Thanks Master Chief. Where did you come to that conclusion? During your time at Top Gun flying in an aggressor squadron? Or during your time at Weapon School in the Airforce?
“The F-18 is actually more Fulcrum than the Fulcrum.”
LMFAO.
“its actually the most dominant point defense fighter in the world. The Legacy Hornet was so good they retired it.”
True, Iran is a very wealthy and innovative country in spite of the sanctions. But yes absolutely. Isn’t it crazy? Not a single operational tomcat because of Iran in the USA.
1:1 isn’t required to obtain tactical dominance on an enemy fighter, but it does help. It’s not a requirement of an “air superiority fighter” like you continue to claim. The whole 1:1 thing isn’t even a requirement of the NGAD program afaik. Should be a rather large fighter that can’t maneuver and relies heavily on stealth… so yeah we’re certainly moving away from that. The F/A-18 as I said is vastly superior to the MiG-29 WVR despite <1:1 T/W. The high alpha stability is more important… to which the F/A-18 can handle 40 degrees sustained AoA without departures where the MiG-29 is limited short of 30. Post-stall recovery is also significantly easier.
The MiG-29 isn’t the beast you make it out to be, it’s not underperforming to the best of our knowledge. As BBCRF said… they modified the aircraft to match the charts even if the thrust isn’t correct (which we don’t know, not really). Fixing the thrust and increasing the drag further might do more harm than good.
And of course, as you know, the F-16 known for departure > 20-25 degrees AoA is pulling over 40, it is overperforming. This is allowing it to handle low speed and remain stable at higher G loading with near zero concerns. This wasn’t the case IRL because it was impossible, not for safety but because the aircraft can’t do it. They fix the F-16, the MiG-29 will start to feel on top of things again. In any case, they waited so long that it’s gonna sit in the shadow of its’ older brother the Flanker.
Professor explain how come the SU57 and F22 had a mandatory requirement of 1:1 thrust to weight or greater. Do you need the ATF program requirements linked?
They didn’t. They had mandatory supercruise capacity which necessitated the T/W be higher. Otherwise they focus more on efficiency to patrol long ranges.
Feel free to prove me wrong;
F-22 Raptor Aircraft Program
Again you are making things up because your fragile ego.
Supercruise has nothing to do with thrust to weight.
The Concord airliner can supercruise and has nowhere near a 1:1 thrust to weight.
0.373:1
The English Electric lighting could supercruise without a 1:1 thrust to weight.
LMFAO
You and I both know how afterburning and non-afterburning static T/W and optimal T/W differ. In that case, the MiG-29 has a T/W of only 0.59 on 20 minutes fuel static and 0.82 optimal.
Hardly supercruising at certain altitudes also doesn’t really meet the same criteria the F-22 was held to as shown in my source.
You think the F22 can super cruise at 1.15 sea level? LMFAO
That’s not what I said, only that 1:1 was not a requirement for performance. Only a necessity to enable supercruise as mentioned in the sources, here is another one;
Acquisition for the 21st Century: The F-22 Development Program
1:1 isn’t necessary for the F-22 to supercruise, but it was a by-product of the design requirements. Not a direct requirement itself.
LOL this guy is going to start highlighting the word thrust and equate only with super cruising. You see how simply minded this individual is? His mind is now going to go in full lockdown and highlight two words thrust and supercruise.
Again, the Concord has a 0.373:1 thrust to weight and can super cruise across the Atlantic ocean Lol.
Please stop.
Lets just stay on topic.
I didn’t know the F18 was the actual Fulcrum can you explain why it’s more Mig29 than the Mig29?
Omg lol he’s back tracking and wasting our time!
The high thrust to weight ratio was just a byproduct? It was just an oopsie daisy? Even though it was originally designed to be the next tactical fighter to take the place of the F15?
I don’t suppose that the F-15 accidentally had a 1:1 thrust to weight as well? lol.
You drop your initial point and try to drag on the person correcting you by attacking their character or just making more nonsense by purposefully misinterpreting what everyone else can see clearly.
