Hi, please keep the discussion civilized.
3 Likes
understood.
It says 60° or more in the first paragraph of the introduction and is elicit in the fact that it’s discussing supermaneuverability (in particular, the qualities of the MiG-29 and Su-27). It simply doesn’t differentiate between true and local AoA which is what I was confused about at first as well.
The nose is pointing 90° when true AoA is 60° for the MiG-29, this is known as “Cobra”. Immediately following airflow separation it tends to recover easily due to its design.
Did you read the rest of the document? If you would like I can provide the full thing to you in private.
Yes because that is what we call an introduction.
60° is the regime of High Maneuverability because that is what the study is specifically about.
Hench the name of the title.
That does not mean that is all the Mig29 and Su27 are capable because there is another regime and its called… Supermaneuvrability.
G.I Zagainov mentions their investigation and touches on it and…
irrelevant. The cobra is one maneuver associated with supermaneuvrability and you are grasping at straws.
You thought supermaneuvrability is regimes consisting of 60° angle of attack and cited the wrong study and its fully implemented in the game.
You are wrong. Admit it so we can move on with our lives. I do not want to hear you go over and over all night because it is nothing more than attempt to obscure the fact that you just do not know what you are reading. We do not discuss history and technical capabilities out of pride. We seek the truth of a matter. We admit when we are wrong like men.
2 Likes
Please, read the rest of the document.
https://sci-hub.ru/https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1993-4737
There is no reason to be so confidently wrong and then claim the other person “always needs to be right”.
2 Likes
I already did and it’s a study in high maneuverability. It is not a detailed study of SUPER maneuverability.
Hence the title and the first paragraph because that is called an introduction to a study.
2 Likes
If you want to be specific the document says 30-60 degrees is the regime of flight wherein airflow separation can begin to occur. Nowhere does it explicitly state 90+ is “supermaneuverable”. 60° AoA with a nose attitude of 90° is the characteristic “Cobra”. The study is on the supermaneuverability and how it can be used in combat.
1 Like
Is this guy for real @InterFleet ?
it says it on the first page.
So, can we move on with our lives? I have a study to finish reading on High maneuverability, if you do not mind.
2 Likes
It says it is “one of the” supermaneuverable regimes.
The Russians did not coin the term supermaneuvrability. The director of TsAGI mentioned the use of the word came from Herbst. The document is explicitly studying the theory and practice of high maneuverability of two supermaneuverable aircraft… the MiG-29 and Su-27. The MiG-29 has an AoA limitation of around 60 degrees attainment in sudden pitch-up conditions. The Su-27’s limit is around ~90 degrees. In both cases, the nose attitude in relation to the ground exceeds the actual true AoA.
This is why the MiG-29 is known to be able to do a 90 degree Cobra, and the Su-27 has in some cases gone beyond this to 100-120 degrees.
Red is the MiG-29, Green is the Su-27’s AoA over time for such maneuvers of “dynamic attainment” (not explicitly supermaneuvrability, rather just a maneuver those types of aircraft are capable of). It should also be noted that aircraft which are not explicitly supermaneuverable can do this, such as the Saab J35.
Every single chapter of the paper discusses explicitly “supermaneuvrability” and it is in the conclusion. How have you read the document and not come to the conclusion that it is only talking about the supermaneuverable properties of the MiG-29 and Su-27? There is an entire chapter devoted to the performance of “dynamic attainment” (Cobra).
Please, just read the document so you can stop posting misinformation.
It’s bad enough that you never source anything you say, you straight up don’t read the sources when they’re handed to you. You are literally highlighting stuff that disagrees with your stance and posting it like it’s going to shut down anyone’s common sense module.
You’re literally doing what you claim I’m doing (refusing to acknowledge you’re wrong). I think the book is open and shut here, if you want me to reply further you’re going to have to respond with a valid source and testing that shows the MiG-29 is actually underperforming.
1 Like
Let the record reflect. Last night.
Yeah, but that’s not all the Mig29 can do, and you are just proving that more and more with every reply as you are learning right now in your panic studying trying to collect what sense of pride you feel you lost.
