Thread 64095172

Arrow critics say that it would have been outclassed anyway and that it was just a leaf MiG-25, but is that true? Compared to the Foxbat,
>gross weight: 36.7 tonnes vs 31.1 tonnes
>wing area: 660 ft vs 1225 ft
>TWR @ MTOW: 0.9 vs 0.6 (roughly)
It has a crazy low wing loading and very good thrust to weight. Is there any reason why it wouldn't have been capable of high manueverability?

>>64095172 (OP)
The TWR values are backwards woops

>>64095172 (OP)
>Low wing loading
Means its a literal leaf, fluttery. Doesn't retain high speeds too well drag wise.

>Good thrust to weight
Never a bad thing but you need to factor drag in, or rather thrust to weight to lift to drag. You're looking at a pure delta like a F-106. They're great at making tons of lift when you first pull hard at high enough speeds because you turn into a fucking leaf but you bleed energy kind of like a Flanker does when they throw themselves through the air aka the Cobra.

So you have to really energy manage if you maneuver to avoid bleeding yourself dry in contrast to clipped delta aircraft with tails in regards to your AoA + L/D vs total L.

>>64095634
I'm probably not being too clear here so let me give an example:
The A6M Zero turns really well at low speeds, it also has shitty awful roll rate. None of the US fighters in WW2 had shitty roll rates but they had higher cornering speeds to achieve equal G loading for turns (meaning degrees per second is lower but you're still turning hard in a bigger circle). The thing is if a Zero is below its maneuver speed it turns like shit too while if a US fighter is going fast and pulls hard it will readily outrate the slow zero. The roll component means US fighters with good roll rate (like the aileron boosted late model P-38s) or late model Typhoons with servo t tabs on the ailerons can scissors a Zero to death without needing nose authority (aka pulling) to win a dogfight. Maneuverability is a complex subject in air combat and how you exploit your strengths to win.

So if you fuck around with an Arrow or really any tailless delta and pull too much AoA you become a slow falling leaf for anything that wants to kill you. Looking at wing loading and making conclusions is a poor way to look at fighter flight characteristics.

That being said the Mig-25 is a truck that can't turn for shit but it goes fast in a straight line so if somehow they're in a fucked up close in dogfight (how to lose 101) instead of long range missile slinging the Arrow probably could pull one really hard turn as an advantage in such a weird scenario. Still wouldn't bet on that happening much vs BVRspam with all the Fox 1s.

>>64095667
>>64095634
Despite deltas being inherently draggy when bleeding energy, some manufacturers (like Dassault) still favor it because instantaneous turn speed to end the fight in a single pass might be preferable to the sustained turn rate you get in a non-delta aircraft. A Mirage 2000 probably has the F-16 beat at the merge, but if doesn't kill the F-16 right there, the F-16 will run rings around it due to retaining more energy.

I am curious if the high wing configuration would meaningfully change performance. Most delta fighters are mid or low wing. Perhaps more stable, but further reducing roll rate?