Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 10, 2006, 12:12 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

With the second shot I have no doubt they are real shots.

He is cooking. At least 300 knots and probably a lot more. He has no leading or trailing edge devices out. With the ground that close he has to be flying level and you can therefore see the angle of attack by relating it to the runway.

Odd he has the fueling probe out. The probe might have a speed limit but it is probably pretty high. It isn't unusual to refuel at 300 knots.

There is obviously terrain and buildings on the side where the first shot was taken from. You can't see that far forward in the second shot, but there could be a high vantage point to get the shot from. It would have been a telephoto shot and it is even more curious there isn't any motion blur. If it was taken from a building it looks like the airport perimeter is a quarter mile.

I've been to airshows all over the world and flown in several airshows and firepower demonstrations. I have yet to see anyone dumb enough to build a tall observation tower next to a runway. There could have been a second airplane forward of the second shot, but it isn't likely. You wouldn't want a distraction from a single plane on a high speed pass.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 12:13 PM   #22
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
the shot from the other side does look like the real thing.
But then it still doesn't have much any engine exhaust signs, horizontal line of some fence in background is sharp.
And here's how well engine exhaust shows if there's anything else than completely flat color surface behind.


BTW, Cobra definitely looks nice but I wouldn't keep those much usefull in combat, after all if distance to enemy calls that kind move pilot has already done at least one error. (and been lucky enough to survive from that)
Usefulnes of move would depend totally on enemy, it's meant to rapidly drop speed and cause chasing plane to overshoot which would change situation of planes but thrust vectoring high off-boresight missiles are capable practically to even nearly instant 180 degree turn after launch and for helmet sight low speed of aircraft means easy targeting and for missile that means sitting duck-target.
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 12:19 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

Steve, i've seen the Cobra performed by an SU-27. it's impressive, and though the Flanker doesn't "hover", it is a very unique maneuver, and never fails to leave me wondering how on earth the pilot gets the nose back down! when i saw it done, the Flanker actually "reared back" more than 90 degrees before the pilot recovered the aircraft to normal horizontal flight.

i've also seen a pretty impressive maneuver performed by the MiG-29, in which the aircraft comes in horizontally at about 250 kts, then pulls into a vertical climb with afterburners. after a climb of about 1000 feet, the pilot cuts the throttles to idle, and the airplane slides back toward the ground backweards, vertically, for several hundred feet, before the pilot drops the nose to horizontal and advances the throttles to full military power again. i don't know what the Russians call this maneuver, buti sawit performed in 1989 at the Abbotsford Airshow, and heard a whispered, "aw, sh*t!" from behind me. when i turned around, there were two USAF F-16 pilots - neither of whom were apparently aware of the MiG's capability in this regard. obviously, this maneuver, unlike the Cobra ( which is primarily just a show trick), has some serious ramifications for aerial combat, and i suspect those F-16 jocks were hoping they'd never face a MiG-29 in wartime!
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 12:24 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

E.T wrote:
Quote:
squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
the shot from the other side does look like the real thing.
But then it still doesn't have much any engine exhaust signs, horizontal line of some fence in background is sharp.
And here's how well engine exhaust shows if there's anything else than completely flat color surface behind.
yes, the fence line is still relatively sharp, but there's significant exhaust distortion right below that line. i'm betting the second shot, at least, is real.
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 12:36 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

slipe wrote:
Quote:
With the second shot I have no doubt they are real shots.

He is cooking. At least 300 knots and probably a lot more. He has no leading or trailing edge devices out. With the ground that close he has to be flying level and you can therefore see the angle of attack by relating it to the runway.

Odd he has the fueling probe out. The probe might have a speed limit but it is probably pretty high. It isn't unusual to refuel at 300 knots.

There is obviously terrain and buildings on the side where the first shot was taken from. You can't see that far forward in the second shot, but there could be a high vantage point to get the shot from. It would have been a telephoto shot and it is even more curious there isn't any motion blur. If it was taken from a building it looks like the airport perimeter is a quarter mile.

