![]() |
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 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Paul J. Adam
writes The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than land-based... willing to be corrected) I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed, arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to base on a routine basis. From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption: 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high fuel consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of fuel per minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter attribute meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in fully developed combat - a truly excellent characteristic.' -- John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Osprey vs. Harrier | Stephen D. Poe | Military Aviation | 58 | August 18th 03 03:17 PM |