I am glad you asked. Because limiting the speed at which the Su27 can reach max alpha in level flight degrades its performance in other supermaneuverable techniques.
Yes, that is a why a detailed study on supermaneuvrability itself is called for and analyzing footage. Such as the amount of vapor emitted in maneuvers by the su27. Many sources state the same, high subsonic. But no direct numbers, for obvious reasons.
GJ knows the speeds, and had it modelled previously, but they reduced it after release.
I am not asking for a transonic supermaneuvrability. Even GJ having at 800-900km previously was not the edge of subsonic.
No. Because that is less than half of the speed that covers the entire regime.
Do you call 45% a high percentage?
Cmon bro, don’t start acting up on me. I know you see the logic here.
How so? I’ve not had problems with the Su-27 super maneuverability performance since the flight model change. It’s definitely better than it was before in a dogfight due to better energy retention and higher sustained turn rates.
So there are no published sources stating that the Su-27 can enter a cobra maneuver at 800-900 kph…but you think it can and that’s just the way that it should be? And the evidence that it can because you are defining high subsonic speed as being a band between 800-900 kph.
What is your source besides your own conjecture?
NASA seems to define the High Subsonic speed regime as being anything between 250mph to 750mph.
Well, we can get into it when we determine proper speeds.
But, for one it is a little silly now that if you dare attempt any supermaneuverable regimes at Mach .76 (930km) your airframe explodes, and both wings fly off. Even at min fuel clean.
Very interesting there is such a fine line of a few mph between able to pull max alpha and sudden death and spontaneous combustion, no?
Cool we are getting somewhere. But 250mph is not high subsonic.
NASA is literally just describing the typical speeds that transonic aircraft fly…
A lot of aircraft that are transonic and supersonic capable have a hard time flying at 250 mph or less due to things like swept wings etc… That is why they specifically say, “speeds greater than 250 mph.”
Also keep in mind you posted speed regimes done by NASA on Airliners.
I never said the cobra can be done at 800km to 900km. I said the limitation placed at 800km (invisible wall that stops the aircraft from pulling any alpha) which makes the jet climb and stall out instead of performing a proper cobra at lower speeds. The cobra in game is no longer performed properly as result.
The limitation has effects on super maneuverable techniques that take place under the speed at which its set. This covers other techniques I mention that does not necessarily mean that the entire maneuver is taking place at 800km-900km. Being able to pull alpha at 800km-900km (as a starting point) allows the aircraft to swing its momentum for controlled side slipping and high angles of attack and maintain altitude and current direction.
Any lower as it is in game, you end up gaining altitude and then lose altitude and need to recover as the nose pitches down. That is not how the cobra is performed shown here.
I’ll post some vides how the invisible wall at 800km that limits alpha and 900km limit that means immediate death. As well as cobra at all speeds.
It seems like the semantics are taking over the discussion. Just show the instant turn rate line on the turn charts for Su-27 and see if it lines up in-game. I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that it does.
Oh, and if it does… Would clearly suffice as evidence to the contrary that the Su-27 would be able to feasibly Cobra at speeds > 250 mph. (Or whatever y’all decide is ‘high’)
The structure of the Su-27 does not allow it to perform the Cobra maneuver at “high” speeds; it would immediately tear apart unless reinforced with more expensive and durable materials.
There is no evidence supporting this claim. Pilots in my country are also taught how to perform the Cobra maneuver, but, of course, not at the speed you mentioned.
The pilots in your country don’t mention a speed therefore it means what exactly?
Do you have a clue what speed the flanker is doing in this high alpha maneuver? Its well over 300
knots.
The amount of vapor before the maneuver indicates its running around 400+knots. Yes, you can get a rough estimate of fighter aircrafts airspeed by the amount of vapor that is being displaced in a maneuver. Fighter pilots are trained for this.
If it can perform a J-turn without ripping apart. It can perform a cobra without ripping apart.
I cannot provide detailed information to you, but I can give you an illustration.
The upper part of the Su-27 is not actually robust enough to withstand a high G-force in a short period. If you attempt to perform the Cobra maneuver at speeds of 850-950 km/h to see if it works, it will tear apart before you can determine if you can execute the Cobra or not. After that, you will succeed in making your aircraft perform the falling leaf maneuver until it hits the ground. Your commander will be delighted with this.
In the air force of my country, even in aerobatic displays, the Cobra maneuver is not encouraged for regular combat training due to the strain it puts on the aircraft’s structure, which can lead to structural limits being exceeded if abused. There are exceptions with aerobatic aircraft; they are reinforced and have weapon pylons removed to perform the Cobra maneuver more regularly and safely, although it’s still not advisable to attempt it at “high” speeds.
