Well not by the US
1 Like
That is true.
I think currently only the iranians pilot them and it’s the a variant lmao
Is there a single air superiority fighter in US service without a 1:1 ttw?
Can you imagine being so egotistical that you are really going to argue against how insanely important a 1:1 thrust to weight ration is in a dogfight in the 21st century?
they have the A model brotini.
Didn’t they upgrade it though so it compatible with soviet weapons so its own unique version
1 Like
I do not not know about the engines. The Iranians are still hyper protective of it. That would be cool the only people who can offer equivalent engines would be the Russians.
It must be a maintenance hell
Isn’t that the reason the US destroyed their f14 so the Iranians couldn’t smuggler parts or am i wrong on that
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.