So your concern is how it doesnt perform a deep stall past the 50deg point. Because what you are demonstrating has no use in an actual match.
Granted the instability should be better modeled, I have seen the high alt asymmetric load tests, however for in match performance an AOA limiter to 20/25 deg wouldnt have an outsized impact in most regards. Can you provide proof of the AOA limits?
Otherwise the FCLS irregularities are not accurate but also not game breaking.
It’s performing according to known documentation. I pointed this out and it was adjusted.
Sharing sources and data from reputable sources instead of posting walls of text explaining how LERX function as some sort of (awful) response to a valid point as if it’s evidence to the contrary is… just good discussion etiquette.
The issue is in a dogfight, at low speed. The MiG-29 loses the advantage it has against the F-16s and since they are the two more prevalent fighters in top tier it’s rather annoying. I also report small discrepancies all the time because it’s just too easy to do.
In air RB the F-16 is flying around at medium to low speeds with 23-24 degrees AoA, pulling 11G’s. This would not be possible without un-commanded yaw or roll. These conditions, especially with asymmetric stores (an issue all aircraft have rn)… are not possible in real life. The aircraft would depart.
If they wanted to fix it by adjusting the instructor they could limit it to around 20 degrees AoA in mouse aim and increase spin tendencies at AoA exceeding 30 degrees or so (to be lenient) for full real. This would be sufficient to prevent people from abusing the excessive alpha until they can properly model the relaxed stability without bricking mouse aim. The problem is that they just don’t care, leaving us to gripe until they fix the instructor issue.
For reference, the MiG-29 pulls ~21 degrees AoA in mouse aim and is limited to approximately 26-28 degrees sustained alpha (but can pitch to 50-60 degrees safely, at the cost of all its’ airspeed). Post-stall recovery should be significantly easier for the MiG-29 than the F-16… currently this isn’t the case.
Dude you don’t even know what supermaneuvrability is and last night copy pasted (took a picture) of the definition I have been trying to tell you since day one.
Lol he thinks the F-35 is supermaneuverable. So there five aircraft without thrust vectoring that are now supermaneuverable?
The Fulcrum, Flanker and the F-35A and F-35C of and the F-18.
Please show us any source discussing these fighters in the same article and giving them the classification of supermaneuverable.
I do not want your interpretation. I want a source.
The one you said was anything but the definition since day one?
Maneuvering post-stall is one definition of supermaneuvrability. The US tends not to use that one, rather only for aircraft with TVC. We’ve gone over the same point of discussion so many times already and you simply come back to claim you were right (you weren’t).
You need someone else to quote them as supermaneuverable when there is video of them doing stuff that exactly matches the definition given by the man who coined the term?
Cool, but again, what is your F-16 AOA source?
That was not a video of a legacy performing supermaneuvrability Professor.
Show us a source. A written study from a viable source. I do not want your interpretation based on a YouTube video.
Thanks
I have a lot, here’s a few.
Sources:
[1] Simulator study of stall/post-stall characteristics of a fighter airplane with relaxed longitudinal static stability
[2] Engineering Methods in Aerodynamic Analysis and Design
[3] Special Course on Fundamentals of Fighter Aircraft Design
[4] Aerodynamic Principles of Flight Vehicles
[5] Active controls in aircraft design (AGARD AG-234)
This definition.
Then you highlighted and accidentally copied the same definition last night (Actually took a picture). Because you are so desperately trying to not appear that you are completely clueless on the subject. Which it’s so hyper apparent at this point to everyone.
I said you had poor reading comprehension, and it holds true.
Just like everything else I have stated. I do not need sources. You always prove me right eventually, though indirectly and unintentionally.
Stick to tractors.
For the F-16C-50 specifically, stop being a smart ass
Anyone can look up aerospace theory, or any number of papers regarding high AOA flight etc etc
I’m just sharing what is shown in available sources. It’s not personal opinion.
Herbst’ definition and the director of TsAGI has differed from what the US considers “Supermaneuvrability” and I’ve explained these differences even going back to those posts. You want to talk about American aircraft, I’ll use the American definition. When you are talking about Russian aircraft, I’ll use their definition. It’s really just that simple.
And yet you wish to paint me as a liar? I’ve only ever shared information directly from sources you could have spent time reading instead of writing walls of nonsensical text about stuff that is unrelated or not helpful to your lack thereof a point.
I’ve never once come in here to act in such a manner. You asked for sources, you got some. If you want specifically information on the F-16C-50 it would surely be restricted. On a side note, there is information available for the F-16A-15 or F-16C variants with the same engine as the C-50. What is interesting is that the available information you can find on a quick google search suggests that the C-50/52 actually degrade the stability and available AoA performance due to the ever increasing weight.
So sharing quotes directly from sources and not my opinion = liar?
How is posting sources and information from them not knowing about the aircraft?
Dude, you denied the definition. You thought supermaneuvrability meant losing control of your aircraft.
Enough. I will let you and @Aurelian_ROW discuss its very interesting.
But take it to the F-16 thread or stay here I do not really care.
I pointed out TsAGI’s definition is different.
Again, you fail to make a rebuttal and try to wander off…
When you cannot definitively prove what you keep reiterating make that clear. Stop with the academic dishonesty that is pretending your supposition is fact.
60 messages, I don’t have time to read
Can you show us anywhere in his study that says you lose control of the aircraft please? I read the whole thing and did not see any indication.
I could be wrong, but dealing with you. I am usually not.
Maybe you can prove me wrong for once. Remember, broski I leave no stone unturned. I will hold you to your statements.
You only ever seemed to have quoted the first page, I highly doubt you read the entire thing if you’re here saying this. Also, the MiG-29 currently aligns itself completely with all the graphs shown in the document. It was odd when you started claiming I was a liar for screenshotting a graph from one of the pages and saying it wasn’t in the source.
Because the first page is called an introduction and lays key details of what is to be discussed.
Usually, studies start off that way.
So, I take it you will not bring me any statement or indication supermaneuvrability means losing control like you initially claimed? But will not admit you were incorrect?
Typical.
What do you think ease of post-stall recovery indicates?