You know that the air superiority fighters don’t require 1:1 T/W, it was never a requirement. Only a by-product of other design requirements as I’ve stated. The F-22’s T/W is >1:1 to allow it to supercruise. It doesn’t mean that an aircraft can’t supercruise without 1:1 T/W.
You made some comments earlier about my intelligence, just saying. Bad look.
At least I’ve shared some documentation.
I know its a requirement for supermaneuvrability. LMFAO
A key feature of supermaneuvering fighters is a high thrust-to-weight ratio; that is, the comparison of the force produced by the engines to the aircraft’s weight, which is the force of gravity on the aircraft. It is generally desirable in any aerobatic aircraft, as a high-thrust-to-weight ratio allows the aircraft to recover velocity quickly after a high-G maneuver. In particular, a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1:1 is a critical threshold, as it allows the aircraft to maintain and even gain velocity in a nose-up attitude; such a climb is based on sheer engine power, without any lift provided by the wings to counter gravity, and has become crucial to aerobatic maneuvers in the vertical (which are in turn essential to air combat).
High thrust-to-weight is essential 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; the pilot will intentionally stall the aircraft with a hard maneuver, then recover quickly with the high engine power.
Beginning in the late fourth generation and through Generation 4.5 of aircraft development, advances in engine efficiency and power enabled many fighters to approach and exceed thrust-to-weight ratios of 1:1. Most current and planned fifth-generation fighters will exceed this threshold.
Please just stop I am losing brain cells conversing with you. I miss speaking to the boys learning about the F-14 etc and models. I cannot do this with you. You lack the computational power. I am so sorry.
I really do not want to block you. Stick with discussing Mig29 or shush.
Please explain this or I am blocking you.
No, it’s not. The J35, Gripen, and other fighters are great examples of this. The F-35 is supermaneuverable without 1:1 T/W.
High thrust to weight and low wing loading were necessities for the F-15 to meet sustained maneuvering performance at mach 2 and retain decent stability at low speeds. The MiG-29 does similar, but opted for dynamic attainment to better utilize the ordnance on-hand… the R-73. Other fighters such as the Eurocanards perform even better in this department despite <1:1 T/W. Post stall recovery is made easier with the canards on a relaxed stability design.
Better and more ordnance, better avionics, better EW systems, better countermeasures, datalink, fuel efficiency, maintenance costs, airframe and engine lifespan, sustained high alpha performance, ordnance capability, I could think of so many reasons why. Is that a serious question?
Go ahead, block me… and continue to pretend Supermaneuverability is whatever that long text is and not what the inventor of the term says it is…
Flying Beyond the Stall
So the key is to be able to maintain complete control in this so-called “poststall area of the envelope.” Any aircraft that could do so could be said to have
not merely good but superb maneuverability—hence advocates dubbed this
quality “supermaneuverability.”
a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1:1 is a critical threshold , as it allows the aircraft to maintain and even gain velocity in a nose-up attitude; such a climb is based on sheer engine power, without any lift provided by the wings to counter gravity and has become crucial to aerobatic maneuvers in the vertical (which are in turn essential to air combat).
How are you not understanding this? Oh ego, yes. The downfall of many men. The plague of the unwise.
Sounds like the F-18 is a multirole fighter. The Mig29 is not a multirole fighter.
Please share the wildly available documents classifying the F-35 and F18 as supermaneuverable.
Also please show how they can perform vertical like the Mig29, F15, F22 and Su57 without a thrust to weight as good. What is the magical sauce?
1:1 T/W is overlooked on many modern fighters to include the J-20, F-35, Gripen, Rafale…
Most of these aircraft hardly creep above 1:1 static T/W. Most fighters including the F-4E Phantom develop a 1:1 static thrust to weight when low on fuel.
Firstly, Herbst defined his coined term here;
Anything you’ve come up with trying to define it otherwise is garbage. You have no source and are speaking nonsense yet again (months of this now, really?)… As you said… wish people doing actual research would return to the convo.
