Mig 29 - question about the intake covers

I was reading this link bout the Mig 29 in Stealth Spy's post in the "Indian navy indigenous 3,0000 million rupee aircraft carrier on way"

It says:

The MiG-29 is equipped with two RD-33 turbofan engines. The MiG-29 is the world's first aircraft fitted with dual-mode air intakes. During flight, the open air intakes feed air to the engines. While moving on the ground, the air intakes are closed and air is fed through the louvres on the upper surface of the wing root to prevent ingestion of foreign objects from the runway. This is particularly important when operating from poorly prepared airfields.

IMO retractable intake covers are a great not to mention inovative idea.


I have some questions about these intakes.

-Do they only leave them down during taxing and then open them to take off or do they open as they are taking off?

-When they are opened or raised does the actual flap or cover have any effect on the aircrafts RCS?

-Do they retract inside the aircraft?

-Do the louvres on the upper surface of the wing root have any effect on the RCS of it?

The article claims its the worlds first aircraft to use a dual mode intake, but do do any US or ther countries for that matter aircraft have intakes like this?


Thanks

Since the Mig-29 was designed to operate in poorly maintained airfields, with loose gravel everywhere this feature was incorporated

Originally posted by warpboost

-Do they only leave them down during taxing and then open them to take off or do they open as they are taking off?

when ever the aircraft is on the ground, the intakes are closed

-When they are opened or raised does the actual flap or cover have any effect on the aircrafts RCS?

It makes no differene even if there is an RCS variation as the Mig-29 is easily detected by radar as it has no stealth features

The article claims its the worlds first aircraft to use a dual mode intake, but do do any US or ther countries for that matter aircraft have intakes like this?

The US and western countries have their bellies filled with money and have their air feilds spick and span and thus there is no need for such features.

The F-15 is the only US fighter that I know of that uses a variable intake. It's not like the one on the MiG-29 though. There aren't any US fighters that have anything like that. The F-15 has a system where as they start engines, the intake will drop downward to keep too much air from being taken into the engine, then as they increase power to take off settings, the intakes snap back up level, as you see them in most pictures of the Eagle. That's the closest to the Fulcrum that I know of.

www.aviation-militaire.com...

There's a pic of the Eagle with the intake drooped.

Jaguars of the Indian Air Force also have this feature.

external image

Loss of picture quality due to resizing is regretted

No they don't stealth spy, stop winding people up

Wht you see on the photo are simply additional intake louvres that are standard on every Jaguar and several other aircraft too (Tornado, Harrier, C-5 Galaxy etc).

They allow more air into the engine as it is required (ie take off) but do not replace the main intake as the main source of airlfow when the aircraft is on the ground like the MiG 29's do.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
www.aviation-militaire.com...

There's a pic of the Eagle with the intake drooped.

The intake also goes down at high speeds.

Originally posted by waynos
No they don't stealth spy, stop winding people up

Wht you see on the photo are simply additional intake louvres that are standard on every Jaguar and several other aircraft too (Tornado, Harrier, C-5 Galaxy etc).

They allow more air into the engine as it is required (ie take off) but do not replace the main intake as the main source of airlfow when the aircraft is on the ground like the MiG 29's do.

haha brillaint! thanks for making my day

waynos, I dunno the exact details, but here are pics showing the side intakes :

Closed ?
www.bharat-rakshak.com...

Opened when desired ?
www.bharat-rakshak.com...

Closed in flight ?
www.bharat-rakshak.com...

Open when landing is approached ?
www.bharat-rakshak.com...

closed again
www.bharat-rakshak.com...

open while landing/take off
www.bharat-rakshak.com...

Images resized; Quality loss is lamented


Edit: Photos/images oversized, changed to direct links.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Stealth Spy always glad to see pics of the Jag (even if they are a tad oversized and spreading the page too much now) but surely you know that the very common side 'blow-in' doors (designed to increase sheer air intake at times of highest demand (ie take-off) are nothing at all like the same as those on the Mig 29 designed to prevent foreign object damage?

A few additional appatures on the side of a jet intake - whilst the intake itself remains as open as ever - are nothing like a system with a door which closes the main intake path and an alternative intake path is used.

Come on, stop quibbling; you know that, surely?


[edit on 30-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

i was unaware of this and thank you for making me aware of it.

If you ever see the pics of the B-2 on the ground, it's the same thing. Because of the shape and size of the intakes they put ram air doors ontop of them to get more air into the engines when they're on the ground. The older TF-33 engines on the older KC-135, and C-141, and the engines on the C-5, and C-17 have ram air doors all the way around them. Basically at lower power settings, and take off/landing it lets more air get to the engine for smooth operations then at higher power settings (in flight) they close because there's enough air getting to the engine. The very old KC-135A, and early model B-52s used water injection instead. They injected water into the engine, which would cool the air going into the combustion chamber. Once the air was cooled it compressed more, so they got more power. As a major drawback they left a smoke trail a blind man could see for 20 miles. My father said that during a mass take off, for an Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI) by the time the third airplane was airborne, they couldn't tell if the next one got off or not until they were several miles away and climbing above the smoke.

