I’m just sharing what is shown in available sources. It’s not personal opinion.
Herbst’ definition and the director of TsAGI has differed from what the US considers “Supermaneuvrability” and I’ve explained these differences even going back to those posts. You want to talk about American aircraft, I’ll use the American definition. When you are talking about Russian aircraft, I’ll use their definition. It’s really just that simple.
And yet you wish to paint me as a liar? I’ve only ever shared information directly from sources you could have spent time reading instead of writing walls of nonsensical text about stuff that is unrelated or not helpful to your lack thereof a point.
I’ve never once come in here to act in such a manner. You asked for sources, you got some. If you want specifically information on the F-16C-50 it would surely be restricted. On a side note, there is information available for the F-16A-15 or F-16C variants with the same engine as the C-50. What is interesting is that the available information you can find on a quick google search suggests that the C-50/52 actually degrade the stability and available AoA performance due to the ever increasing weight.
When you cannot definitively prove what you keep reiterating make that clear. Stop with the academic dishonesty that is pretending your supposition is fact.
You only ever seemed to have quoted the first page, I highly doubt you read the entire thing if you’re here saying this. Also, the MiG-29 currently aligns itself completely with all the graphs shown in the document. It was odd when you started claiming I was a liar for screenshotting a graph from one of the pages and saying it wasn’t in the source.
Because the first page is called an introduction and lays key details of what is to be discussed.
Usually, studies start off that way.
So, I take it you will not bring me any statement or indication supermaneuvrability means losing control like you initially claimed? But will not admit you were incorrect?
Are we working with your interpretations once again?
Just because your aircraft stalls does not mean you lost control. That is where supermaneuvrability comes in.
Let’s teach him definitions team!
Stall Aviation.
[stôl]
A stall is a condition in aerodynamics and aviation such that if the angle of attack on an aircraft increases beyond a certain point, then lift begins to decrease.
Because you lost lift does not mean you lost control in regard to supermaneuvrability.
Remember that awesome definition you copy pasted, took a picture of and even highlighted without actually reading the context???
Supermaneuvrability is the capability of a fighter aircraft to execute tactical maneuvers that are not possible with traditional aerodynamic techniques. Such maneuvers can involve controlled side-slipping or angles of attack beyond maximum lift.
Key words CONTROLLED & BEYOND maximum lift.
You really got to stick with tractors. We are dealing with machines way beyond your computational level.
Generally what it is describing is the ability to point a nose up to 90 degrees, not the ability to control it at such AoA. To cause an overshoot beyond what was controllable and to allow for a HOBS missile shot.
If you’d read the document, it elaborated on all of this. I’m just quoting documentation, has nothing to do with my understanding of anything (which you continuously insult without ever reading a single actual source…)
See what I am working with boys? This is called a deflection.
In this situation, what you need to do is ignore the irrelevant ramble and keep hitting him over the head with the same question that he fails to answer.
Where does it say supermaneuvrability means losing control of your aircraft?