1.56
1 Like
If you take thrust without loss for the F-18.It is also necessary for the Su-27
Su-27 t/w 50%=1.16
1 Like
yep:
those are malfunctioning but he is flying slow at angle of attack so they can photo the aircraft behind a transport.
bruh
this one too is -malfunctioning-?
When you fly behind a transport aircraft… You must fly slow at angle of attack. They louvers that are fluttering are not receiving adequate airflow as the others.
Based on what I read in the manual and the dynamics of it, it is opened based on vacuum and will intermittently do so during normal flight as it starts acting like a bleed air outlet. I would not be surprised that they are forced open due to G load, a relatively cheaper way to ensure enough air is ingested during hard turns. In a way, it is similar to older mechanical slat systems in how it functions. As for how it’s modeled in-game, it’s “close enough” by using alpha values but it isn’t completely accurate during some flight envelopes.
1 Like
wrong.
In FLIGHT for both Su-27 & Mig29. They open at angle of attack.
On the ground with main intake closed for the Mig-29. it works as a vacuum. The Mig-29 is the only one that completely closes off airflow in the main intakes. Newer Mig-29s do not.
You are conflating on the ground at takeoff with in the air at angles of attack. They are dual mode intakes.
The Su-27 has a FOD grille.
I just said on the ground at take off. this applies to landing as well.
I am not talking about this operation (take off & landing mode) of the Mig-29.
I am talking about in combat at angles of attack.
As you saw in the video @unluckyg shared they open in flight.
Yes or No?
Enough you are wasting my time & you are conflating two aircraft. both louvers activate in angles of attack in combat. You want to talk to me sooooo badly. You need to reply to me in each topic.
Su-27 here & Mig-29 there.
Yes, I feel like I addressed this by saying they are forced open at G loads, irrespective of engine power. I do not think it is directly related to alpha.
They are fluttering and also closed at one point from aircraft 2 when he applied a bit of power then dropped it. This is in line with what the manual says “They may open intermittently at Mach numbers <0.3 at idle and <0.6 at mil.”
I think the auxiliary air intakes open because of the air flow that occurs at certain angles of attack, but not because it has a direct relationship with some mechanism that opens them due to the pilot pulling the stick, it seems to be purely due to the air passing through intakes.
at high speeds, the air will deny the movement of the auxiliary inlets and will keep them closed, at low speeds as there is no -mechanism- to keep them closed, they will remain open regardless of the angle of attack
1 Like
Call it whatever you want. The Holy Spirit for all I care. They open at angles of attack. the engine breathes better. Airflow does not hit the engines effectively at angles of attack & can cause compressor stall.
The Su-27 is optimized for alpha flight & why it has the louvers.
A thought also occured to me. When at high angles of attack, wouldn’t the airflow have issues reaching the upper louvers since relative wind is hitting below the aircraft? This wouldn’t be an issue in high G situations, but strictly speaking if we’re only concerned about alpha, wouldn’t this mean the engine isn’t benefiting from louvers above it? The Su-27 from what I gather, answers this by placing the louvers below the inlet, allowing relative air to still adequately enter the engine even at significant alpha.
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
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
:)
1 Like