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.
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.
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
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?
