![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hello,
I was reading on the net that the MiG-21 is a high demand no-nonsense a/c, and tends to lose control (without the warning buffets as experienced bu other a/c) quite easily (during high speed turns??). Is this a MiG-21 phenom, or do other Delta wing aircraft also have such inhernt control problems? Googling brought out the following... ********************** classic delta-wing aerodynamics problems: 1) vortex bursting 2) dynamic stall 3) falling-leaf mode" of asymmetric deep stall?? Dynamic stall is where you keep raising angle of attack really fast - and the lift keeps increasing - and then the wings stall. And stay stalled when the angle of attack comes down - past zero, down into a dive.... ************************ quote(From Wng. Cdr Suresh's article on Bharat-Rakshak Monitor): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is the docility of the aircraft that not only generates a good bit of confidence but also encourages forays into exceeding the limits of the stipulated flight envelope. In air combat manoeuvres, many inexperienced pilots have got into trouble without realising it. At high angles of attack, the induced drag increases sharply and unless the angle of attack is quickly reduced, the aircraft develops a high rate of descent, which cannot be arrested with the power available (even with reheat). Added to this, there is no protest from the aircraft like severe judder, wing rocking. etc, prevalent in other types of aircraft. This gives a feeling of well-being and a number of pilots did not recognise the danger in time to take recovery action or eject ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A search has not yielded anything on dynamic stalling and other problems of the MiG-21 other than in passing. Can anyone point me out to a source on the net, or any specific paper/book which deals with issues of Dynamic stalling of aircraft in general and delta winged a/c in particular? Have any studies been done on other Deltas (Mirage family, F-102/104) ? And what in your view will explain the aerodynamic limitations of the MiG-21? Thanks, Lars |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I flew the F102 about 1500 hours and did just about everything that
can be done in that aircraft. (only did one one-turn spin, though; it was accidental, and recovery was standard and quick). The F102 had about 740 sq ft of wing and clean weighed about 28000 for takeoff. (38#/sqft!) The aircraft could be flown down to 90 knots controllably in what looked like level flight but starting just below about 115 you were descending and the only way to break the descent and accelerate was by decreasing the angle of attack. Tough if you're close to the ground. At 115 KIAS you were close to 30 degrees AOA and at the limit of one-G flight in full afterburner. At 90 KIAS you were going down at over 6000 FPM. Here is where a lot of transitioning pilots got in trouble; they'd fly a 360 overhead (VFR) pattern, get too slow on final (lulled into complacency by the ease of control) realize at last they were going to land short and now go to full military power to either reach the runway or go-around, and pull back on the stick 'to reduce the descent rate', thus increasing the AOA and the induced drag to horrific levels. Afterburner might have allowed them to fly out of trouble but being new and 'unadvised' they would be loath to call for it until too late. Result - prang. The B58 had sinmilar problems even with experienced pilots. (Paris Air Show - 2X). FWIW there were NO stall warnings whatsoever in the F102. The airplane felt good and solid all the way down the airpseed scale. The caveat in the Flight Manual was that if aileron was used to control wing drop at 90 KIAS the airplane could/would spin. It felt just as solid at 115 as it did at 500. As for the MiG21 - I do not know the airplane but do know it has a much higher wing loading than the F102 (its rotation speed is about 50 knots faster (F102 clean - ISTR 144) and I presume the final approach speed is about the same amount greater. 150 on final was plenty for the Deuce; at about 135 or so you were close to dragging the tail end, but it was still under fine control. So the MiG is a hot airplane on takeoff and landing. It has to have lots of energy to execute hard turns in any flight plane, including a Split-Ess. Any delta will shed energy under high G so quickly it will catch 'unadvised' pilots by surprise. A demo maneuver for transitioning pilots was to roll the TF trainer (tub - side by side ugly mother) inverted at 30 degrees noseup and 250 KIAS at 25,000 and simultaneously light AB and suck back the stick to 5G and execute a Split Ess from 25,000. Result - level flight at 22,000 and 225-250. Done at 3,000 AGL with an F100 on your tail resulted in shucking the Hun. They dared not try to follow you. I suspect a lot of MiGs were lost in air-to ground weapons deliveries begun at too low an energy level. Also - what are the MiG's spin/departure characteristics? The original 21 was a lightweight bird - the last models are pretty heavy even clean. And then there is always - how current are the pilots? How good is the maintenance? There was a negative comment in AVWeek recently on the 21's engine maintenance. Obviously critical on a single engined aircraft. My two cents worth as an ex-F102A pilot/maintenance test/flight examiner - Walt BJ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Had the pleasure to fight the F-106's (a deuce with decent T/W) during
