The individual components are smaller and lighter, but the designers and engineers don’t like wasted space. So they add more trinkets and doodats which needs more wiring and more complex installations which usually always means the end result is the plane gains a lot of weight.
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
1 Like
The Mig-29 is vastly lighter, with a substantial higher thrust to weight.
The Mig-29 is vastly more simplified than the Flanker. Even its brakes are actually pneumatic… there is nothing complex about the Mig-29 & this was a major selling point of Mikoyan to export clients.
“Trinkets & doodats” is a theory not in line with any truth. Appreciate it, though.
1 Like
1 Like
Because the MiG-29 had different requirements.By the time of deployment, preparation, maintenance and costs
The R-27R & ER is an outdated weapon system but the T & especially the ET are very advanced. Su-35s use the ET’s still.
Thank you so much, bit It is not 1G stal condition, it is rapid nose up maneuver - overshoot AoA in very small time - for very experinced pilots.
1 Like
Regardless of it still is very capable of hitting 90 degrees angles of attack. It cannot come near it in game with any Mig-29 variant flown min fuel with zero weapons in full real controls. That is definitely not correct.
Yeah, that why I said its definitely capable of over 120 since that is the degree before any sign of stall. That is why I highlighted that particular airshow because there is no actual true example of set degree at stall.
I provided what evidence is available for you to determine what you think it may be at stall. Definitely over 120.
Perhaps if the onset of AoA is at 1G, the stall will occur much sooner.
Ok, let’s suppose A(x) can be written as kx+b. Let’s first try to fit it. First, at Mach = 0, i.e. at x = 0
we have 0.21 = A(0) = k\cdot 0 + b = b, so we have b = 0.21.
Next. at x = 0.5 we have 0.21 = A(0.5) = k\cdot 0.5 + 0.21, meaning k = 0.
Seems like we have found our k and b, let’s check if it works somewhere else. Say, x = 1.5
A(1.5) = 0\cdot 1.5 + 0.21 = 0.21 \neq 0.37.5.
What??
Oh no, what a disaster, it does not match.
I wonder whyyyyyyy.
OH OH OH, I know, I KNOW. Could it maybe be because it is NOT A GOD DAMN STRAIGHT LINE???
For me, lose R-27R & R-27T from Su-27SM
Su-27SM3, Su-30SM, Su-30SM2 and Su-35S not armed R-27R & R-27T
You don’t need to start from 0.And from 0.9 . To 0.9, the line is straight there are no functions
Maybe my eyes are really bad, but even there the line is not entirely straight. It curves upward from 0.75
and also is slightly curved before that. I imagine even such a small change in a coefficient would result in a decent different in performance.
No, it wouldn’t.The values are very small.You have more Cl input because it is squared
Linear
4.11.2 Stall and spin.
Stall.
The aircraft enters stall modes only as a result of the following piloting errors:
- overboosting the ODA and exceeding α limit ( 24 AoA for Su 27 SK)
- loss of speed less than 200 km/h if the recommendations of paragraph 4.11.1 are not followed.
Exceeding the α allowance by 3° ( 24+3 AoA?) results in involuntary small amplitude roll and heading oscillations. When performing intensive manoeuvring with the achievement of these angles of attack at flight speeds less than 450-500 km/h, the nose of the aircraft drifts. Further increase in the angle of attack leads to an increase in the intensity of these phenomena. At angles of attack exceeding the allowable angles of attack by 8°-14° (24 maximum +14 AoA - 38 Aoa MAX), stall occurs (significantly increased amplitude of oscillations or aircraft roll and heading).
Stall recovery should be performed by immediately setting the pitch control stick to the neutral position (1/4-1/3 of a turn beyond the neutral position away from yourself), and roll contro lstick to the neutral position with the pedals in the neutral position. During stall recovery, the aircraft may go into a corkscrew.
Сваливание.
Самолет выходит на режимы сваливания только в результате следующих ошибок в пилотировании:
− пересиливания ОПР и превышения α доп.;
− потери скорости менее 200 км/ч при невыполнении рекомендаций пункта 4.11.1.
При превышении α доп. на 3° ( 24+3 AoA?)возникают непроизвольные колебания небольшой амплитуды по крену и курсу. При выполнении энергичного маневрирования с достижением этих углов атаки на скоростях полета менее 450-500 км/ч возникает увод носа самолета. Дальнейшее увеличение угла атаки приводит к увеличению интенсивности указанных явлений. На углах атаки, превышающих допустимые углы на 8°-14° ( 24+maximum 14 AoA - 38 Aoa MAX), происходит сваливание (значительно увеличивается амплитуда колебаний или увод самолета по крену и курсу).
Вывод из сваливания выполнять немедленной установкой ручки управления по тангажу в стриммированное положение (1/4-1/3 хода за нейтральное положение от себя), по крену – в нейтральное положение при нейтральном положении педалей. При выводе из сваливания возможен переход самолета в штопор.
Fast and intensive access to ultra-large angles of attack of 90-100 degrees does not lead to stall
Yes, fast and accurate, but a 1G stall ?
There will be 1G at the end point
1 Like
4.11. Flight at low speeds.
4.11.1 Pilot’s actions in case of speed loss on ascending flight paths.
In case of speed loss up to 200-300 km/h, it is allowed to complete aerobatics in accordance with the recommendations of the flight manual, not exceeding α dop - ( 24 AoA for SK version). Question :
What is not exceed Alfa for Flanker B? I think around 30 AoA. A good pilot can go more, yes, but the limit has to be there just like the SK version, but it will be slightly higher.
Yeah, not too sure. Perhaps it already was. The aircraft was going pretty slow at the 1989 Paris Airshow.
One of the several requirements for Dynamic Attainment AKA “supermaneuvrability” is thrust to weight of 1:1+. This alone delays the stall and makes determining what G the aircraft was under at the onset difficult.