Can F-16 do this? I don't think so :D

The reason why ice doesnt form at the intake is because bleed air from later stages of the compressor is ducted to critical areas of the aircraft for Anti-icing. :)

Heres a few more pictures:

The F-16 30,40,42,50,52 does not have ati-ice device on any of the leading edges actually. The only anti icing that uses bleed air form 13th stage (9th stage in GE F110) is the engine IGV or CIVV and this is regulated by the ice probe in front of the engine (in intake right below the air refueling bay) and anti icing switch. While flying under icing conditions some ice will form in the leading edges of the wing and even on the AIM/CAP-9 ( At least thats is what happen when I got my ride back in 1998, aircraft 177,310FS Luke AFB, AZ) Pitot probe,total temp probe, air data probe and AOA probes are all heated electrically.

P.S.

Nice pics, look like those guys are working on the CSD

Edited:

Actually I think F100-PW-220 use 7th stage compression air and F110-GE-100 use 5th stage compression for de-icing. Sorry it has been a while since I work dose things.

The F-16 30,40,42,50,52 does not have ati-ice device on any of the leading edges actually. The only anti icing that uses bleed air form 13th stage (9th stage in GE F110) is the engine IGV or CIVV and this is regulated by the ice probe in front of the engine (in intake right below the air refueling bay) and anti icing switch. While flying under icing conditions some ice will form in the leading edges of the wing and even on the AIM/CAP-9 ( At least thats is what happen when I got my ride back in 1998, aircraft 177,310FS Luke AFB, AZ) Pitot probe,total temp probe, air data probe and AOA probes are all heated electrically.

 

P.S.

Nice pics, look like those guys are working on the CSD

 

Edited:

Actually I think F100-PW-220 use 7th stage compression air and F110-GE-100 use 5th stage compression for de-icing. Sorry it has been a while since I work dose things.

Interesting info …

A reverse jet-engine like used on the saab vigen would be practical for the anti-ice too.

Of course you could park the F-16 in front of another F100-PW-220 and put the burner on :D…

@Pilotasso,

Very cool pictures! “Cool” (cold) indeed :D…

Is your brother at location maybe?

 

@Pilotasso,

 

Very cool pictures! “Cool” (cold) indeed :D…

Is your brother at location maybe?

THX! all credits to the respective owners.

No, my brother is still a newb. Deployable pilots have to fire Real Iron once a while to keep qualified, my bro has only fired training rounds so far. They sent more experienced pilots up there. BTW the contingent returned to home plate yesterday.

:D Necromancer

Weasel mission doesn't stop for weather

Members of the 35th Civil Engineer Squadron snow removal team clear freshly fallen snow

from the 35th Fighter Wing's taxiways, ensuring safe ground passage for Misawa's Fighting

Falcon fleet Dec. 29, 2010; Misawa Air Base. The snow removal team uses a variety of

specialized equipment ranging from large mobile brushes and blowers to high-speed plows

to sweep, blow and scrape snow from pavements, ensuring mission success. (U.S. Air

Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Phillip Butterfield/Released)

Snow thats nothing. Sand is a good killer.

Snow thats nothing. Sand is a good killer.

 

Yeah, neandertal MiGs! Greatest archeologist finding so far! Guess Darwin was wrong after all!

They say the Americans were crazy, Russians crazier, but me.... I think the Iraqis beat them all by miles...migs in the sand...what's next? flankers inside cakes? :D

...what's next? flankers inside cakes? :D

Well, that would be a really nice gift to my next birthday. :lol: ...The Sweetest Thing :music_whistling:

First i would lick away from it the cake... :hehe:

Actualy the Su-27 family uses much more simple engine intake protections- a grill that deploys/raises when the nose gear lifts off/main gear touches down. Newer MiGs like the M/K/MK also have grills instead of this complex system. True, it fully closes the engine intake but also leaves no space in the LERXes that could be used for avionics/fuel tanks.

 

And what is this that the F-16 can't take off from rough runways? Of course it can, but with it's lower intake location and lack of FOD protection it's pretty worthy to make sure the runway is as clean as possible to minimize the risk of damaging a few million dollar engine, isn't it? ;) When I first saw on video US ground staff with gloves and brushes walking on the ramp and cleaning every piece they could spot I was like- Whoooo! Loosers!- but after I started working IRL maintenance where every $ is precious not to metion few millions I found myself doing exactly the same. It's a question of how you take your job and the aircraft you're maintaining.

It's only part of the reason for the complex system on the earlier MiG being FOD prevention, it's also a system for variable geometry inlet for improved performance at the mid-alt high mach realm, but has been dropped mostly because as with US design doctrine the primary combat requirement is high transonic performance rather, and none of these aircraft go around in high mach cruise so it was a bit of overkill for, as you say, a sacrifice in fuel space and superfluous complexity. Point is though, designed primarily as a variable geometry inlet system with just an added benefit of shutters.

I read well the German evaluation of their MiGs in concert with NATO types and the old Fulcrum really does kick butt performance-wise with some air under its wings, added with its agility it's a formiddable opponent if it wasn't for its useless avionics and high maintenance engines (at low alt the MiG is actually at a marked speed disadvantage vs Viper and manoeuvre one vs Eagle but this changes at higher alt).

They did notably say, "The Fulcrum could operate from airfields that you couldn't dream of operating F-16s from." Servicing was an issue but never conditions no matter how harsh or rudimentary. I heard some Rumanian ones were routinely operated from grass fields.

When you think about it that's a slightly more mobile tactical air force, albeit troublesome for other reasons and if you're going to use MiGs you really need numbers.