If the aircraft performs the cobra at X speed for fun at airshows without risking over G and structural complications in the longevity of the airframe. That means the aircraft is much more capable when pushed to the limits in real combat.
Airshows do not push the aircraft anywhere near to its structural limitations.
Nor does any country publicly demonstrate the full capability of their fighters so adversarial nations can take note.
Airshows aircraft are typically reinforced to increase their lifespan and enhance the structural integrity. Of course, they require regular maintenance, though less frequently than combat aircraft. Fighter jets, on the other hand, are not reinforced for cost reasons. Investing a significant amount of money in a fighter jet solely to enable it to perform the Cobra maneuver would be considered impractical.
Are you really going to sit here and say that Sukhoi and Mikoyan specially manufactures airshow airframes that are reinforced that the Russian federation orders?
Please provide a source for that when you get a chance.
Neither the F-18s of the Blue Angels or the F-16s of the Thunderbirds have “reinforced airframes” in their airshow modifications.
So “typically reinforced” is thrown out. Maybe its a Russian thing. Can you prove it?
Certainly, since it cannot perform the Cobra maneuver, people come to see the Su-27 do it. Therefore, it has to execute the Cobra maneuver regularly and multiple times.
Both the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds perform high G manuevers and perform far more airshows per year than any nation as far as I know.
They would certainly need this “reinforced airframe”.
Can you provide a source that Russian Sukhois and MiGs are reinforced for airshows? Do you have the serial numbers/product names for these specially made airshow variants?
So if countries go out of their way to not demonstrate the full capability of their fighters…what makes you think that the numbers that Gaijin used on the first model were accurate and the second are inaccurate?
The structural lifespan of those aircraft is inherently high, and they don’t need reinforcement to avoid additional routine maintenance costs.
As someone who has had contact with the Su-27 in the air force and airshows, that’s the only information I can provide. My words may not hold value for you, but it also doesn’t prove that the Su-27 can perform the Cobra maneuver at high speeds.
Out of their way? Of course, they go out of their way to not provide their adversaries the intelligence of their combat systems full capability.
Countries do not publicly disclose full capabilities in writing or in public demonstration for in service fighters, neither does the exports client states. There is reason for this militarily, contractual and geopolitical.
The reason I believe GJs initial full real control flight model because it coincides with my own research and GJ is known to hire consultants in the form of ex pilots to speak about aircraft and has publicly made that known prior.
The 800km-900km is a very specific regime and they didn’t not just randomly pick it. It’s not even the edge of transonic. I am not saying it’s the speed you can do a cobra. I am saying it’s a speed at which high alpha and dynamic attainment aka supermaneuvrability can be initiated.
Ok, I have heard some say that the acceleration the Wanker has in-game is a bit too high from real life, which might be part of the reason loses so much speed in turns (to match theturning curves). So I decided to test it out. Bear in mind, I have never done these kinds of tests before, so scrutiny to my method is welcome.
The test: acceleration at sea level (~200 m) in level flight (n_y = 1) on low fuel (8:10 min).
Source: https://www.mycity-military.com/uploads2/154453_865801817_Cy27_F15.pdf
That paper compares the flight performance of the Su-27 to the F-15 / F-16 / Tornado. The flight curves given for the Su-27 are from its technical manual “Руководство по технической эксплуатации N 10 книга 1”
Conditions of the test (from the paper):
The weight of the aircraft is not directly provided by the paper, but the wing loading is, 305\ kg/m^2. By using the wing area we can find the weight of the aircraft 305 \times 65 = 18910\ kg.
The load out is given as 2 \times R-27 and 2 \times R-73
Flight is done at 200 m altitude with n_y = 1 at full afterburner.
The load out is as 2 \times R-27 and 2 \times R-73
The flight was done at about 250 m altitude at full afterburner and level.
Speed was measured using TAS from the in-game HUD
About the units: The paper uses a parameter called V^*_y = \frac{\Delta H_e}{\Delta t}, where H_e = H + \frac{V^2}{2g}. The logic behind is that using energy the usual way of adding the potential and the kinetic together we don’t get a useful metric, since the speed and altitude of the aircraft are more important than the actual energy (an Il-76 could be flying much slower and at a lower altitude and still have more energy than a faster and higher fighter, but that does not mean what we usually mean by “higher energy”). The units of V^*_y is m/s.
To calculate that value from the in-game measurements for a speed v', a precise time stamp is taken at t_0 with the speed of v_0 = v' - 20\ km/h and at t_1 with the speed of v_1 = v' + \ 20 km/h. The time stamps are taken using Davinci Resolve
Spoiler
Since the altitude is constant, all we need to do is to convert v_0 and v_1 to m/s to get
Note: there are also curves for n_y = 3 and n_y = 5, but I don’t know if I can do them, as it would require to fly at the say altitude while keeping the same g load.
