MiG21bisFishbedL Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 Dogfights TV as source surely beats Kopp, no? That's debatable. Kopp's no Sprey, but he sure does love to quote mine and cherry pick. Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Rage* Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Sarcasm, gents. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiG21bisFishbedL Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Sarcasm, gents. It's hard to pick up on in text, especially if you're me and always assume the worst. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it! Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boogieman Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 That's debatable. Kopp's no Sprey, but he sure does love to quote mine and cherry pick. Actually I'd argue that Kopp is worse. He and his mate Peter Goon tried to pitch their "Raptor/Super F111 combo" idea as a solution for the RAAF AIR6000 program via a shell company known as Australian Flight Test Services. They expected to subcontract the work to LM et al. (!?) and presumably make their squillions that way. When their idea (and credibility in the Australian aviation community) immediately went down in flames they became notoriously... disgruntled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emu Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 (edited) So what's the issue with taking first hand eyewitness testimony from the pilots? If there's a better source feel free to share but then what source could there be that didn't first take combat information from the pilots? Edited January 21, 2018 by Emu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_coreSix Posted January 21, 2018 Author Share Posted January 21, 2018 It's not fake, you're just making the bad assumption that smoke/vapour means the motor is still burning. I'm done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiG21bisFishbedL Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Actually I'd argue that Kopp is worse. He and his mate Peter Goon tried to pitch their "Raptor/Super F111 combo" idea as a solution for the RAAF AIR6000 program via a shell company known as Australian Flight Test Services. They expected to subcontract the work to LM et al. (!?) and presumably make their squillions that way. When their idea (and credibility in the Australian aviation community) immediately went down in flames they became notoriously... disgruntled. Oh yeah, there was that. Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emu Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 (edited) I'm done... You say that as if you're having difficulty understanding. Vapour trail != motor still burning, just as not all aircraft wingtips have burning rocket motors attached to them. If you were actually aware of the burn time for various AAMs, you wouldn't even begin to think that a MANPADS motor burns that long. Early AIM-9s only burned for about 2s and they're about twice the length and diameter of a typical MANPADS but you think they burn for 10s. Aside from this, it's already been posted that it was an R-73, so it's not even up for debate. The only question remaining is ground launched or air-launched. It's been heavily suggested that it may have been a MiG-29 (air-launched) and for me that's the most likely scenario. Edited January 21, 2018 by Emu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 (edited) Yet another youtube clip of manpad launches showing (because some of the launches are at twilight) that that sustain motor on a manpad burns for several seconds, not literally less than a second, gm43qGznNOk Aside from this, it's already been posted that it was an R-73, so it's not even up for debate. The only question remaining is ground launched or air-launched. It's been heavily suggested that it may have been a MiG-29 (air-launched) and for me that's the most likely scenario. If I look back through the thread - you've suggested it a lot, and you linked to a tweet, but that's the extent of it. The consensus seems to be that as of 2017 the Yemeni Air force - after years of warfare and the Saudi-led coalition bombing - is inoperable and non-functional. Honestly - the idea that the Houthi's somehow managed to sneak a MiG-29 into the air past the air surveillance assets that the Saudi's have deployed around the region (7 AWAC - 5 Boeing E-3 Sentry of their own, plus assistance from the US navy offshore, plus 62 F-15C, 87 F-15E & 54 Eurofighters), shot an F-15 without being detected before the launch and then disappeared back into the desert seems more fantastic than the idea that they strapped a booster onto an R-73. Edited January 21, 2018 by Weta43 Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emu Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Yet another youtube clip of manpad launches showing (because some of the launches are at twilight) that that sustain motor on a manpad burns for several seconds, not gm43qGznNOk Honestly - the idea that the Houthi's somehow managed to sneak a MiG-29 into the air past the air surveillance assets that the Saudi's have deployed around the region (7 AWAC - 5 Boeing E-3 Sentry of their own, plus assistance from the US navy offshore), shot an F-15 without being detected before the launch and then disappeared back into the desert is more fantastic than the idea that they strapped a booster onto an R-73. Yes, if it uses a boost/sustain motor, you're looking at 2-2.5s, otherwise less, but nothing like 10-15s (as some suggested) and not enough to still be burning after catching a Strike Eagle that's been on afterburner for 10s from the rear. You also realise some of that footage is in slow motion - note launch? Not really, it's entirely possible the air surveillance assets saw it but were unable to accurately direct the Eagle in time. It's like saying how did the Syrians get a jet shot down by an F-18 with Syrian and Russian assets monitoring the air space? Perhaps the F-15SA pilot was just caught unaware in that moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emu Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Basically look how far away the missile is when burnout occurs and tell me how likely it is that the F-15 was that close to the launcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_coreSix Posted January 21, 2018 Author Share Posted January 21, 2018 So you're saying the smoke trail we see in all those video I linked is actually just vapor right? Let's look at the video I linked in post 148. I'm sure you know how IR missiles guide by maintaining a minimum line-of-sight rate, so as the missile speed decreases the lead angle increases. If we look at the video in question however we see the missile