Interestingly, a comment I remember from the 2008 SU-30MKI visit to the United States was that they had considerable risk-management for FOD for the Indian Aircraft, because they could not risk any engine maintenance; the Indo-Russian supply line for the AL31's simply wouldn't reach.

.......I read well the German evaluation of their MiGs in concert with NATO types and the old Fulcrum really does kick butt performance-wise with some air under its wings, added with its agility it's a formiddable opponent if it wasn't for its useless avionics and high maintenance engines (at low alt the MiG is actually at a marked speed disadvantage vs Viper and manoeuvre one vs Eagle but this changes at higher alt).

 

They did notably say, "The Fulcrum could operate from airfields that you couldn't dream of operating F-16s from." Servicing was an issue but never conditions no matter how harsh or rudimentary. I heard some Rumanian ones were routinely operated from grass fields......

Do you know sources for that evaluation?It would be interesting

The Jane's flying and fighting book has a whole section courtesy of a German MiG pilot. Moral of the story: BVR hopeless, BFM '29 undefeated.

The Jane's flying and fighting book has a whole section courtesy of a German MiG pilot. Moral of the story: BVR hopeless, BFM '29 undefeated.

Interesting. Shame you have to pass through BVR to get to BFM.

Last I heard, the "undefeated in BFM" was only during rather strict restrictions on the engagement as well. Basic performance - top performer, as rumored and expected - but as soon as you threw in things like having to spend time on keeping tabs on multiple opponents etc, surprising things happened. The pilot was no longer able to spend the cognitive ability required to make the aircraft perform and thus lost against technically inferior aircraft, even in BFM.

The CWC "strict restrictions" was the necessity of operating Block 50/52 Vipers without kill removal because they simply couldn't compete with the helmet sight/archer combination coupled with a roughly similar performance capability (Viper had the slight edge on sustaining manoeuvres). At the end of one round of sessions only one Viper scored a MiG kill in close combat and it was after that jet received 18 Archer hits.

JG73 commander Koeck said the American pilots got up and walked out at the debrief, so upset they were about the dominance of the MiG in close combat DSE.

He said, "...even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 the MiG is a superb fighter. This is due to the aircraft's superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside of ten miles I'm hard to beat (normally), but with the IRST, helmet sight and Archers I can't be beat. Period. Even against the Block 50 F-16 the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario."

But...here is what he said about the MiG in general combat:

"Our navigation system is unreliable with TACAN updates and not very accurate (I'd prefer to call it an estimation system). It relies on triangulation from three TACAN stations and if you lose one you effectively lose the system. We can only enter three fixed waypoints, which is inadquate. For communications we have only one VHF/UHF radio." (which is easily jammed)

"The radar is at least a generation behind the AN/APG-65...it has poor display, giving poor SA and this is complicated by the cockpit ergonomics. The radar has reliability problems and lookdown/shootdown problems. There is poor discrimination between targets flying in formation (due to processor overloading) and we can't lock onto the target in trail, only in lead."

"We suffer from poor presentation of the radar information (SA and IFF problems), short BVR weapons range, a bad navigation system and short on-station times."

"Soon" being some 30 years later, after it was phased out...

The Jane's flying and fighting book has a whole section courtesy of a German MiG pilot. Moral of the story: BVR hopeless, BFM '29 undefeated.

Thanks

Aggressors return to Eielson

F-16 Fighting Falcon Aggressors taxi on the flightline at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, Mar. 1,

2011. The Aggressors returned from Anderson AFB, Guam after participating in a two week

long exercise conducted by the U.S. and Japan. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Christopher

Boitz)

Guam to Alaska... Guesstimate ten to twenty percent AWOL prior to that trip? :D

If your were answering to my post, then the "soon" might be out of context here me believes. I was only correlating to the german euphoria, NOT the endurance the MIG itself was fortune enough to last over the history.

Yes, it became a symbol of an era, at least as myth, and i dont see a problem in honoring the MIG, but meanwhile that admiration is nothing else then suicidal nostalgia, imo.

there was nothing mythical about it among its users. all the myths resided in the west. some of them might have been planted by the likes of KGB and such, but most came about from the enemy not having a clue, like many times before and after. for pilots who flew it, it was just a tool for their job, and most would fly a trabant if they needed, but weren't one bit suicidal.

Interestingly, a comment I remember from the 2008 SU-30MKI visit to the United States was that they had considerable risk-management for FOD for the Indian Aircraft, because they could not risk any engine maintenance; the Indo-Russian supply line for the AL31's simply wouldn't reach.

They were just scared of having a grounded mki on America waiting for parts. It is not that the airplane could not operate like the Americans.

They were just scared of having a grounded mki on America waiting for parts. It is not that the airplane could not operate like the Americans.

Yeah I remember there was a bit of hooha about the MKI datalink, which NATO Intelligence is quite interested in. The US offered to let the IAF use the Flanker datalink, so it could use the command-controller system of mini-AWACS they were designed for, but only if they let USAF engineers inspect it, to make sure it wouldn't interfere with anything important near the airspace they'd be operating the wargames.

The alternative was that they could use the NATO datalink for AWACS, but they wouldn't be able to use their system. The IAF chose this option since it regards their datalink as a national security issue. They said their system would've greatly increased their effectiveness over being forced the use the NATO AWACS, which the Flanker isn't really designed to do as well as the latest Eagles (they mentioned some new AWACS datalink USAF has retrofitted to its front line Eagles recently).

I just found it all quite fascinating. I'm not really much of an expert on all this stuff.

Correct. I avoided mentioning the combat records of the MIGs, so i choose the word "myth".

The combat record is: until you can see rust - don't touch it.

It is meant as: the available combat record is irrelevant.