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.
AND?
Another beautiful example of an absolute failure to comprehend history and the rapidly changing combat doctrine of the 21st century. Why am I wasting my taxes on you?
The United States has shifted over to multirole capability as the cold war is over and is now taking the European design approach of multirole aircraft in effort to cut cost.
The F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 and F-22 were not originally designed with multirole capability WHATSOEVER. Capabilities were only given after the fact.
The US design doctrine has never been to develop jack of all trade fighters. Until very recently in the F-35. It was designed pure multirole from the gate.
The YF-17 also did not have a radar in mind either and was originally designed competitor to the blitz fighter (YF-16) in the LWF the development program never entailed multirole capability. Only after program ended did the Navy decide to pick up the YF-17 and give it carrier capability, radar and radar missiles and slowly other capabilities. LWF did not share the design requirements of the VFAX, the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to develop a new aircraft from the design and principles of the YF-17.
Yeah, the Russians are pretty cool there, but they are taking similar approaches to the USA as the SU-57 is a dedicated MULTIROLE FIGHTER and stated by Sukhoi.
Its literal first combat missions were ground strike operations in Syria.
Please stop you do not know anything. You are not equipped to lecture anyone on the Mig29 Professor Datamine.
I have to go. Enjoy your Friday evening.
Ummm… Btw you are proving I do not need to source any of my statements as they are 100% accurate.
Thank you truly for highlighting exactly what I already told you previously of what defines supermaneuvrability.
You are literally highlighting the very definitions I explained to you last month, but you rejected. Brilliant.
At normal takeoff weight
The requirements for the T/W>1 criterion apply when the aircraft has a normal take-off weight. For the MiG-29 family, these are full internal tanks and 4 R-27,R-73 or R-77 R-73 missiles, for the Su-27 family this is 50% of the internal fuel +4 missiles
Correct me if im wrong but didnt SAAB installed much powerful engine to Gripen E in order to compensate extra weight?
İf i remember correctly TWR should be similiar to A model or little bit better with new GE engine.
Why are you guys even engaging?
It’s just a normal day in this thread
In the ru segment on the old forum, I made many posts and three bug reports about inconsistencies in the specified source, but almost all were deleted.
The developers, like you, do not have a clear answer to the inconsistencies in the source and the calculations made @BBCRF.
Perhaps on the com forum, developers read more and try to understand, but not everyone speaks English at the proper level.
So, the question is, how many attempts do you need to make to draw the attention of adequate people to this problem?
It is very funny when the primary source contradicts itself and presents data based on a single graph on a scanned page, while the secondary source indicates all possible conditions for loss of engine thrust.
Thanks, did not know. See, the requirements are even more strenuous for the Russians. The thrust is not modelled correctly for Mikoyan 4th gens. I hope we get something corrected.
Which reminds me, I forgot to bring up. Soviet runways and conditions are much more intense as well
Additionally, I read that Mig29s have really good large wheel brakes and can land in a very short area.
That should be modelled as well and helps in repairing conditions in game.
The F-16 needs a long runway and that is evident even today. Ukraine currently does not have runways long enough for the F-16 and are currently under construction. In game the F-16 does take a long time to land. But the Mig29 should be much shorter even in the dirt.
The dirt should slow it down even more. That would be so cool if GJ modelled differences of landing in dirt for capable aircraft.
@Panther2995 that goes for Sweden too. The Viggen takes WAY too long to land and take off. The Gripen will need to be monitored when its released too. These aircraft of the Russian Federation and Svenska Flygvapnet should be the shortest landing and takeoff aircraft in the game. It is in their very design.
Short but wouldn’t say the shortest
I 100% agree and there is no way in hell that is modelled correctly.
The Mig29 was designed pefectly for rapid deployment, point intercept. They are always kept full fuel as Mikoyan specifically developed to carry the perfect amount of internal fuel to remain insanely high performing for the specific task at hand. Dogfighting on the front line.
Very true. There are VTOL aircraft I forgot.
Dogfighting performance was such a high priority to Mikoyan that returning to base was considered not important!
The Mig29 would be operating on the front line and after conducting combat operations it can land in a dirt field somewhere in the many forward operating bases in a perceived war with NATO and they will literally bring a truck out to refuel it or take you back to jump in a another Mig29 because they produced thousands.
The Soviet ideology was that I can literally land a Mig29 in a dirt field and run it off in a ditch, hitch a ride back to base and jump in another the same day, no questions asked.
This was the unique Soviet Union mindset of the Cold War. The United States never had that ideology. It terrified the West, and it is why to this day that US fighter pilots are instructed to stay away from the Fulcrum, do not engage in a close quarter whatsoever if possible. It is a reason that even the F-22 does not fly out unless in two-ship or more. Because of the widely available 1v1 specialization and high off boresight capability of the Mig29.
How is anyone who is not an analyst going to tell us the retired legacy hornet the F-18A/C, having a far weaker thrust, carrying more fuel (10,8600lb) is going to perform on par with an Mig29 with a 1:09 thrust ratio at full internal fuel (7,716lb) and high off boresight capability? It is such a dumb claim.
There is no such aircraft in the US inventory so designed for phone booth knife fighting that landing back at original runway was brushed off as not important.
That was my morning rant about the Mig29. Hope you guys are enjoying your weekend!