They asked you. Multiple did. Myself included.
Please stop.
The Mig-29 is underperforming & it is underperforming so much that GJ decided to give it R-27ERs & never looked back. That is not consistent with a fully perfected FM if you must give it missiles it never used under the Soviet Flag.
The Su-27 is great but can use some fine tuning imo. @BBCRF & others who have an actual in-depth understanding of the specialized aerodynamics of these aircraft as well feel the model needs work to a much higher degree than I do. I am not sure what @_Fantom2451 thinks of the FM or the others. You are barking up the wrong tree, Killer. Complain to them.
Actually, I am making quick videos clips right now of each Flanker in the game for others who do not have access so they can determine how the aircraft fairs in their opinion in regard to dynamic decelerations & controlled side slipping.
1 Like
That is cool & that is your guy’s opinion.
However, do keep in mind that it is not the community & the Developer’s opinion nor is it the opinion of the former Chief of Aerodynamics Research at Northrop who specializes in high alpha design for over 50 years & worked on the F-18 & the F-20 Tigershark.
The Su-27 is capable of quote: “110-120 degrees of alpha demonstrating no tendency to roll off or depart”
1 Like
The 24 AoA limit on the Su 27 is not for fun, there is a reason. Above 24 AoA, stability is worse and if not handled carefully, the aircraft can go into a stall or spin. That’s why it’s limit (soft limit) at 24 AoA and not 50 AoA.
I mean, yes, the Su 27 has the capability to go above 24 AoA and can do up to maybe 120+ AoA, but it’s not exactly easy, obvious and completely safe. And that’s the point.
Keep in mind the F-18C lacks thrust to weight, it does not have an aerodynamic integral design (poor lift in fuselage.
The F-18C was made massively heavier than the YF-17 in order to make it carrier worthy & recieved no upgrade of the engines.
The F-18C is nowhere near as controllable as the Su-27 whatsoever. It has no tail vortex generators & its LERX was downgraded from the original Cobra Hood of the YF-17 due to simplicity & cost to produce. That is why the Super Hornet was upgraded with larger LERX, broader wings & dogtooth leading edge extensions to offset this terrible control. The F-18 E/F Super Hornet is still a terrible thrust to weight & is hard lock restricted by the FBW system as well because they do not want pilots dying during carrier operations unable to recover.
You are speaking to a man who has extensive research in high alpha design of both Russian & American fighters.
I would stop trying to say briefly under your breath “due to its design”. There is no design of the F-18 that would give it a better control performance over the Su-27.
The US was not looking for a premier NAVY Air to Air platform. The Tomcat was the NAVY’s true love. They needed a cheap multirole work truck & so they degraded the YF-17 (Originally Air Force Aircraft of LFX project) so that it may do just that.
Thrust is one thing, handling is another. If we are talking about differences, the Hornet A/C is more safe to the average pilot due to its digital control system which is more advanced. The AoA hight can be unlimited depending on the configuration.
1 Like
I was wondering if there is a video somewhere of a Su 27 in slow flight on flight day with the nose raised high similar to the Hornet A/C ?
Something like this: 6 min.
1 Like
I already told you it meets most accepted definitions of the wing stall. Find me one where it doesn’t.
There is another thread for the F/A-18, he will just use this as an excuse to avoid answering the question that will show him to be wrong about most of his absurd statements.
True, but thrust to weight of 1:1+ is one requirement of several in order for an aircraft to obtain Supermaneuverable classification.
The F-18 is not supermaneuverable due to its poor TTW & low aerodynamic integral design. Its engines are weak (F-18C is slower than the F-8 Crusader). & its intakes are too small to suck in air efficiently as the Mig-29 & Su-27 which both have massive intake louvers.
The F-18 lacks intake louvers of the Mig-29 & Su-27.
This is the F-18C’s engines poor ability to breath air at high angles of attack
No air = No thrust.
While the F/A-18 thrust to weight does not peak as high as the Su-27, the average T/W is higher because the Su-27 is massive and heavy when fully loaded.
As an example, the empty t/w of the Hornet is approximately ~1.6:1
When loaded with 1.5 tons of fuel it is approximately 1.36:1
These are still numbers more than capable of demonstrating superior maneuverability in conventional fashion to the Flanker. In some cases, the sustained turn rate is even higher than the F-16C albeit higher number of ordnance and more fuel.
