The claim was quite clear, and while I too would like to know where this information came from, because that would imply the vector changes to +30 degrees at the peak of the manuver.
However,
The constant belittling and ridicule needs to end and was past the point of insufferable long ago.
Please stop.
So, because you cannot explain your own logic and science therefore you revert to “how dare you question me after all I have done?”
You actually discouraged many users from submitting additional reports stating that what “you did” was perfect & it cannot be improved anymore. You do have an odd attachment to being acknowledged.
You spent yesterday discouraging others here who feel the Su27 is lacking as made-up nonsense.
Yet you cannot simply explain your own statements??
Ok. That’s cool. run along.
Thanks.
Yeah, its clear & I knew he cannot substantiate. He likely doesn’t even remember saying these things.
If anyone needs the TsAGI report hit me up it’s not large.(just have PDF ver)
It’s okay for you to be wrong, I was wrong about this as well. That’s why my reports for the MiG-29 AoA initially failed. The devs were the ones who explained this to me. If you think that logic is bad, be my guest and explain how or report it.
The aircraft pitches and climbs, the velocity drops but the AoA is peak at ~60° alpha. The movement vector is thus briefly 30° vertical from the ground, nose is at 60° relative to the movement of the aircraft in space…
Essentially, the MiG-29 is statically stable and becomes neutrally stable at certain intervals of AoA. It cannot force large excursions beyond flow separation like the Su-27 because the pitch rate attainment is not as high.
I literally posted the link to download it above what are you talking about? Anyone can read it and see what nonsense you’re talking.
https://sci-hub.ru/https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1993-4737
Wrong about? Your height?
Did they give your Jr. Deputy Developer badge too?
Pitch is not angle of attack. You are conflating the two.
What does this have to do with the ground. What page are you referring to in the TsAGI report.
The angle of attack (AoA) refers to the angle at which the oncoming airflow meets the wing. It is measured using the wing’s chord line, which is a straight line drawn from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wing. Importantly, the angle of attack is independent of the pitch attitude of the aircraft. In other words, the AoA and pitch are related but not directly dependent on each other. While both are controlled with the elevator, they can vary significantly. For instance, during high-speed straight and level flight, they may be close to equal, but generally, some positive angle of attack is needed to maintain lift due to the wing’s designed-in angle of incidence. Pilots need to consider both AoA and pitch in various flight conditions, such as during maneuvers or when maintaining lift during deceleration.
I didn’t say that was in the TsAGI report. I simply stated that the maximum angle of attack is only 60° and it peaks at this angle of attack when the aircraft nose is 90° in relation to the ground in most cases. The early MiG-29 is incapable of a 90° angle of attack Cobra.
This is the devs answer, if you think they’re wrong and can prove it - make a report.
Yes this is what I’m telling you, stories of 90° Cobra with MiG-29 are in relation to pitch attitude and not true AoA.
I just want to know where you factor in the ground and angle of attack.
Additionally, then you are claiming G. I Zagainov Director of TsAGI, Zhukovsky, RUS is just telling stories & little you over here are not?
By the time the MiG 29 and Su 27 were coming into service, there were F-14s with F-110 engines and F-15s with digital engine control on the other side of the planet, which basically solved the problems of pumping or stalling engines. There is not some superiority of Soviet machines. However, it must also be acknowledged that the Soviet designers did an excellent job and their aircraft were very well optimized for maneuver combat ( interestingly, however, the American pilots practiced much more and harder in this combat).
The superiority of the Soviet aircraft was mainly due to passive detection, helmet sight and R-73 missiles. It wasn’t so much the aircraft itself.
I think you’ll read in Menitsky’s book that the MiG 29 performed the cobra maneuver first, so the first MiG 29s performed the cobra maneuver. It may not have been a 90 degree AoA, but even at that time there was no general standard for what a cobra maneuver should look like, that didn’t come until a bit later. Are you really arguing over a few numbers ?
He isn’t arguing numbers necessarily, rather semantics. The devs didn’t even think 60° AoA was really so realistic but caved in and gave it that much AoA capability. In-game you can do even more than 60°…
The devs explained here:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/YUEVxqaLf1xw?comment=HkAEsElEikKnxATG5P7DsAOU
The F-14 engines are had some issues in case you did not know. Reaching max AB was an issue too.