You’re welcome to try and find videos of the MiG-29 doing this, or we can compare the high alpha performance based on the public data. You’ll see better high alpha performance for the F/A-18. We just don’t use the term supermaneuvrability as it’s associated most often with dynamic attainment (dropping all airspeed for seemingly no reason as a spectacle).
Although the US reserves the term almost exclusively for what is considered by Herbst “post-stall supermaneuvrability” I.e. an aircraft with TVC capable of maneuvering beyond the stall without regard to airflow over the wing.
This is also something discussed in his paper I linked above. Feel free to read it. By the Russian definition, the F/A-18 and the F-35 are supermaneuverable… being able to dip into regions of post-stall or instability and recover carefree. We have discussed this with the director of TsAGI’s paper earlier already.
Oh, and funnily enough the F-16 can do all the same maneuvers as that F/A-18 in the video in-game currently. Wack.
And last but not least… the F-15 is coming before the F/A-18 for a reason.
No, wrong!
Sorry to break it to you Master Chief,
These countries cannot produce engines like that of the US and Russia. The Swedes are forced outsource their engines to… Ding ding ding! The USA! Their most advanced Gripen uses export General Electric engines.
The Chinese lack the innovation and are forced to outsource their engines to… Ding ding ding! The Russian Federation! The J20 is a 5th gen aircraft with Russian 4th generation Flanker engines in it my guy.
China has barely obtained the capability to develop half decent engines.
I am sorry once again you have failed to understand just how difficult producing high thrust to weight engines are. The leading countries are still the Russian Federation and the United States by far.
Lol OVERLOOKED? No, these countries dream of being able to produce engines like the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofans & Saturn AL-41F1 afterburning turbofan
The Gripen’s requirements didn’t necessitate an engine with >1:1 T/W capability. That’s why they are using only one engine and a small fighter. It fits their needs and smokes Su-27’s.
China has produced aircraft with > 1:1 T/W since the 90s, it just wasn’t as much of a concern or requirement for the J-20 when they started production. They also make powerful engines on par with what Russia has to offer, the issue they’ve had is MTBF.
Yet countries all over the world have been producing fighters capable of 1:1 static T/W for years?
You gonna ignore the entire argument and then make some stuff up again. What’s new.
Enjoy using your imagination some more, I got stuff to do now.
Because it’s a multirole fighter. How many times do we need to go over this.
You do not think if the Swedes could develop engines like the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofans or Saturn AL-41F1 afterburning turbofan they would?
Lol.
Active multirole fighters according to wiki:
F-15 and variants
Su-27 and variants
Rafale
Typhoon
J-20
Raptor
The only ones with T/W static on full internal fuel load of 1:1 or greater…
F-22
J-20 (with latest engines)
Eurofighter
What is interesting is that no Russian fighter is on that list. Not even the modernized MiG-29 variants if you want to include those. In fact, not even the original 9-12 MiG-29s.
What’s more interesting is that the modern air superiority fighters used by Russia have T/W somewhere around 0.83, and they are considered properly “supermaneuverable” without TVC… How come of all the worlds’ air superiority fighters the only ones approaching 1:1 static now with full load are some of the absolute latest gen4.5+ fighters? (efficiency). Those would be the F-22, Typhoon… J-20.
Even the Mirage 2000-5F has many of the same features as these supermaneuverable fighters but isn’t regarded as such. The T/W is higher than most of them as well… and the JAS-39 is higher.
Going back to my original point;
1:1 is not a mandatory requirement for all air superiority dominance fighters of the 4+ and 5th generation. In fact, most modern air superiority fighters don’t have such performance until they are out of ordnance and low on fuel.
The irony here is that the F-15 was downgraded to 0.8 or less and it just keeps getting heavier. The Typhoon is just getting heavier. The Su-27’s grandchildren are significantly worse in T/W to what they once were. The Super Hornet has less thrust-to-weight than the Legacy Hornet. The latest Rafale’s are getting heavier. The F-16’s are getting heavier. The Gripen got heavier and the T/W is less than earlier models.
You’re just wrong, can’t admit it… won’t stop replying with further nonsense. Derailing the thread all the time… yes I’m no better for entertaining you. Goodnight.