The flanker just doesn’t have the same control at high AoA as the Hornet. It’s sole special ability is to achieve that AoA rapidly enough that flow separation occurs before instabilities force uncontrolled asymmetric motion.
We are talking about the controllability of the aircraft, more specifically how safely the aircraft can be flown at high AoA, because that will give us the answer to how often a pilot gets to that high AoA and the Hornet comes out as a safer aircraft, i.e. the Su 27 has the ability to go high above 24 AoA, but its control system is not as precise and there is more room for error.
Edit :
My posts are always about Flanker B, not more modern variants.
If you believe the F-18 is this amazing, you are going to have a hard time convincing the Chief designer of Northrop who specializes in high Alpha Design who also written extensively on the limitations of such aircraft in the hands of the NAVY & their disregard to the YF-17.
Of course, to learn more from me that would entail you go fanboy & romanticize the F-18 in the F-18 thread.
This is the Su-27 thread.
If your aircraft cannot produce sufficient thrust in high angles of attack you have lower degree of controllability of the aircraft. Your point of stall will come very quickly without this critical component.
You need immediate foreword airspeed for any aerodynamic control surface & vortex generators to work.
Thrust to weight of 1:1+ is a requirement of several others for Supermaneuvrability Classification.
Supermaneuverability, in fact, only the last generation of aircraft can practically do it, and I doubt if it is practiced. Maybe yes maybe no. It has its disadvantages - loss of speed, for example. But we are talking about whether the Su 27 is as you say - the best - and it is not. Not the best. Very good ? Maybe. But we keep talking about one thing, but one thing doesn’t make the whole plane, remember? It’s all about finding a compromise and that’s the beauty of it.
This conversation is over until you do some real hard looking at the overall picture.
The F-22 & Su-57 is supermaneuverable. Air Superiority fighters of the 5th generation are supermaneuverable by default. The Chinese J-20B is now supermaneuverable with its TVC engines.
These aircraft all have design lineage that can be traced back to the Su-27.
Before anyone screeches “what about F-35”.
The F-35 is not supermaneuverable because it lacks the aerodynamic patterns we previously discussed & it’s not designed for Air Dominance & Air Supremacy.
The F-35 is a dedicated multirole aircraft & swing role capability. That is why it is called the Joint Strike Fighter. The F-16 can defeat a F-35 in a dogfight.
F-16 can also beat F-22 and Su 27 and Su 35 and also F-16 can lose to Phantom II F-4, so ? On paper it’s very nice, in rally it’s more complicated. But let’s talk about the Su 27 and its capabilities and limits.
That’s nice, but this will get us to the Fokker D.VIIF or Bleriot’s plane. I don’t see the contribution of the Su 27 so dramatically, every aircraft is based on something.
Why? it’s only done on paper right?
This conversation is over.
Yes, only when it starts off the training dead behind it. Training exercises are meant to demonstrate a common enemy’s tactics. Not a 1v1 of which aircraft is better like gamers think goes down.
The F-22 is still completely classified. They are not performing to the full capability BY LAW. That is why the F-22 sometimes leaves fuel tanks strapped to it to lessen the performance & degrade its stealth in training.
The Russians do not go out training with other nations performing the best to their ability either. But will use their aircraft to mimic the way US fighters fly to simulate the doctrine of the enemy, NATO. The ROF & specifics of these exercises such as weapon loadouts, fuel states are completely classified.
This is another common video gamer misconception & is simply propaganda that means noting in regard to either aircraft’s true capabilities.
1 Like
For the “purity” of the experiment, it was necessary to show the F-15A/S…because the Su-27 is a heavy fighter…In addition, these are Finnish modernized ones (I have already written about them here) with a Digital Electric control system …
It was not possible to find a similar angle (special shooting)…
2:38
3:19
5:40
1 Like
Of course you don’t see the contribution. You think only 4th generation fighters are capable of supermaneuvrability & think its only done on paper…
You also seriously think the F-18 has better control over the Su-27. Control as in what? in landing & taking off from a boat?
Ok sure. But then you have the Su-27K which still does that better and does not need a catapult to launch. That is how powerful these aircraft are over the F-18. Nothing about the F-18 can top the aerodynamic design of the Su-27. Nothing.
1 Like