I've been to airshows all over the world and flown in several airshows and firepower demonstrations. I have yet to see anyone dumb enough to build a tall observation tower next to a runway. There could have been a second airplane forward of the second shot, but it isn't likely. You wouldn't want a distraction from a single plane on a high speed pass.
yes, at least 250-300 kts, possibly as much as 400-450.not likey much more than that, though - even Russian test pilots are seldom crazy enough to light up the burners and try to hit mach one at 15 feet! he's probably riding in the ground-effect compression layer, which would tend to keep him airborne - especially at high speeds -unless he actively changed wing configuration to force the aircraft down.

refueling probes, especially short ones like this, can safely be extended at relatively high airspeeds, although why he's deployed it for this maneuver i couldn't guess.

you may be right about the distraction of another aircraft, but if the Blue Angels could fly A-4 Skyhawks at 350 kts with wingtips 36 inches apart, i'm sure this guy cankeep focused onstaying 15-20 feet offthe ground.any pilot as skilled as this guy obviously is has learned to tune out EVERYTHING except what he's doing, and a chase plane off to the side wouldn't even be a factor to him.
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 3:39 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

Quote:
But then it still doesn't have much any engine exhaust signs, horizontal line of some fence in background is sharp.
And here's how well engine exhaust shows if there's anything else than completely flat color surface behind.
I see no problem with exhaust. Once up to speed it doesn't take anywhere near military power to maintain say 350 knots in that aircraft. And he could have reduced power because he was going a little faster than he wanted. At the angles taken it wouldn't necessarily show. The second shot does show exhaust.

Quote:
i've also seen a pretty impressive maneuver performed by the MiG-29, in which the aircraft comes in horizontally at about 250 kts, then pulls into a vertical climb with afterburners. after a climb of about 1000 feet, the pilot cuts the throttles to idle, and the airplane slides back toward the ground backweards, vertically, for several hundred feet, before the pilot drops the nose to horizontal and advances the throttles to full military power again. i don't know what the Russians call this maneuver, but i saw it performed in 1989 at the Abbotsford Airshow, and heard a whispered, "aw, sh*t!" from behind me. when i turned around, there were two USAF F-16 pilots - neither of whom were apparently aware of the MiG's capability in this regard. obviously, this maneuver, unlike the Cobra ( which is primarily just a show trick), has some serious ramifications for aerial combat, and i suspect those F-16 jocks were hoping they'd never face a MiG-29 in wartime!
I happened to be at the Paris Airshow the first time they demonstrated the cobra in the West. I have no idea who the pilot was. I still had friends flying F-16s and their reaction was pretty strong even though that sort of thing has no combat value. Their problem was with the philosophy of the fly-by-wire setup on the F-16. The engineers had determined there was no practical reason for the pilot to push beyond certain limits and the plane just wouldn't let them do it. Not only were the F-16 airshows pretty dull but FA-18 drivers were pulling their planes out of the envelope in jousts and the Falcon drivers couldn't do that. The pilots got a couple of concessions. They greatly expanded the allowable parameters and made the stick move – it had been solid and just worked on pressure.

Falling back on your exhaust probably has less combat value than the cobra. In air combat speed is life. I'm guessing the F-16 drivers were grumping about the limits the engineers had put on their controls. The MIG-29 would be the last plane in the world to have to resort to such suicidal tactics. The Russians developed a dogfighting missile for the MIG-29 that will go wherever the pilot's head is turned. They don't have to become sitting ducks to get behind another aircraft.

Many fighters do that same maneuver falling back on their exhaust anymore. I don't know whether they increased the parameters enough on the F-16 flight system to do that, but I've seen several other fighters do it.

I was referring to a distraction for the audience. Another plane on a photo op would probably detract from the effect of a low altitude pass.

