Thorgalaeg
Deity
The Mig-25 HAS an ejection system like all combat aircraft, and very effective too, (in fact there was an ejection from a mig-25 flying at 20 km high and near mach 3 and the pilot resulted unhurt),
What would happen... IF
- Thread starter PantheraTigris2
- Start date
The Mig-25 HAS an ejection system like all combat aircraft, and very effective too, (in fact there was an ejection from a mig-25 flying at 20 km high and near mach 3 and the pilot resulted unhurt),
Maybe that's a unqiue model. I think I used Wikipedia as my source.Thorgalaeg said:
PantheraTigris2
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 2,006
That was talking about the MiG-25 that defected back in 1976... they were looking it over.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Then Wikipedia is wrong. It was a mig-25R like anyone else Equipped with a KM-1M seat. All Mig-25s (and many other migs models like mig-21 or mig- 23) have a KM-1 seat.
PantheraTigris2
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 2,006
It's not 'wrong' - the one back in 1976 really had no pilot ejection system! Read my words! 
(j/k)
(j/k)
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Well, I dont know if Belenko´s plane had ejection seat, in such case that Mig would be the unique model.
PantheraTigris2
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 2,006
Wikipedia says it was apparently a weight-saving feature. Also, note what it says about top speed (& engine destruction) - perhaps, as time went on, the engines got more powerful, and they could reach the higher speeds, and at the same time not have to be so careful about limiting weight, as to not include an ejection system. 
Foxbat was made of steel too, not titanium. That would make it relatively heavy.
Apparently, the Foxbat (with missiles) was capable to shooting down a Blackbird but the USAF didn't know it at the time.
I wonder what misconceptions the next generation will see in current stuff?
Apparently, the Foxbat (with missiles) was capable to shooting down a Blackbird but the USAF didn't know it at the time.
I wonder what misconceptions the next generation will see in current stuff?
Perfection
The Great Head.
Yeah, I'm kinda starting a little rebellion.MarineCorps said:trying to raise an Air force huh Perfection?
All we need is an Air Force...
...and men
...and money, supplies, plans, weapons, that and a cause.
Here's my conjecture. I'd wager that the the plane would experience an increase in altitude from the updraft and a minor amount of rotation. It's likely that the pilot would need to undergo an emergency landing though, as the dust could be very damaging.
MarineCorps
Explosion!
PantheraTigris2 said:Wikipedia says it was apparently a weight-saving feature. Also, note what it says about top speed (& engine destruction) - perhaps, as time went on, the engines got more powerful, and they could reach the higher speeds, and at the same time not have to be so careful about limiting weight, as to not include an ejection system.
Forget Wikipedia.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-25.htm
he Foxbat is a high-performance, high-altitude interceptor. This fast but unmaneuverable interceptor has also been deployed as a high altitude reconnaissance platform. Given the NATO reporting name 'Foxbat', the MiG-25 was designed wo intercept the US B-70 bomber that was to have been capable of Mach 3. The B-70 was never built however, so the Soviets were left with a long-range interceptor capable of astonishing speed and a phenomenal rate of climb. A MiG-25 can take off and climb to an altitude of 35,000 meters (114,000 ft) in a little over four minutes.
There are several versions of this aircraft: A--basic interceptor; B--reconnaissance; C--two-seat trainer; D--reconnaissance with a modified radar; and E. The FOXBAT A aircraft, originally designed to counter high-altitude threats, has been converted to FOXBAT E, providing a limited low-altitude look-down and shoot-down capabilities somewhat comparable to FLOGGER.
The wings are high-mounted, swept-back, and tapered with square tips. The aircraft has two turbojet engines and large rectangular air intakes below the canopy and forward of the wing roots. There are dual exhaust. The fuselage is long and slender with solid, pointed nose. The aircraft is box-like from the air intakes to rear section. It has a bubble canopy. On the tail are twin, sweptback, and tapered fins with angular tips. There are flats mid- to low-mounted on fuselage, swept-back, and tapered with angular tips.
Assemblies of the airframe of aircraft MIG-25 (fuselage, wings, keels, stabilizer, pylons, nose fairing). MIG-25 - one-place supersonic fighter, capable of carrying out flight with a velocity of 3 000 km/h and of accomplishing energetic (with the overload to 4,5 units) maneuvers in the range of the velocities of 2500-3000 km/h. Aircraft has two engines R -15 of the construction OF OKB Of s. tumanskiy with the thrust 11000 kg each. On the aircraft MIG-25 since 1965 on 1978 were established twenty five world speed records, height and rate of climb. The basic special features of the aerodynamic layout of this aircraft were: the wing of the moderate sweepback (41 deg), of the small relative thickness; flat off-axis inlets in combination with the wide lift fuselage; the double-keel diagram of vertical tail assembly; the differentially controllable stabilizer, which ensures the high efficiency of lateral control in flight with the high speeds. The kinetic heating of construction at the high flight velocities determined the selection of material - high-temperature high-temperature (strength) steels. Supersonic fighter MIG-25 the fuselage of the aircraft of all-welded construction from the high-temperature (strength) stainless steel of the type VNS-2, VNS-SHCH, etc.