[edit on 30-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

out of curiosity, stealth spy, why no pictures of er..other countries jaguars? surely a bit more inter country community spirit is needed around here

Originally posted by M6D
out of curiosity, stealth spy, why no pictures of er..other countries jaguars? surely a bit more inter country community spirit is needed around here

i posted pics of indian jags only because i knew where to find them as i knew the site. i have nothing against jags of of other air forces but i did'nt post their pics 'cause nothings more time consuming than googling around for pics.

Any problem with Indian Jags' ?? IMO it is you who is in need of inter-country spirit as you seem to have trouble accepting pics of India's Jaguars

Infact India has operated the Jag for over quarter of a century with the Darin-2 being the latest upgrade .

Read this GREAT article : Jaguar & India - Inseperable for over quarter of a century

The Jag also "smoked" the USAF in the air exercises in Alaska in 2004, check out : Trans-Atlantic thunder

and this :

Indian Air Forcebombers returned to base today after wargames hosted by the US in Alaska in which they claimed to have penetrated through US air defence twice, it was disclosed at a “hot debriefing” at their base in Ambala this afternoon. The IAF had deployed six Jaguar deep-penetration strike aircraft to Alaska for the fortnight-long Exercise CooperativeCope Thunder 04-01 that ended on July 30.Air force sources said the Jaguars had penetrated throughdefensive cover and scored “direct hits” on ground targets in ranges in Alaska. The war games involved sorties from the Eielson and Elmendorf air force bases. The war games are hosted by the US Pacific Command Air Force.

www.ipcs.org...

[edit on 1-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]

In response to Warpboost's original question about the MiG-29's air intake doors-
The doors operate automatically. On the ground, the doors close at 35% RPM during engine start for each engine. The upper intake louvers are spring-loaded and open due to low pressure created in the intakes by the running engines. The doors automatically open during takeoff roll at
200 kmh. During flight, the ramps are used to control the speed of the air entering the face of the engines. By moving the ramps up and down, shock wave are formed. Supersonic air is decelerated to subsonic (up to a point) after it passes through the shock wave. You don't want supersonic air entering the engines. Even the SR-71 had subsonic air entering the engines. The doors again close during landing roll as the aircraft decelerateds through 200 kmh. If the doors get stuck closed, it is possible to manually open the doors with a switch in the cockpit. In this case, the doors won't schedule to control the intake shock waves. There is a flight manual limit of 0.8 Mach in this case to avoid supersonic flow at the face of the engine.
The post about the F-15's outer intakes was not correct. The outer intake ramps nod up and down to control the direction of the air entering the intakes. This is especially critical at high angles of attack. Each operates independently of the other. There are inner ramps that function just like the Fulcrum's intake doors and blow-by doors that allow excess air to be dumped overboard.
While on the subject of MiG-29; the Cobra was merely an airshow trick and has little to no tactical application. A specially prepared aircraft was required and was a prohibited manuever in the flight manual. As an airplane, the MiG-29 was good. It was reliable and simple but so is the F-16. As a war machine, the Fulcrum is terribly lacking. Very limited range, poor ergonomics, poor handling qualities, poor outward visiblity, poor beyond-visual-range weapons... I could go on. The F-15 and F-16 are head and shoulders better than the Fulcrum. The Su-27 is a different animal and is an aircraft to be respected although, in my opinion, is not as good as US flighters mostly due to radar limitations but I have flown against it in an F-16 and beat it.
How do I know these things? 23 years as a USAF fighter pilot.
F-15: 1000 hours
F-16: 2000 hours
F-5E: 500 Hours
MiG-29: 500 hours. (I was an exchange pilot with the German Luftwaffe)

Originally posted by fulcrumflyer
MiG-29: 500 hours. (I was an exchange pilot with the German Luftwaffe)

Did you happen to participate in the American-German air exercises when the Fulcrums smoked the Falcons ??

"Smoked" equates to what Stealth Spy?


Like going to a bar fight with your hands tied behind your back.
Always some sort of restrictions.....


seekerof

[edit on 1-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Since i am on the brink of being banned and since there is a witchhunt on to get me, i'll take my foot off the peadal which i would'nt have previously done.

You are absolutely free to post as you like, Stealth Spy.
Do so within the confines of the Terms and Conditions of this site, bearing in mind the staff requests that have been made of you.

There is no witch hunt, and you are not going to be banned anytime soon, but that ultimately remains up to you, correct? You see, when a member is banned, the decision process is not solely made by one moderator; the entire staff has imput and say on the matter.


As such, please, by all means, feel absolutely free to contest or discuss as you see fit.





seekerof

[edit on 1-7-2005 by Seekerof]

haha, no stealth spy, i fully enjoy having friends from many diffrent countries, i was just asing because you had every single picture of a jaguar as indian, but yeah, i see what you mean, im regularly lazy when it comes to looking for links.