Mig 29 - question about the intake covers

warpboost,
Sorry, I couldn't answer your u2u. I didn't meet the minimum-posts criteria. You have to have a Bachelor's Degree to be a pilot or navigator in the USAF, USN, or Marines. You can fly helicopters for the Army without one. There's no way around the rule. Finish the degree as a civilian and not as an enlisted troop going to night school. It'll take less time. Get a degree in a technical field. That'll serve you better in the long run.
Sitting height is the critical measure. The F-15 and A-10 are very condusive to tall pilots, the F-16 is not. Ask your local recruiter. I don't know the criteria.
No one will ask you about or evaluate your video game skills. Playing video games is 2-dimensional and you're always at 1-G. Besides, you never really die playing video games. That's not the case in flying flighters. There's no comparison on the ground to flying a fighter. Not even a 200 mph racecar. When that Mach 3 telephone pole (a.k.a. surface-to-air missile) screams past your cockpit, you'll know what I mean.
Fun? There's only one thing more fun than flying fighters, but decorum in a public venue won't allow more detail. I'm sure you can guess what that would be. Hope this helps

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.

A bit jealous, aren't we Stealth Spy?


[edit on 1-7-2005 by Hockeyguy567]

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
A bit jealous, aren't we Stealth Spy?

Was that necessary? :shk:

I can see how this would be useful to countries like Iraq and NK... their airfields are probably less well maintained, so a function like this on the MiG-29 would be useful. As for American and other Western planes, their airfields are quite well maintained, and therefore have no need for this feature. Just one question, what models are they available on? Early MiG-29s or late MiG-29s like the SMT/SMT2?

Hmmm, would explain why a lot of american, and european aircraft dont have this feature, our forces simply arent used to using not very well maintained runways, however, such a system may be useful on things like, F-35's, or harriers, i have no idea if they could be implemented on them though.

I was at my local Air Base last month and I saw a couple of A-10’a and F-16’s parked on the runway. They both had their intakes covered, the A-10’s had some sort of blue sleeves put on their engines and the F-16 had a sort of plug to cover its intake.

Yes yes, but on Mig 29's we're talking intergrel intakes, actually part of the airframe, not just airtake foreign object blockers that are manuelly inserted by ground crew.

But that is pointless why produce an aircraft with them covers when it s much easier and probably cheaper just to place covers on manually.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But that is pointless

- Don't be silly Westy, of course it isn't "pointless"; they wouldn't do it otherwise would they?

why produce an aircraft with them covers when it s much easier and probably cheaper just to place covers on manually.

- Yeah but the Russian system means you can operate out of something less than the usual prepared 'spick and span' airfield 'we' expect in the 'west'.

It makes it easier to operate from rough and unprepared or hastily prepared airfields.

......and something so simple - giving such a lot of operational flexibility - is pretty cheap when you think about it.
Typical robust straight-forward Russian clever thinking.

[edit on 2-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But that is pointless why produce an aircraft with them covers when it s much easier and probably cheaper just to place covers on manually.

I think the point just flew over your head. I know sminkeypinkey already covered it, but the point of them is so they can operate out of lower quality airbases. They can take off from an unclean or a poor quality runway with the main intakes closed I think. That is the point.

Also if i'm not mistaken, Russian aircraft also have larger/wider tires, meaning they could land and take off from a normal road, where as if one was to land an F-16 on some normal road (for whatever reason), it would probably damage it and crack it or what have you, since it would have smaller tires. (i'm not 100% sure on this, just what i've heard.)

[edit on 2-7-2005 by jra]

Maybe I’m not getting this but the covers flip down and cover the air intakes right?

Ok now how would you operate an aircraft with the air intakes closed a jet engine cant function without air. And if your only going to flip them down when the jet is not operational then you might as well cover it with something else.

The Fulcrum's intake doors are hinged at the top and are hydraulically actuated to open and close and I described in a previous post. When the Fulcrum's doors are closed, and they only closed on the ground, spring-loaded, louvered doors open due to low pressure in the intake caused by the running engines. Air is supplied to the engine via these louvers. As the main intake doors open on takeoff roll, there's a noticable increase in thrust. This system was deleted in the MiG-29 SMT to make for more internal fuel volume in the leading edge extensions. As stated previously, the MiG-29 is really hurting for internal fuel volume.
The covers or plugs that have been observed in F-15s/F-16s and A-10s are merely vinyl-covered foam plugs or vinyl slip covers whose only function is to keep junk out of the engines between flights. They are removed by the pilot or crew chief during the pre-flight inspection.
There should be no problem with landing an F-16 on a surface that is not normally used as a runway as long as that surface is stressed for the weight. There are emergency highway landing areas for fighter aircraft all over Europe and Korea.

P.S. The louvers are on the top of the leading edge extensions just aft of the cockpit.

Here's a shot of a Mig-29 after landing, notice the intakes. Mig-29 You can see the open louvers above.

[edit on 2-7-2005 by jra]

Nice pic jra.

Now Westy you're not going to tell us you don't see it now are you?

As far as landing the F-16, F-15 etc on a "normal road" the Eisenhower Interstate System here in the US was actually built partly so that they CAN land on it. It extends all the way across the country, and is modeled after the Autobhan. Eisenhower saw how fast the German army in WWII could move supplies and wanted something similar so he built a lot of the interstate highways here. To qualify as an Eisenhower Interstate it has to go from a military base, or near a military base, and it has to have one mile in five perfectly straight with no overhead signs so that it can be used as an emergency airfield in times of war.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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. 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.

The F-4 and SR-71 had variable inlets to regulate airflow through the engine.

And both were retired and no longer in service. The F-15 is the only one that uses one, that is in service now.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And both were retired and no longer in service. The F-15 is the only one that uses one, that is in service now.

True, but they did have them so it is nothing new.

oh of course not. It's been done for a long time now. Just the US doesn't use something like the MiG-29 does, with the intake covers