taking a large lead angle in the beginning (almost as if it's at low speed) and then continously decreasing that angle until intercept (almost as if it's accelerating). But there's probably another, totally obvious, reason for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emu Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 So you're saying the smoke trail we see in all those video I linked is actually just vapor right? Let's look at the video I linked in post 148. I'm sure you know how IR missiles guide by maintaining a minimum line-of-sight rate, so as the missile speed decreases the lead angle increases. If we look at the video in question however we see the missile taking a large lead angle in the beginning (almost as if it's at low speed) and then continously decreasing that angle until intercept (almost as if it's accelerating). But there's probably another, totally obvious, reason for that. Yes, damn straight. Look in Weta's video, that is a boost sustain motor and still lasts only 2s. Look at your second video back in this post. Same deal in your video. Look back at the other video you initially posted. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3361736&postcount=137 That aircraft is pretty low at 0:30 and is the missile motor still burning? Nope. Lead angle blah, blah, etc. There's no way you can induce that from the video. You can't even see the target, only the impact. And how they guide depends on the missile and target range. E.g. using proportional guidance all the way would bleed a lot of energy if the aircraft was manoeuvring. Go to 3:48 in this video, you can clearly see the burn time of ~2-2.5s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_coreSix Posted January 21, 2018 Author Share Posted January 21, 2018 Yes, damn straight. Look in Weta's video, that is a boost sustain motor and still lasts only 2s. Look at your second video back in this post. Same deal in your video. Look back at the other video you initially posted. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3361736&postcount=137 That aircraft is pretty low at 0:30 and is the missile motor still burning? Nope. Pretty low? Are you kidding me? You can't even see the ground, there is no reference at all. Look at 3:25 in the same video you genius, I'm gonna say that aircraft is "pretty high" and the missile is burning on intercept? Where's your logic there? Lead angle blah, blah, etc. There's no way you can induce that from the video. You can't even see the target, only the impact. And how they guide depends on the missile and target range. E.g. using proportional guidance all the way would bleed a lot of energy if the aircraft was manoeuvring. Yea I can. And I can see the target, maybe have your eyes checked. IR missiles don't know range, that's the point, which is why they use LOS-rate zeroing to guide. Go to 3:48 in this video, you can clearly see the burn time of ~2-2.5s. And how is that not "vapor" now? Your logic is so inconsistent it's adorable. You bend reality to fit it to your horrible theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emu Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Pretty low? Are you kidding me? You can't even see the ground, there is no reference at all. Look at 3:25 in the same video you genius, I'm gonna say that aircraft is "pretty high" and the missile is burning on intercept? Where's your logic there? Yea I can. And I can see the target, maybe have your eyes checked. IR missiles don't know range, that's the point, which is why they use LOS-rate zeroing to guide. And how is that not "vapor" now? Your logic is so inconsistent it's adorable. You bend reality to fit it to your horrible theories. Smoke trail, look at this video at 3:48, the lighting and atmospheric conditions are perfect for showing when the motor burns out. Now imagine that was an F-15E that had just had it's afterburners on for 10s. Nope, can't see it. I've watched in 10 times fullscreen on a 32 inch monitor and still can't see it but have noticed a lot of marks on my screen, which need cleaning, so thanks for that. Perhaps you could circle it. Simples. You can see the bright glow, that is the burn. A contrail can occur in the absence of any motor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail And a little hint, cloudy skies aren't necessarily produced by rocket activity either. And of course, all this argument surrounds the assertion that the Saudis had spent billions buying what are probably the most advanced Eagles out there only to waste their tech. by flying them at low altitude. I suppose when stealth jets enter service they will fly them at low altitude too, just so that their technological advantage is completely nullified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_coreSix Posted January 21, 2018 Author Share Posted January 21, 2018 Smoke trail, look at this video at 3:48, the lighting and atmospheric conditions are perfect for showing when the motor burns out. I just love how you take a 240p video where it might just be hard to see the rocket motor during the intercept, but try to tell me about contrails in a 720p video where you can very clearly see the complete flyout. Nope, can't see it. I've watched in 10 times fullscreen on a 32 inch monitor and still can't see it but have noticed a lot of marks on my screen, which need cleaning, so thanks for that. Perhaps you could circle it. Look again, the MiG is visible shortly after impact and then in the next couple frames. Enough to get a rough trajectory of the plane, which, as we can tell from the missile trajectory, flew pretty much straight. Simples. You can see the bright glow, that is the burn. A contrail can occur in the absence of any motor. And how would that work? Have you ever seen planes with engines out produce contrails? I surely haven't. What you're looking at is smoke from the engine exhaust, open your eyes. And a little hint, cloudy skies aren't necessarily produced by rocket activity either. No, they're produced by chemtrails, everybody knows that. And of course, all this argument surrounds the assertion that the Saudis had spent billions buying what are probably the most advanced Eagles out there only to waste their tech. by flying them at low altitude. I suppose when stealth jets enter service they will fly them at low altitude too, just so that their technological advantage is completely nullified. How does this fit in with "missing a MiG-29" or simply not doing anything about it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emu Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 I just love how you take a 240p video where it might just be hard to see the rocket motor during the intercept, but try to tell me about contrails