There is superiority in Soviet design, just as there is superiority in US design. Both stole from each other. Both copied from each other.
The US excelled in their doctrine of fighters. But so did the USSR. Does not mean one had total dominance over the other.
The Americans emphasized energy maneuverability & the Soviets emphasized supermaneuvrability.
The US considered dogfighting as a quantifiable science & the Soviet Union considered dogfighting as an art.
The US favored ranged engagements & their aircraft/weapon systems reflected that.
The Soviets favored close quarters engagements & their aircraft/weapon systems reflected that.
The list goes on outside of fighters. The point I am trying to make is both sides excelled in many fields. No one side excelled in fighter design.
Both made really amazing aircraft. Both made really crappy aircraft.
In fact, the Soviets didn’t practice any supermaneuverability tactics, not in the eighties, not in the nineties. They didn’t have a doctrine based on it.
You do not know what you are talking about. Like at all.
explain in your own word what is a supermaneuverable tactic. What do you think it is?
Just a Cobra?
I’ve read about dynamic deceleration methods to confuse radar, on paper useful in BVR combat. That wasn’t practiced either. Supermaneuverability was like the new adidas shoes in the 90s, very in. Flankermania was then too. But the truth was that the Soviet Union was in a very bad way, not only financially, but also in pilot training. None of what you read related to supermaneuverability was in use then, maybe not until after 2010.
Because you did not find it on the internet they didn’t? Why would their doctrine be readily available??
Confuse the radar?
Do you mean radar defeating techniques? Such as notching?
Ummm…yeah dude notching is a real thing. Immediate reduction to your closure rate & change of direction definitely affect the measurement radar guided missiles predominately rely on.
Notching is exploiting Doppler radars’ reliance on velocity measurement. The maneuver is done by turning at a 90 degree angle to a tracking radar, and the left/right perpendicular directions to the aircraft are sometimes called the beam of the aircraft.
All radar missiles utilize velocity measurement (high pulse repetition frequencies).
Objects with zero velocity are considered ground clutter and are ignored by the radar. Nothing is ever measured with a perfect zero velocity due to signal noise, Therefore the radar set is designed to reject any return with a slow enough relative velocity that it can’t be distinguished from background noise. That’s the “notch”- the relative velocities close enough to zero that can’t be distinguished. This is accomplished in the hardware with a notch filter.
The faster an aircraft can reduce its velocity and suddenly change direction makes a fighter much more survivable. It affords a pilot additional time to react & go defensive.
Why would having a quicker ability to go defensive be a theory?
Why do you think the F-22 , Su-57 & J-20B are supermaneuverable if no benefit or doctrine exist for it? They just like paying for the very costly maintenance of thrust vectoring?
Not notching…
It’s tough, you probably didn’t read the interview with Pugachev where he talks about using supermanoeuvrability, otherwise you wouldn’t have thought of notching…oh well. I’ll make it simple. Just put supermanoeuvrability to the back of your mind until about 2010.
I just want to know where you factor in the ground here. How is that so hard for you to explain?
None of these dudes are referring to the ground.
This is irrelevant.
One person who is a developer simply said he will reduce the post stall stability & it seems a bit off from real characteristics. So, what. He does not believe in the Mig-29 or care much about it. That is obvious by looking at the aircraft’s state in game.
Is this supposed to make you special? You never spoken to a dev before? This is not even conversation. You made it sound he asked you out…
What does this have to do with your ground & angle of attack science?
I already explained. The aircraft starts the maneuver and the direction the aircraft is traveling in relation to the air and ground changes. The direction of travel at the peak is about 30° up in relation to the ground, the nose is 90°, the AoA is 60° between nose and direction of travel through the air.
Obviously this is a very nutshell or layman method of stating this, but that is essentially what is happening. The aircraft then decelerates rapidly during this maneuver so there is little gain in altitude, the thrust allows it to accelerate and prevent loss of altitude… For a brief moment it attains a nose position 90° relative to where it was pointing but the true AoA never exceeds 60°.
Though I didn’t need to explain this, the devs already understand this and that is how it should already be modeled in game now. You’re welcome.
I can’t read you mind kid. “confuses radar” this is your bunk vocabulary we are working with.
Wasa is no kid, I don’t think any of the people who have involved themselves in this conversation recently are. Regardless, it isn’t polite discussion etiquette and I suggest you cut it out before you get smacked by the mods again.