Now below. Look how far he has come along when he actually studies it. I am proud of you. All of a sudden theres more degrees in angles of attack!? Cool!
2 Likes
I am only responding to this to help people who are driven to research and improving the game. Who do not get up to research only when someone pulls their covers and reveals they are not a developer, tech mod or even a real WT player who actually plays the game as designed.
Yes, airflow separation has a point in this regime of high angles of attack and that is why a combination of technologies must be employed to delay the stall such as leading-edge droop flaps, blended wing/fuselage with most importantly high thrust to weight ratio engines and LERX and aerodynamic integral designs. The Mig29 and the F-16 are both equipped fully.
On a modern fighter aircraft, LERX induce controlled airflow over the wing at high angles of attack, so delaying the stall and consequent loss of lift. In cruising flight, the effect of the LERX is minimal. However, at high angles of attack, as often encountered in a dogfight or during takeoff and landing, the LERX generates a high-speed vortex that attaches to the top of the wing. The vortex action maintains the attachment of the airflow to the upper-wing surface well past the normal stall point at which the airflow separates from the wing surface, thus sustaining lift at very high angles.
Large LERX of the Mig29 and F16 is the most important of these technologies and is one of the technology hallmarks of the 4th Generation. Inspired by the amazing Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter.
The second is an aerodynamic integral design in which both aircraft possess as well. Where they differ is that the F16 has an unstable blended integral design which is evident of prioritization in energy maneuverability theory of the US while the Mig29 has an excessive lift/pitch design which is evident of the close-range supermaneuverability doctrine, the Soviet/Russian emphasis.
Third is high thrust to weight. This is critical to supermaneuvering fighters because it not only avoids many situations in which an aircraft can stall (such as during vertical climbing maneuvers), but when the aircraft does stall, the high thrust-to-weight ratio allows the pilot to sharply increase forward speed even as the aircraft pitches nose-down; this reduces the angle the nose must pitch down in order to meet the velocity vector, thus recovering more quickly from the stall. This allows stalls to be controlled. A pilot will intentionally stall the aircraft with a hard maneuver, then recover quickly with the high engine power. NOT MODELLED.
The Mig29 and definitely the SMT should be the better in close range maneuverability. Especially at slow speed. I will let the players who actually play the game as designed decide.
1 Like
Anyone who wants to read the document and not your misinformation is free to;
https://sci-hub.ru/https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1993-4737
So you misquote what I said wherein the MiG-29’s Cobra isn’t truly a 90° AoA excursion, but a 60° AoA excursion resulting in the nose being 90° vertical from the start of the maneuver in reference to the ground…
But claim to have read and understand the document…
It’s good the devs understand where you don’t
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/H409F96xHyZa
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/YUEVxqaLf1xw
You intentionally left out the first portion of my quote @Ziggy1989
Looking forward to a source or in-game testing showing the MiG-29 is underperforming
it’s funny when the CBR rejected the report, saying that the MiG-29 will never be able to do the cobra maneuver.An ordinary MiG-29 makes no changes.Yes, it does not look like what you are used to seeing with a large cast in the angle of attack.But it looks like.The MiG-29M could already make a full-fledged cobra.
yes, and you can see how the pilot gives the handle forward, literally trying to put the plane into a dive, because he is being pulled up when roll
2 Likes
The MiG-29M is a large deviation from the normal MiG-29. It has larger intake ducts, revised with the ramps removed and replaced by screens. It’s airframe uses lighter composite alloys and engines with already 7% more thrust.
I’m not sure what kind of flight control system changes have come, but it appears to remain analogue. They may have further enhanced AoA, as later iterations successfully pushed the overshoot limit to ~70° from 60…
you don’t need to tell me about the changes in the MiG-29M, I know them better than you
3 Likes
So what is your point?
The devs were the ones who closed the report.
1 Like
Guys another thing we should look into is characteristics of the 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. I do not believe that is fully modeled yet as well. This alone allows aircraft to do some amazing things not obtainable in the previous generation. It is also a requirement for supermaneuvrability as well and can immediately bring aircraft that are in the stall the immediate forward airspeed to come out and even further maneuver like the Mig29,
That the flight model still needs to be finalized
1 Like