point is, except for that cobra maneuver, the eurofighter would dance over the mig29 corpse all day long. (same for Rafale btw)
So calling the mig 29 “super maneuverable” in that regard is laughable, even if it fits the definition
1 Like
Noted
1 Like
The airflow over the top of the wing is lower when pulling AoA, that’s why the intakes are generally under the fuselage. F-35 and F/A-18 don’t have issues with angle of attack and engine flow. Both have superior T/W to the MiG-29.
Not talking about airflow over the wings.
Just simply speaking about the ability for the engines to breathe in fresh oxygen at these low speeds. Jet engines need lots of oxygen to produce high thrust at low speeds. A requirement for supermaneuvrability.
What are you doing here? I thought you were going celebrate the absolute dominance the legacy hornet will over the Mig29 and Su27 and all air rb in the appropriate thread?
You just gave up huh? Full mask off making up stuff without even trying to make it look half believable? Dang Professor Datamine…
F-35A is 0.87:1
F-18 0.96:1
Fulcrum 1.09:1
Wait till you find out that the Draken must do it at high altitude because its dinky little engine will compressor stall. That many aircraft lack the ability to suck in air like the Mig29 and Su27 and flame out in high angles of attack.
Thats called a clue.
Supermaneuverability is a pretty vague term.
What TSAGI talks about when saying “ability to do post stall maneuvers” or others when they say “ability to achieve maneuvers not possible with conventional aerodynamic controls”
is the fact that both the MiG-29 and the Su-27 are maneuvering with their wings and controls surfaces completely stalled out , the relative airflow over the wings, ailerons, elevators etc is close to 0.
The reason why that happens is the fact that the angle of attack is too high and was reached too quickly (the way this is achieved is by having the elevators do a butt ton of torque).
Now that we are at very high alpha with all our control surfaces stalled out, the only way we can resume level flight is having something else do some torque to put us back in a regime where our control surfaces aren’t stalled out anymore. In the Su-27 this work is done by his elevators rotating in a way to act like a giant airbrake, which creates a force on the back of the aircraft pointing on the opposite direction of movement, which in turns creates a net torque pushing the aircraft nose back down. In the MiG-29 the principle is the same combined with the fact that, since it is a stable aircraft, the nose will inherently rotate downwards (that obviously won’t happen if the aircraft exceeds an Angle of 90 degrees to the ground).
Stability in general prevents the MiG-29 from exceeding that 90 degree angle as the torque the elevators need to do is greater than what it would be if it was unstable (MiG-29M with larger elevators and FBW control proves this since it can do the cobra with higher maximum AoAs).
Thrust vectoring greatly helps doing this since it gives you an additional mean of generating torques on the aircraft. (This is how the F-22 here does the cobra despite the elevators not moving very much: https://youtu.be/uPp-AKgDU_M?si=2FjMOKtT1prnnTg6)
High thrust to weight is not required to do this stuff, but it prevents you from losing a lot of altitude when you are pitched up at high angle (the wings or lift generating surfaces in general aren’t doing any work in keeping you there until you you return to lower AoA)
All of this is VERY DIFFERENT from the ability to achieve a high Alpha without the airflow separating from the wing, which is effectively the AoA an aircraft can sustain and it is what the hornets and eurocanards are good at. The Su-27 is also very good at that and the MiG-29A is also good at it but not on the level of the other 2.
That’s a super hornet
I actually showed you the real T/W at comparable fuel weights.
It is extremely well defined and very simple when read in English & Cyrillic.
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.
*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).*
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.
Lol what i’ve just said. High thrust to weight is prevents you from losing altitude but it doesn’t prevent you from maneuvering after stall if your plane is capable of doing that.
Give the flanker 3000m of altitude and some speed and it will pitch up and recover safely with the engines in idle.
1 Like
Wrong. I’ve already seen here someone (maybe it was you I don’t remember who he was) saying that supermaneuverability is the ability to do maneuvers beyond maximum lift which is a (sometimes similar) but a different thing from post stall maneuvers.
that was me lol
High thrust to weight helps in performing maneuvers beyond maximum lift.
That is why high thrust to weight is extremely relevant to conduct maneuvers not possible with traditional aerodynamic techniques that go beyond maximum lift.
Or in your words stall out all control surfaces.
That is why the F-35 and F-15 fail. They do not have the thrust to weight to push them beyond the point of stall and conduct maneuvers associated with supermaneuvrability such as Pugachev’s Cobra.
There’s some sort of language barrier here: what do you mean with mandatory?
To do this stuff in what would be a combat environment then yes because you don’t want to waste 500m of altitude doing a pitch up, but at the same time it is not necessary at all to go into post stall and then recover if you have the room for it (obviously of you do the cobra at 150m altitude without egine thrust you’ll crash before recovering, but that’s anothe issue).
In general thrust to weight is not what is rotating the aircraft (in physics terms it is not creating any change in the aircraft angular momentum), unless there’s thrust vectoring obviously.
1 Like
Mandatory, meaning it’s a requirement. Without high thrust to weight supermaneuvrability is unobtainable.
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
without any lift provided by the wings to counter gravity
I am reading the rest carefully one moment.
Post stall =/= maximum lift.
The 2 things coincide only when maximum lift is achieved immediately before Airflow detaching, which is not always true (especially not in militray aircraft).
The reason the F-15 fails has nothing to do with thrust to weight (the F-15 has a greater T/W than the Su-27 and on the same level (even better when with very low fuel) of the MiG-29).
It simply can’t do what I’ve described above when explaining how the Su-27 or the MiG-29 achieve the
Yes that is where high thrust to weight comes in.
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
without any lift provided by the wings to counter gravity
I understood that, what i am telling you is thrust to weight is not what is getting an aircraft in that nose up position.
Also when i pointed out post stall =/= maximum lift I was talking about the fact that there are aircraft that keep increasing AoA even when the wings aren’t producing maximum lift anymore, but they are still far from being stalled out.
1 Like
The Mig29 and Su27 are limited on tactical maneuvers associated with Supermaneuvrability because of the lack of thrust vectoring.
However, they can perform the Pugachev’s Cobra which no service aircraft can do in US inventory except the F-22.
it absolutely is and maintaining its attitudes and altitude. Because these maneuvers are beyond maximum lift.
oh no, they are completely stalled and well past the natural point of which is 15-20 degree range per NASA.
There seems to be a barrier on the definition of stall. NASA and Wiki define a stall meaning the loss of the mechanical force of lift, not control.
Your statement contradicts itself because you say the wings are not producing lift, but they are far from being stalled. There is no longer lift being generated at all in these extreme angles of attack.
The aircraft is completely stalled but is maintaining control artificially with high thrust to weight. Lift is immediately recovered through high thrust to weight.
Post stall maneuver technology is high thrust to weight engines. That 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.