Team FIAT T-Shirt !! To order yours click here : Team FIAT T-Shirt

For the Aviation minded

Discussion in 'Hangout' started by johnny, Apr 12, 2011.

  1. naveen2cool

    naveen2cool Superiore

    Messages:
    646
    Chennai
    Flying is our passion but some how we were not able to make it our profession. Its not the end. Why don't we pursue our passion as a hobby flyer?

    Any one interested in flying a micro flight or dream to own one? I'm :)
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2013
  2. DeLineated

    DeLineated Timido

    Messages:
    18
    MH12
    @Johnny,

    Great to have a former fighter pilot among us. For me it's an unrealized ambition to be on a K36D of a MiG-29 ( Su-30 will also do ! ).
    I would like to ask some questions about the jets, though I suspect you might not answer some of them - I know government and especially military mindset of regarding even ordinary stuff as classified, being an army kid myself , whereas US and Europeans are more open, you can sit outside their bases and click away with a camera unlike India. I have been to Lohegaon several times, spoken to some active duty pilots of 20 and 30 sqd , and yes, they gave me evasive responses ;)

    So anyway, my particular interest in the Mirage and MiG-29, and the Su-30 which you haven't flown but might have colleagues who have flown both the Russian twin tails. If you're not comfortable replying on public forum, you can PM me. I don't know if you might also be able to shed more light on the MRCA selection criteria.

    Between the 3, which is most suited for ground strike, air combat, and intercept roles ? Given the radar and payload, the Su-30 should of course take the intercept crown, and strike due to payload, but close air combat seems to be a tough one, the 29 may not have vectored thrust, but it seems to have more thrust/acceleration ; the climb rates indicate the same. Is there any regime the Mirage is able to outturn and/or outclimb the MiG or Su-30 ? The delta is regarded superior for high altitude flight, but in turns it also suffers more drag. What about the engine, is the M53 relatively stronger at higher altitude than the RD-33/AL-31 ?

    I'm glad the Rafale was selected, but am very interested in why the F-16, MiG-29/35 were rejected. I gather, the high altitude performance tests were the reason, I read only the Rafale and Typhoon passed the bar.
    That I find surprising, since the F-16 and MiG-29 are considered very thrusty jets. I know the engine ratings are static sea level, so may not be reliable indicators of actual in-air performance. Neither are the EJ-200 and M-88 engines much different in bypass ratios, vs the F-110-GE129 or RD-33 ; in short I'd expect the latter two to own the Eurojets in real world performance, at least the Rafale whose M-88s aren't all that powerful if not the Typhoon which is said to be much more powerful. What other reasons were there to reject the MiG-35, F-16, F/A-18 and JAS-39 ?

    TIA

Share This Page