Mig-25 flies slower than a Flanker!!
-
So I was flying an Egyptian Mig-25 the other day in the Israeli map and ran up the engines to full power at approximately 50+ ft above ground level, and barely hit 650 knots, same result when I went higher and tried the same. Later in another mission I flew the Su-30 and did the same thing, and this one went 670kts! So an air superiority fighter flies faster than a dedicated interceptor!
-
…and each were designed, when?
-
Mig25 was design for high altitude. Low altitude sux. Blame it on large intakes. Google the performance envolope.
-
Thrust to weight for each?..I have to figure the BMS team got this one pretty correct, though. Just guessing.
-
SU-30 670 kts also in 50K+ feet? I guess u were much lower this time.
Watch your true speed - machmeter. Your SU30 670kt can be MACH 1,3 for example while your 60000ft Mig25 650 kt can be MACH 2,x…I fly MiG-31 quite often…I fly MACH 2,3 - 2,5 usually.
-
So I was flying an Egyptian Mig-25 the other day in the Israeli map and ran up the engines to full power at approximately 50+ ft above ground level, and barely hit 650 knots, same result when I went higher and tried the same. Later in another mission I flew the Su-30 and did the same thing, and this one went 670kts! So an air superiority fighter flies faster than a dedicated interceptor!
All a/c present in the sim are not necessarily supposed to be flown by human. Expect issues and inconsistencies that will probably never fixed and is a top bottom priority.
-
Egyptian Foxbat? You sure?!!
Perhaps Syrian 'cause Egypt never had Foxbats in their fleet!
Flag is a bit confusing as both are red white black but SAAF (Syrian Arab airforce) has two stars on white banner.
-
Red Air performance is far short of realistic across the board.
-
-
So I was flying an Egyptian Mig-25 the other day in the Israeli map and ran up the engines to full power at approximately 50+ ft above ground level, and barely hit 650 knots, same result when I went higher and tried the same. Later in another mission I flew the Su-30 and did the same thing, and this one went 670kts! So an air superiority fighter flies faster than a dedicated interceptor!
Which it totally real. The MiG-25 is powerless even comparint to maybe and F-5E at low alt. MiG-25 is designed to fly fast at very high alt. The pre dynamic compression before the comprassion which makes strong a fast and high the MiG-25. The SFC is lower above M2.0 than below.
-
With the Mig-25 at 50K i’ve reached mach 3.2
-
The higher you go the slower M 3.2 is, though…
-
The higher you go the slower M 3.2 is, though…
Not by much though. Above 35 000 ft in standard atmosphere, M1.0 corresponds to a constant TAS speed.
-
With the Mig-25 at 50K i’ve reached mach 3.2
I had the same experience in AF…and data are the same I guess. If you know howto fly MiG-25/31 in Falcon4, you can be very dangerous even with R-40 only…
-
Harrier GR1 was faster than a Foxbat below 5000ft and a Harrier is barely capable of reaching Mach1 when dived. At 30,000ft I’d be really worried in A Harrier as I have no speed envelope to speak of and the Foxbat is capable of Mach 2.5 easy and has a sprint of 2.8 - 3.1 dependant on load and version. 'Cause neither can turn for shit at that height when flat out …
-
Harrier GR1 was faster than a Foxbat below 5000ft and a Harrier is barely capable of reaching Mach1 when dived. At 30,000ft I’d be really worried in A Harrier as I have no speed envelope to speak of and the Foxbat is capable of Mach 2.5 easy and has a sprint of 2.8 - 3.1 dependant on load and version. 'Cause neither can turn for shit at that height when flat out …
The Harrier excels at low and slow. Because it has such a large intake and the LP fan is so aggressive, it is a beast at accelerating in high density air. It was designed that way to maximize lift near sea level and very low speeds, i.e. a hover. As speed increases it’s engine performance drops because the engine is designed to grab air instead of let it pass through. It seems that a turbofan engine can either be designed for high velocity flow which is good for high mach or designed to grab the air at low velocity which is good for low speed acceleration but limits it’s top speed. Turbofan gearboxes are now variable. The technology is new and is being implemented now. A variable gearbox plus better tuning for the inlet guide vanes will produce a better performance range. There are several other tactics that can be used to either allow versatility or specialization. As usual versatility loses peak performance at low and high pass but can perform well at a wider range. Specializing at low pass will provide great acceleration at low speed in high density air but will suffer at high speed and low density. Specializing at high pass will provide great performance at speed and altitude but will suffer at low speed and high density. It has to do with how density and velocity affect performance in these respective stages: Suck–->Squeeze—>Bang—>Blow.
-
Harrier GR1 was faster than a Foxbat below 5000ft and a Harrier is barely capable of reaching Mach1 when dived. At 30,000ft I’d be really worried in A Harrier as I have no speed envelope to speak of and the Foxbat is capable of Mach 2.5 easy and has a sprint of 2.8 - 3.1 dependant on load and version. 'Cause neither can turn for shit at that height when flat out …
A lot faster yes but at 30,000ft top end was more like M1.5.
M2.8 came in around 18,000m (59,000 ft )
-
A lot faster yes but at 30,000ft top end was more like M1.5.
M2.8 came in around 18,000m (59,000 ft )
Yes I knew the Mig wasn’t high enough for it’s top end speed but even M1.5 is showing a Harrier (M.9 if lucky) a clean set of heals