I said MAXIMUM LIFT, not lift
The Su27 is more than capable it’s just a big girl and needs to drop fuel. All supermaneuverable performance were not conducted on full fuel.
Her Thrust to weight skyrockets at 50% internal flown clean.
30 degrees is not the regime of supermaneuvrability. It’s just high maneuverability.
Supermaneuvrability is 90° alpha and above.
Darn you can’t translate that can you? I will type it for you.
It says, "A technique was suggested for the implementation of one of the supermaneuverable regimes consisting of “dynamic attainment” of high angles of attack of at 90°. This flight regime was tried on aircraft Su-27 and Mig-29 and at present it is performed successfully by these aircraft.
A proper cobra maneuver also known as dynamic deceleration requires 90° and a flare of a little more. That is a maneuver associated with supermaneuvrability aka "dynamic attainment.
there is no more LIFT. there is zero lift in angles of attack at 90° degrees. You are not even going the direction aircraft are supposed to fly. At 90° you are traveling completely the opposite of what lift does.
Do you understand this?
Lift has left the building.
No, that is high maneuverability.
super is at 90 degrees or more.
@MiG_23M will try and say that the Russians did not us the term supermaneuvrability. That is false and unbeknownst to him I studied theology which covers many translations of different languages and figures of speech.
The study is regarding high maneuverability and the author is Russian. If this was a really a mistranslation to English and the Russians never really used the term supermaneuverable…
He would have never differentiated and stated the two by name and defined them both separately.
Everything would have just been stated as “high maneuverability.”
No, I won’t. I’ve actively said that the paper discussed supermaneuverability. You actively tried to say otherwise. Now you’ve flip flopped.
Darn most of it got deleted.
You tried to indicate it was a translation issue then you switched over to
this
It does not matter who coined the word first.
They both of us the word and the definition as its written. TSAGI clearly defines what constitutes supermaneuvrability. The study is regarding high maneuverability and regimes covering up to 60 degrees.
You were shocked and appalled by it.
The dynamic deceleration aka Pugachev’s Cobra requires 90 degrees to be performed correctly or it’s not a cobra. The Fulcrum is capable, no other 4th generation fighter other than the Flanker.
Not your F-18, its best variants or the F-35.
They are not Supermaneuverable.
Nah, it’s still there. You’ll have to scroll up and unhide all your comments
1 Like
So, it’s there? You trying to blame the study on a bad English translation? Ok cool, I will just take your word for it.
No, it literally describes supermaneuvrability and how it can be used tactically with the MiG-29 and Su-27. You tried to claim it had nothing to do with supermaneuvrability.
Not again 😭
4 Likes
That’s literally why I have said earlier supermaneuverability is a vague term, and in different papers is defined in different ways that, in practice, tend to converge but are still different.
You can define supermaneuverability as “achieving 90 or whatever X value degrees AoA”, and then you would consider supermaneuvrable any aircraft that can do that no matter how it does that (in practice 90 degree AoA will always result in flow detachment, but what is important here is that, by that definition, if you could reach 90 degree AoA without flow detachment you would consider that aircraft supermaneuvrable).
Instead the definition that TSAGI presents Is one that is based on the fact that the aircraft can maneuver despite the control surfaces being stalled out, which means that the aircraft is manoeuvring using different principles compared to the conventional ones , and in that case any aircraft that can maneuver after complete stall of his control surfaces is then considered supermaneuvrable (and that’s a deeper concept compared to reaching X value AoA).
Also as far as my English understanding goes here:
It says that supermaneuvrability allows the aircraft to reach ~90 degree AoA, not that reaching 90 degree AoA is what defines supermaneuvrability.
You are misquoting again lol. That was said when I was explaining why THIS:
Is different from THIS:
You can have an aircraft achieving his maximum lift at 30 degree AoA and not stall until over 60 degrees AoA, it’s also something that is ver common in military aircraft
1 Like
100000 gorillion posts regarding pedantics. Smartass-cocky comments using bigwords from one party and the plain autism from other party.
6 Likes
Interesting, could you tell me about the issue with the zhuks? and how @BBCRF is working on the fm, I am a bit lost xdd
1 Like
I think like a solid 2000 posts here in this specific thread are just arguments between the same 2 people, honestly incredible
8 Likes
Thats how you know for sure you re at WT forum xD
4 Likes
We are not talking about angles of attack that are very common among military aircraft.
He said you have Autism Mig. He has Asperger’s syndrome @MaMoran20. Before you go misdiagnosing people.
Jerk.
Secondly at least he can hold more than a 3 post conversation. You can barely speak English my guy.
Lastly you guys are the ones obsessed with reading out conversations an arguments, because lets be honest they are entertaining af and we both get fan mail about it.
Yeah, and yet you come here and read every single post. Because whether you want to admit it or not.,
Me and Mig has generated a high interest in this platform with our back and forth bickering. It is hilarious at time and we both apologize as it gets over the top sometimes. But entertaining and educational it surely is.
Mods actively keep an eye on this thread and probably get a kick out verbal fencing we do on a daily basis. Woe is you; boohoo I am sorry.
Do you have anything to offer about the Mig29s Supermaneuvrability?
1 Like
Did you look into the Yugoslavian manual?
1 Like