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?
Are we working with your interpretations once again?
Just because your aircraft stalls does not mean you lost control. That is where supermaneuvrability comes in.
Let’s teach him definitions team!
Stall Aviation.
[stôl]
A stall is a condition in aerodynamics and aviation such that if the angle of attack on an aircraft increases beyond a certain point, then lift begins to decrease.
Because you lost lift does not mean you lost control in regard to supermaneuvrability.
Running off on an assumption to try and discredit my original statement doesn’t discredit my initial statement.
The ease of post-stall recovery indicates a loss of control imo, do you disagree? Is that the issue?
Remember that awesome definition you copy pasted, took a picture of and even highlighted without actually reading the context???
Supermaneuvrability is the capability of a fighter aircraft to execute tactical maneuvers that are not possible with traditional aerodynamic techniques. Such maneuvers can involve controlled side-slipping or angles of attack beyond maximum lift.
Key words CONTROLLED & BEYOND maximum lift.
You really got to stick with tractors. We are dealing with machines way beyond your computational level.