You don't notice ground effect at those speeds. I'm sure it is there but you have so much control authority you don't notice it. I've been at just a few feet at 600 knots indicated in firepower demonstrations and ground effect doesn't seem to want to keep you from hitting the ground.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 5:32 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

i think what the Falcon drivers were contemplating was the prospect of following a Fulcrum into a vertical climb, then having the MiG chop the throttles and not only stop (without the telltale deployment of speed brakes), but slide backwards,forcingthe F-16 into an overshoot - the MiG driver then puts an Atoll upthe Falcon's butt, drops his nose, and goes on his merry way. none of our fighters can do that; the best we can do is "idle and boards", to shed airspeed, but it isn't nearly as fast or dramatic, and the air brakes are a dead giveaway. from what i hear of the MiG 29, it's one of the deadliest aircraft in the sky, when flown by a competent pilot who is given sufficient autonomy to use it effectively. the saving grace for our guys is that there aren't many such pilots out there with MiG 29's strapped to their butts...

the MiG, like most modern Russian fighters,also uses a very lethal IR tracking and targeting system, much like the old IR sensors you used to see on F-101's, etc., only much better. it's so accurate, the MiG designers were able to reduce the magazine capacity for the cannon from 1400 rounds to 750. it's also completely passive, so in overcast weather, the MiG could sneak up right on your six and let you have it before you even knew he was there.

i knew the F-16's FBW control system had some bugs, and pilots didn't like the rigid pressure activated sticks. after enough complaints, they finally started making the stick so it would move - a little - but it still works on pressure.

actually, i don't believe any US jets can do anything like that climb-and-fall-back thing. the only way the MiG gets away with it, as iunderstand it,is because the '29 has auxiliary intakes on top of the wing shoulders, and main intake doors that shut automatically at idle. this was designed to permit operation from dirt runways without FODding the engines, but some enterprising soul discovered it also gave the MiG a new trick to employ in ACM. apparently the top-mounted intakes prevent reverse airflow through the engine during the "fall-back" portion of the maneuver, andkeep the engines from stalling...

in general, though, you're quite right. speed is life. energy is God. and there's no substitute for BVR weapons andrules of engagement that let you use them!
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 7:13 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

170mph x 5280ft / 60min / 60sec = 249.3 feet per second

249.3 / 1/4000s (shutter speed) = 0.0623 ft movement (0.747 inch)

allowing for slight camera panning the shot IS technically possible
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 8:34 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 112
Default

I to believe it`s real. I`ve watched numerous landings at nearby Miami international airport, which has a looong, looong runway on the south side, and noticed many aircraft , mostly freighters and small aircraft, flying really low as they prepare to land. The south side runway was extended long ago in order to land the French Condorde supersonic airliner. The Concourde required a lot of room for it`s high speed landings and take offs.Alas, due to age, Concorde operations have ceased.

One of the most spectacular flying exhibitions I have everseenat an airshow was done with an aerobatic glider. A gliderhas no motor. The glider was towed by a small powered aircraft to an altitude where it released it`s tow rope, 4 or 5 thousand feet above the runway. The pilot "danced" theglider thru a variety of graceful movements, all the while slowly loosing altitude. Several thousand feet above the runway, the glider went into a straight down nose dive, and gained a tremendous amount of speed. The glider then rolled 180 degrees. The pilot then pushed "the stick" forward. This stick movement put the glider upside down, parallel to the ground. The pilot then ran along the length of the runway, still upside down,and cut a ribbon with the tail section, that was suspended between two poles 25 feet above the ground!!! He then pushed he stick forward, which gained him altitude, and rolled his aircraft right side up. He then looped around and landed to much aa deserved huge ovation!
John H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 8:49 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 112
Default

Oh yeah, as far as "The Cobra" manuever, I`ve talked to two F16 pilots, and a F18 pilot, and they all agree thatit is an amazing aerobatic manuever, and none of them would ever even think of trying something like that . As far as a tatical manuever, " The Cobra" , it would be the last attempted manuever an opposing pilot would ever make. "The Cobra" is areally slow speed manuever, and in combat,those making slow speed manuevers die quick.
John H is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:33 PM.