The wing of 3- longeron construction, is sectional on the joint with the nose tank and is nondetachable on the joint of nose tank with the central tank also of central tank with the trailing section of wing. Nose from OT -4 of all-welded construction. Nose and central tanks - tank of all-welded construction from VNS-2 and VNS-SHCH, power packs - made of steel E0KHGSA. Aileron and the flap of riveted construction with the application of honeycomb blocks. Pylon (APU-YA0, APU-YA0D) of riveted construction with the pintle suspension to the wing. Load-bearing elements - made of steel E0KHGSA, guides of pylon have chromium coating. Skins and structural elements are made from materials D -16, D -19.
NATO had its first detailed look at the MiG-25 when a Soviet pilot defected to Japan with one in September 1976. This exposed its 1950s-era radar and other features that dispelled much of the mythology built up by some Western analysts since the first sighting of the 'Foxbat' in 1967.
MarineCorps
Explosion!
Perfection said:
Downgrading it to a rebellion huh? Last I heard it was an Empire.
Not sure about the accuracy of that. Other sources have claimed it has the most powerful radar of any aircraft. Perhaps they used older design concepts, but to compare it to 1950s equipment may be rash.
The aircraft in my avatar was made with 40s/50s techs (entered service in 1960).
MarineCorps
Explosion!
This source has been called upon by many major news sources. It is highly regarded.stormbind said:
stormbind said:
What is it? I don't quite reconnize it/
(English Electric) Lightning. There were many other funky fighters around that time, because the technologies were still being explored.MarineCorps said:
Here's a site dedicated to them. Not much in the way of technical specifications, but plenty of Cold War stories: The Bear Hunt (lightning.org.uk)
MarineCorps
Explosion!
stormbind said:
Hmm, thanks. Have to add that to my memory for future ID.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
About the radar, in fact, the radar of the basic Mig-25 is the most POWERFUL radar for far instaled in any fighter. The "Fox Fire" has 600 kw (about 800 hp). It is primitive and not very effective detecting, but it can literally burn the sekker of many radar guided missiles aproaching to the plane from the front or defeating enemy ECMs due only to brute force.
About the Lighting it was an excellent plane, but it could carry very little weapons payload and his combat range was indeed very short. BTW i believe it is the only supersonic aircraft built entirely in GB and used in active service ever.
About the Lighting it was an excellent plane, but it could carry very little weapons payload and his combat range was indeed very short. BTW i believe it is the only supersonic aircraft built entirely in GB and used in active service ever.
Thorgalaeg said:
There ya' go. That's what I meant: the above is not what you think of when the article says 1950s radar system.
A socialist British government wrecked the industry (and others). English Electric were planning a hypersonic (Mach 5) fighter jet until Labour came to power (50s?).About the Lighting it was an excellent plane, but it could carry very little weapons payload and his combat range was indeed very short. BTW i believe it is the only supersonic aircraft built entirely in GB and used in active service ever.
Before Labour: Buccaneer, Gannet, Gnat, Hunter, Javelin, Lightning, Phantom, Scimitar, Sea Hawk, Sea Vixen, Swift, TSR.2, Valiant, Victor, Vulcan... (the list goes on).
After Labour: Harrier (cut down remnants of TSR.2)
Ye' see! Automobile industry was also wrecked, ship-building industry, and others aswell... basically anything to do with engineering... an entire nation was crippled by one crappy government! They never recovered, but the remnants of those companies escaped to the USA (BAE Systems, National Grid, etc.. are the old British companies).
That history is certainly worthy of an
But, in response to the statement, I think some other planes listed were supersonic. I think the later versions of Harrier are supersonic.
PantheraTigris2
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 2,006
Hey, stormbind - being a Brit, do you say 'full afterburner', or 'maximum reheat'? 'Langing gear', or 'undercarriage'. 
I always thought it was 'interesting' when I got a flight sim (like 'Birds of Prey' - probably before your time) that was made in Britain, and had all sorts of 'foreign' terminology.
'Langing gear', or 'undercarriage'. I always thought it was 'interesting' when I got a flight sim (like 'Birds of Prey' - probably before your time) that was made in Britain, and had all sorts of 'foreign' terminology.
Well, not being an expert, I'm not the ideal person to answer. I use all of the above, depending on who I'm talking to. If I'm writing it down, then I use the British terminology.
Don't forget, the British invented the jet engine, so I think they should know best.. 
Don't forget, the British invented the jet engine, so I think they should know best..
PantheraTigris2
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 2,006
stormbind said:Don't forget, the British invented the jet engine, so I think they should know best..
That is not accurate - that German guy, Dr. Hans von Ohain and the Brit Sir Frank Whittle are both recognized as being the co-inventors of the jet engine. Each worked separately and knew nothing of the other's work. Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine. However, Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent for the turbojet engine in 1930.
...and usually, the 'first one to get it to work' - is credited with 'inventing it'.
Similar threads