College Dart at Tyndall. Great machine aerodynamically, had a turn (one usually) that would water your eyes ... it was easy to lure the ADC guys into that bat-turn and the subsequent low energy state (delta wings begin to generate significant drag at high AOA). But there was ONE guy .... R / John |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Walt BJ" wrote in message om... I flew the F102 about 1500 hours and did just about everything that can be done in that aircraft. (only did one one-turn spin, though; it was accidental, and recovery was standard and quick). The F102 had about 740 sq ft of wing and clean weighed about 28000 for takeoff. (38#/sqft!) The aircraft could be flown down to 90 knots controllably in what looked like level flight but starting just below about 115 you were descending and the only way to break the descent and accelerate was by decreasing the angle of attack. Tough if you're close to the ground. At 115 KIAS you were close to 30 degrees AOA and at the limit of one-G flight in full afterburner. At 90 KIAS you were going down at over 6000 FPM. Here is where a lot of transitioning pilots got in trouble; they'd fly a 360 overhead (VFR) pattern, get too slow on final (lulled into complacency by the ease of control) realize at last they were going to land short and now go to full military power to either reach the runway or go-around, and pull back on the stick 'to reduce the descent rate', thus increasing the AOA and the induced drag to horrific levels. Afterburner might have allowed them to fly out of trouble but being new and 'unadvised' they would be loath to call for it until too late. Result - prang. The B58 had sinmilar problems even with experienced pilots. (Paris Air Show - 2X). FWIW there were NO stall warnings whatsoever in the F102. The airplane felt good and solid all the way down the airpseed scale. The caveat in the Flight Manual was that if aileron was used to control wing drop at 90 KIAS the airplane could/would spin. It felt just as solid at 115 as it did at 500. As for the MiG21 - I do not know the airplane but do know it has a much higher wing loading than the F102 (its rotation speed is about 50 knots faster (F102 clean - ISTR 144) and I presume the final approach speed is about the same amount greater. 150 on final was plenty for the Deuce; at about 135 or so you were close to dragging the tail end, but it was still under fine control. So the MiG is a hot airplane on takeoff and landing. It has to have lots of energy to execute hard turns in any flight plane, including a Split-Ess. Any delta will shed energy under high G so quickly it will catch 'unadvised' pilots by surprise. A demo maneuver for transitioning pilots was to roll the TF trainer (tub - side by side ugly mother) inverted at 30 degrees noseup and 250 KIAS at 25,000 and simultaneously light AB and suck back the stick to 5G and execute a Split Ess from 25,000. Result - level flight at 22,000 and 225-250. Done at 3,000 AGL with an F100 on your tail resulted in shucking the Hun. They dared not try to follow you. I suspect a lot of MiGs were lost in air-to ground weapons deliveries begun at too low an energy level. Also - what are the MiG's spin/departure characteristics? The original 21 was a lightweight bird - the last models are pretty heavy even clean. And then there is always - how current are the pilots? How good is the maintenance? There was a negative comment in AVWeek recently on the 21's engine maintenance. Obviously critical on a single engined aircraft. My two cents worth as an ex-F102A pilot/maintenance test/flight examiner - Walt BJ T38's the same way Walt. (I'm assuming you went through in T-Birds instead of 38's, but if you've flown the Talon, please forgive my unnecessary input here :-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Guess what we need is a definition of 'dynamic stalling'. Would that
be what I know as an 'accelerated stall'; i.e. one due to pulling too many Gs for the plane's energy? When effected by an over-enthusiastic pilot (ham-fisted plumber) some airplanes can depart (F4) while others at certain speed regimes can dig in and overshoot desired G levels by a sizeable margin (F4, transsonic) Walt BJ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Walt BJ" wrote in message . .. Guess what we need is a definition of 'dynamic stalling'. Would that be what I know as an 'accelerated stall'; i.e. one due to pulling too many Gs for the plane's energy? When effected by an over-enthusiastic pilot (ham-fisted plumber) some airplanes can depart (F4) while others at certain speed regimes can dig in and overshoot desired G levels by a sizeable margin (F4, transsonic) Walt BJ Not exactly Walt. Dynamic stall is directly associated with boundary layer burst due to pitch rate coupled with amplitude, and additional factors involving behavior at high angle of attack. It's a highly complicated subject, and it goes much deeper than simple accelerated stall which is any stall developed at 1 g. Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "drake" wrote in message om... Hello, I was reading on the net that the MiG-21 is a high demand no-nonsense a/c, and tends to lose control (without the warning buffets as experienced bu other a/c) quite easily (during high speed turns??). Is this a MiG-21 phenom, or do other Delta wing aircraft also have such inhernt control problems? The Gloster Javelin was prone to deep stall as the wing could block airflow over the tail at high angles of attack and render the aircraft uncontrollable Keith |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ink.net... "Walt BJ" wrote in message . .. Guess what we need is a definition of 'dynamic stalling'. Would that be what I know as an 'accelerated stall'; i.e. one due to pulling too many Gs for the plane's energy? When effected by an over-enthusiastic pilot (ham-fisted plumber) some airplanes can depart (F4) while others at certain speed regimes can dig in and overshoot desired G levels by a sizeable margin (F4, transsonic) Walt BJ Not exactly Walt. Dynamic stall is directly associated with boundary layer burst due to pitch rate coupled with amplitude, and additional factors involving behavior at high angle of attack. It's a highly complicated subject, and it goes much deeper than simple accelerated stall which is any stall developed at Flow seperation. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Flow seperation.
Separation Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Flow seperation.
Separation Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired You won't believe this Dan, but I was going to do this exact post and decided at the last second not to :-)))) Dudley Dudley, our resident EE/PE, rocket scientist, aerodynamicist, physicist, test pilot, political scientist etc tends to make spelling mistakes when he's excited. I guess when you are perfect and an expert on everything you are allowed a few little mistakes. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
composite wing, wing spars | Dave Schneider | Home Built | 4 | May 21st 04 05:35 AM |
Props and Wing Warping... was soaring vs. flaping | Wright1902Glider | Home Built | 0 | September 29th 03 03:40 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Can someone explain wing loading? | Frederick Wilson | Home Built | 4 | September 10th 03 02:33 AM |
Wing Extensions | Jay | Home Built | 22 | July 27th 03 12:23 PM |