I respect that but when there is not efficient air coming through the exhaust lets say… At angle of attack
The airflow on the surface pushes the doors open. Even though the exhaust is wide open. its not bringing in sufficient oxygen. There is no vacuum effect if the exhaust is open.
that is why the surface of the exhaust is slanted at a slight angle of attack. So when you do pitch aiflow immediately pushes the doors open bringing much needed airflow.
oh no but i mean what i said for the 29, i have no idea how that work on the su27, but on the 29 i already saw one video (couldnt find it rn) that the auxiliary air intakes of the 29 dont have any mechanism, that they stay open and what close them is the air passing at high speeds through the main intakes
Excellent point you made & you are correct.
That is why the newer Mig-29s do not have them anymore but perforated panels throughout. That is why the Su-27 has its louvers on the bottom.
Thank you lord we found one with a brain! I did not waste my time after all & I did not have to tell him. He figured it out all by himself.
Source for F-35?
And is this and the hornet up to par with the Flanker’s consistency in being able to pull, keep, and hold high AoA in a close dogfight?
You keep trying to compare the three when they are all highly irrelevant to each other in this discussion.
Again NATO doctrine, Hornet DOCTRINE, PLAYBOOK is to eliminate the threat before a dogfight initiates.
While HIGHLY capable of dogfighting, the Flankers are on paper SUPERIOR in this scenario.
This is why NATO doctrine is bvr its quite simple.
And honestly this discussion should end.
The Flanker does not stall to cobra. If it were to FULLY STALL depending on your definition it would fall straight down not resume flight.
And for the louvers air is gonna go in regardless of direction or purpose or wether its a pressure reliever or an air intake its kinda inevitable that air will move through so why even bother arguing about it.
The point of contention that I was intellectually curious about was the operation of the upper louvers. Since it doesn’t assist with high alpha, my conclusion led me to G loading for sustained turns. It’s pretty nuanced for a passive mechanical system, it must not take a lot of force for them to pop open.
You have your intellectual answer.
We will just say you figured it out with no help by yourself ;)
It does assist because the engines do not breathe effectively at angles of attack. The airflow is distorted.
:)
I was considering intake losses, the Su-27 T/W given is for in-game so if there is a discrepancy it should be reported.
I was referring to the Su-27 vent under the front of the intake below the FOD mesh.
This is exactly right, but you should note that the FOD mesh can inhibit their use in normal flight if it isn’t raised to allow them to open… Which ironically also somewhat limits airflow which is what would necessitate the auxiliary intake of air.
Aviation Week article was referenced. I can’t post the article because it’s a paid subscription but several sites shared the information. This was also for an earlier block of the aircraft and there are several ‘upgrades’ that have since further relaxed the maneuvering restrictions.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140228203137/http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html
Friendly reminder to all Sukhoi & Mikoyan enthusiast, Tech Moderators & Developers.
Please beware of this user’s numbers. Always double check. Do not ever take at face value.
Why would he misrepresent the Su-27?
I wonder why he would take thrust without loss for the F-18. But not for the Su-27??
Feel free to find a source that differs - the Su-27 numbers are from war thunders wiki page on the aircrafts in-game stats.
@BBCRF for static installed conditions the F404-GE-400 has ~16,200 lb-f thrust according to the QNEP (primary source). The GE-402 increases that by ~10% which equates to ~17,820 lb-f. I actually rounded the estimate down to the static uninstalled thrust setting of 17,750 lb-f as that seems more realistic given that static installed should not be greater than uninstalled.
Since specific figures were not provided and it was only claimed that static installed thrust increased by approximately 10% we can give it some margin of leeway, if you think it is less than 17,750 lb-f we can justify the claim with some intake losses. For the Su-27 in-game the thrust is possibly too low based on your claims.
Even so, gaijin claims it has ~2% losses. Applying the same figure to the F-18 would bring thrust down to 17,395 lb-f.
The empty T/W is thus reduced to 1.51… still higher than the Su-27 in-game. Let me know if the Su-27 thrust values from the manual differ - I don’t have a good way to translate the manual from my phone at the moment.
Comrades, I just noticed that in the test server update, the J-11A will no longer be allowed to use TWS to guide the R-77 to attack more than one target.
But this is not right. This picture was released by the PLAAF, and it depicts the process of the Su-27 using the N001 radar to guide the R-27ER to attack two targets at the same time. I am not sure whether this is a feature that the Su-27SK has from the beginning, or the J-11A that has been upgraded by the 558 maintenance plant in Belarus. But since our J-11A can use the R-77 - which is exactly what it can do after the 558 maintenance plant upgrade - then why not?
F-18 empty=10400kg .Thrust 78700/9.81×0.9=7220×2=14400
T/w=14400/10400=1.38
This is without taking into account losses
I believe this should be the case with the PL-12 not R-77.
Better rally up a bug report and also use the correct thread.
This is a very rough calculation of losses.In reality, it will be even lower. The Su-27 actually has inflated performance in the game.The F-16 also needs to be reduced by at least 800kgf
For the Su-27 T/O, its “50% fuel” should actually be 34% in game. About 3 tons of fuel is used for ferry flights, which are not filled up on most missions and therefore are not counted.
This needs to be taken into account when calculating the thrust-to-weight ratio and flight performance of the Su-27 at half fuel.
Hmm… I’m actually not sure if the J-11A can use the PL-12.
The PL-12 actually uses the same seeker (9B-1103M) as the R-77. So if the onboard fire control system recognizes it as an R-77, it can be launched and guided normally. This is how the Chinese naval aviation allows the Su-30MKK2 to carry and launch these missiles.
But the J-11A - I have never seen it carry or launch the PL-12 in various channels.
Regarding issues, I once tried to submit an issue about the Su-27SM engine problem, but it was rejected. I’m not sure what information is meaningful and what is not. There are not many ways to directly disclose the technical details of Russian (and Chinese) weapons and equipment. It would be great if you can give me some help.
Great post brother. But I am not sure about how the J-11A ability is set up because gajin has not determined if the J-11A we are getting is the J-11A MLU or not. It has the MAW receivers modeled as a late model J-11A but is still not confirmed. This determines the radar capability somewhat. I would think. The radar they are getting is not the Su-30MK2 afik.
As for our Su-27SM.
The Su-27M is currently the Russian domestic version of the Su-30MK2-based SMK mid-life upgrade, equipped with a N001VP Radar.
The radar in in the Su-27SM the N001VP because Russia does not use export controlled export versions with less capability.
Anyway besides the name radar (not really important) our Su-27SM should have the capability of tracking 10 targets simultaneously & able to target two of them with ARHs (R-77s) simultaneously or two of them with SARHs (R-27RE) simultaneously.
Additionally since our radar is the domestic version of the Chinese N001VEP. It has all the same upgrades of of it, the 70km targeting range, the additional search modes etc. plus further capability as the domestic version not export. But those extra differences are not easily defined & disclosed.
The radar may not have the power, range & precision of the Zhuk-27, but It is said that the N001VEP does have all capabilities of it. such as modes & tracking of 10, but targeting of 2.
The radar we have is not modeled at all. Hopefully soon. But I feel it should have happened already.
What source did you use for the losses and the thrust before losses on the GE-402?
What should the Su-27 static installed thrust be in-game?