in a 720p video where you can very clearly see the complete flyout. Look again, the MiG is visible shortly after impact and then in the next couple frames. Enough to get a rough trajectory of the plane, which, as we can tell from the missile trajectory, flew pretty much straight. And how would that work? Have you ever seen planes with engines out produce contrails? I surely haven't. What you're looking at is smoke from the engine exhaust, open your eyes. No, they're produced by chemtrails, everybody knows that. How does this fit in with "missing a MiG-29" or simply not doing anything about it? Err... no, it just clearly stops burning. I've also shown you evidence of burn time straight from the manufacturer for boost only MANPADS. Which is what I said, it is only visible upon impact. SO how you determined lead angles prior is hilarious. I've gliders produce contrails. Chemtrails? What? Clouds are water vapour. Easily, most losses and near misses are due to not seeing an opponent,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_coreSix Posted January 21, 2018 Author Share Posted January 21, 2018 Err... no, it just clearly stops burning. I've also shown you evidence of burn time straight from the manufacturer for boost only MANPADS. I won't argue about this motor burning anymore, it's hopeless. I've proved my point already, you went from "literally less than a second" to "2-2.5 seconds". So what were you saying again? SO how you determined lead angles prior is hilarious. How's that? Maybe you just have no clue what you're talking about? I've gliders produce contrails. Source? You're confusing wing-tip vortices with contrails I think. Chemtrails? What? Clouds are water vapour. LOL, sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouse_99 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 I have to laugh at this whole thread, what is the meaning of this, if any? F-15's are a mechanical construct, they are lifeless and pieces of equipment are worthless if no one of any skill is using it. Tanks get blown up, planes get shot down, and planes crash through errors. end of story. Just flight simmers getting caught up in their own testosterone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 I have to laugh at this whole thread, what is the meaning of this, if any? F-15's are a mechanical construct, they are lifeless and pieces of equipment are worthless if no one of any skill is using it. Tanks get blown up, planes get shot down, and planes crash through errors. end of story. Just flight simmers getting caught up in their own testosterone. Ain't the Strike line still open? Buy some more! :D Very interesting, though, to see how fast tables turn and failures happen. Warheads, seekers, loading, lack of testing, etc... the smallest things seem to cause the biggest excrement-shows all around. Whether it's on a forum or in a sandbox... Lord of Salt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emu Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 I won't argue about this motor burning anymore, it's hopeless. I've proved my point already, you went from "literally less than a second" to "2-2.5 seconds". So what were you saying again? How's that? Maybe you just have no clue what you're talking about? Source? You're confusing wing-tip vortices with contrails I think. LOL, sarcasm. It is hopeless because you're categorically wrong. Night makes it easier to see the rocket burn and it ends after 2-2.5s. You can determine a lead angle without seeing the target during the period in question? Ever considered that the target changed direction while you couldn't see it? Same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail Their formation can also be triggered by changes in air pressure in wingtip vortices or in the air over the entire wing surface.[2] It's almost as daft as a 15s MANPADS motor burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 2 sec is daft. Turns out the rocket motor has a 6sec or longer sustainer, and that's for the RedEye. Stringer has more range, so likely (but not necessarily) a longer sustain phase also. Basic math would've actually told you it has to be this way, but you didn't want to do any basic math ... er ... rocketry. :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emu Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 2 sec is daft. Turns out the rocket motor has a 6sec or longer sustainer, and that's for the RedEye. Stringer has more range, so likely (but not necessarily) a longer sustain phase also. Basic math would've actually told you it has to be this way, but you didn't want to do any basic math ... er ... rocketry. :) Basic maths has already badly let you down, so I wouldn't go back there. Remember your 15s claim. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3361866&postcount=141 And yeah, wrong again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Uvk_kRT0gY&t=140s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Yes, you're still wrong. In order to get to M2 (ish) from zero, that missile needs a 40g acceleration or so (ballpark, YMMV). That's not particularly likely given the rocket motor configuration - in fact, those are very rare missiles that accelerate so quickly. Given a 12-13g acceleration, the 6 second figure works. Do you actually want me to do the entire rocketry calculation for you? I could, after all I know full well that you haven't bothered. It's a minimum of 6 seconds. Also, your youtube video doesn't show anything. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emu Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) Yes, you're still wrong. In order to get to M2 (ish) from zero, that missile needs a 40g acceleration or so (ballpark, YMMV). That's not particularly likely given the rocket motor configuration - in fact, those are very rare missiles that accelerate so quickly. Given a 12-13g acceleration, the 6 second figure works. Do you actually want me to do the entire rocketry calculation for you? I could, after all I know full well that you haven't bothered. It's a minimum of 6 seconds. Also, your youtube video doesn't show anything. You are kidding right? 40g is nothing for a missile. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/starstreak/ MAXIMUM SPEED More than Mach 4 https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/starstreak-ii The rocket motor system accelerates the missile to greater than Mach 3 in a fraction of a second. Mach 3.5 in half a second, or about 240g. Video shows misisle burns for a couple of seconds only. Here again. Give it up, you were wrong with 15s and wrong again with 6s. And here again. AIM-9X here, and still only 5s. Edited January 22, 2018 by Emu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts