there is quite a lot of arguments that they can easily make to reject it.
Yeah… mustang has the j-11 so he could’ve used that instead of su-27s. If gaijin rejects the report because they’re gonna say su-27s =/= su-27sk I’m gonna laugh my ass off
there actually more arguments can be made - starting from WTRTI and ending with wrong test.
and maybe some funny aspects of FM
nah clearly the heavier J-11 would perform better than the Su-27S
3 Likes
The su-27sk is surely a completely different plane compared to the su-27s!
1 Like
ronaldo, i’ve already sent you a giant ahh article about whole family of 27sm, why u asking me such questions
becasue then you should know that the 27SM3 exists
and those were retorical questions
i can also send you images of atleast 10 different Su-27SM3 airframes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
then explain to me where the extra pylons and antennas come from if not from an upgrade
or explain to me where all the sources talking about the Su-27SM3 come from
if the upgrade dosent exists
1 Like
7 Likes
it happened
Lmao. Tell him to remake it with j-11, I’ll provide sources that prove j-11 = su-27sk
3 Likes
pinging you here bc its alot nicer than on the CBR site
the Su-27SK is the export model of the Su-27S and we have it ingame as the J-11
most notable it is heavier than the russian Su-27S, meaning that if the lighter Su-27S cant perform like the Su-27SK then something is wrong
6 Likes
rejoice, the su-27sk history page on the official UAC website states that j-11 are license produced su-27sk
So remaking the bug report with j-11 should be fine
(already sent this to 64 mustang)
5 Likes
they still can say that manual is about Su-27SK produced in rusia
Nice strawman lol
3 Likes
mind blown
2 Likes
“Su-27SK is heavier than Su-27S, therefore is not comparable for a bug report”
5 Likes
Static thrust @ sea standard day =“Take-off thrust”.
Взлетная тяга, кгс = Takeoff thrust, kgf
Gaijin has a tough time understanding what take-off thrust is. Take-off thrust is the lowest certified baseline thrust guaranteed by the aircraft manufacturer when the engines are installed in the aircraft. Installed turbine engines always produce more than stated, especially when mass airflow and ram effect take place. This is because the aircraft manufacturer must always select the lowest thrust rating that all engines of the same type will reliably produce together during airworthiness certification trials & must place these figures in the flight manuals.
This is to provide the aircrew a safety margin when conducting the most critical phase of manned flight, take-off. Always better to understate than to ever over state thrust figures.
This is regulated by the civil and defense departments/ministries of both US, USSR/RF etc.
They believe that flight manuals of either US & USSR only list uninstalled thrust in flight & take it upon themselves to further reduce the certified installed thrust that is already corrected and adjusted for all installation losses.
Gaijin will nerf thrust & blame it on “channel loss”, a terminology that has zero relevance or existence in aerospace engineering.
Gaijin’s diehard, bitter reluctance on this matter results in many fictional underperforming aircraft in every aspect as thrust defines the aircrafts overall flight characteristics. This includes just about every Flanker.
Their understanding comes from their misinterpretation of what static thrust @ seal level, standard day actually represents in flight manuals.
For example, here in the MiG-29G manual:
Even though BOTH engines are clearly described as installed (variable geometry intakes)… Gaijin still declares they believe static standard day/seal level conditions means uninstalled thrust of the RD-33 & uses this made-up assumption to model every 4th generation aircraft under this flawed logic. This includes all fulcrums, Flankers, Eagles & everything in between.
All gaijin ever needed to do was simply open any Aerospace propulsion engineering textbook and find what does static thrust standard/day sea level conditions mean:
The Definition of Static Thrust @ sea level/standard day:
“Take-off thrust is commonly considered to be the static thrust quoted by the manufacturer. The static thrust is the thrust measured with the engine stationary, as would be the case when the aircraft is initiating the take-off roll.”
“Note that the take-off thrust is usually taken to mean the sea-level static thrust and is equal to the gross thrust at sea level…”
Source: Theory of Aerospace Propulsion 1st Edition - Pasquale M. Sforza Pages 395-396
5 Likes