So I looked into it, the files suggest CoG is the same but the SMT is heavier. They modified some other lines, I’d need to delve further or ask someone more knowledgeable about the datamine what they mean. I’ll get back to you next week about that just remind me.
2 Likes
Maximum lift to drag ratio is around 26 degrees, lift continues to increase up to a certain point. When it stalls, lift doesn’t go to zero either. Lift drops, but doesn’t completely go away. The aircraft is supermaneuverable because it can initiate a maneuver that allows it to control itself briefly and then recover itself from post-stall conditions more easily than earlier fighters.
It is currently modeled correctly… there are very few dynamic post-stall maneuvers it can’t do currently. Gaijin hasn’t properly modeled the F-16’s deep stalls but the MiG-29 shouldn’t be concerned about that because it doesn’t suffer from deep stalls as it’s not relaxed static stability.
The F-16 performs mostly as it should in air RB at higher speeds. It’s the low speed performance especially in full real controls that is the issue currently.
Have you played the games instructor? It doesn’t tell you to pitch the nose solely with the keyboard. Also, tapping the pitch key isn’t nearly as effective for precise rate fighting (something required to win if your airframes are so similarly capable in STR)…
No, it’s by definition a secondary source to my knowledge. We can try to forward it but it’s not going to overrule the primary source graph which is claimed to be incorrect unless backed by a better primary source.
This should be brought up on its own in a report.
1 Like
Who said anything about maximum lift to drag ratio? and who said anything about lift continuing to a certain point? that is obvious in literally all things.
Where in your defining of super maneuverability does this ramble apply? All this just to say it is currently modelled and done correctly with zero proof, a comprehension of the variations of post stall technologies/design trends as well as what are the true requirements for aircraft to be designated which not so laid out in black and white.
For you to brush off any further research effort into it even though I, as well as everyone here knows you do not have an updated in-depth study of on supermaneuvrability (neither do I) and how it would be applied in FM and in gameplay functionality and how that would reflect visually in games file not being a game developer or as well versed yet on all aspects of data pulled in datamine and interpreted.
I think it is doing the Mig29 and WT in general a great disservice not to attempt or even entertain the idea that additional research may be required and going even further to stifle research conducted by other’s and their attempts to rally more who may feel a particular model is not performing historically all based on your interpretation of game files and no gameplay experience in any of the models in question.
What told you that? Your datamining tools? You actually do not play the games models as designed long enough to form an opinion based on experience, so what else can it be?
Are we talking about “higher speeds” or specifically performance in dogfighting which he has been the main talking point area where the F16 is said to have “UFO performance” and the speeds reached there. Why would we be talking about performance at higher speeds not relevant?? I am talking about the speeds you claim the F16 is a UFO.
Or are we trying to say is the F-16 if fine now, and is no longer a “UFO”? Many of us think its overperforming. Pick a position and stick to it, Its either a UFO or it’s not.
Have I played the games instructor??? how is this relevant to our conversation? Again, I merely point out because I was asked one way we regulated alpha outside of mouse aim was using keyboard for flight control and mouse aim for aiming because of the minute input and quickly generated rates they can applied over the very brad overreaching input of the mouse aim.
I never said it was the most effective process in the entire world that can ever be established. just that a technique exists, and it’s not related to mouse aim. That this is something ought to be known to a bug reporter as he further determines ways to improve the game after he asked me about it first.
Should I have been less abrasive about it? yes, but I could have sworn we gotten over it to to focus on further research on the F16 and Mig29SMT.
1 Like
Director of TsAGI describes Supermaneuvrability based on Herbst’ definition… simply maneuvering to attain high angles of attack.
The full document actually goes well into the necessary details to understand what supermaneuvrability means and why it’s complementary to the design of current Russian aircraft.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1993-4737
Although the traditional term of Supermaneuvrability was simply maneuvering while attaining high angles of attack, the modern term seems to be geared more towards aircraft that can maneuver and maintain complete control in post-stall conditions which almost always requires TVC.
I’m just sharing a paper from the director of TsAGI
Have you read it?
Please, read the document. It directly contradicts what you’re saying and agrees with what I’ve said about the MiG-29.
You’re telling me I don’t know what I’m saying, I’m literally sharing information from a primary source.
The MiG-29 can attain high angles of attack (60°) and recover. It makes post-stall recovery easier. Spin recovery is easier. It allows the pilot to make AoA excursions otherwise not possible on earlier designs. It does this all with traditional aerodynamic techniques.
I am going to keep smashing you over head with this.
You brought this document into play. Explain where you lose control of your aircraft.
1 Like
Do you know what word “high” means and the word “super” means?
This is a study on HIGH maneuverability regimes, not SUPER maneuverability regimes There is a distinct difference, and they mention it.
ITS IN THE TITLE.
1 Like
Please, I’m only referencing a primary document discussing supermaneuverability. Bash me over the head with the source I used to further our discussion on what it means to be “supermaneuverable”.
At the point where airflow separation or excessive wing rock / other instabilities occur. As I said, the aircraft can briefly enter regimes if flight that previously would not have resulted in a recovery and instead… a full departure from controlled flight.
Did you read the first page? It’s the director of TsAGI discussing the theory behind the designs that eventually resulted in the MiG-29 and Su-27. One of the requirements was what came to be known as “supermaneuverability”.
They see what I’ve been saying all the time. In fact, this source was what I used to get the MiG-29’s AoA during “Cobra” fixed. You’ve reported nothing. You’ve contributed nothing but misinformation to the thread for hundreds of comments, lol.
You too, have a good night… But first, a reminder… you can refute any of my reports in their respective comments sections. To do so you’d need to present a valid argument backed by real sources though.
1 Like
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