I already told you it meets most accepted definitions of the wing stall. Find me one where it doesn’t.
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
There is another thread for the F/A-18, he will just use this as an excuse to avoid answering the question that will show him to be wrong about most of his absurd statements.
True, but thrust to weight of 1:1+ is one requirement of several in order for an aircraft to obtain Supermaneuverable classification.
The F-18 is not supermaneuverable due to its poor TTW & low aerodynamic integral design. Its engines are weak (F-18C is slower than the F-8 Crusader). & its intakes are too small to suck in air efficiently as the Mig-29 & Su-27 which both have massive intake louvers.
The F-18 lacks intake louvers of the Mig-29 & Su-27.
This is the F-18C’s engines poor ability to breath air at high angles of attack
No air = No thrust.
While the F/A-18 thrust to weight does not peak as high as the Su-27, the average T/W is higher because the Su-27 is massive and heavy when fully loaded.
As an example, the empty t/w of the Hornet is approximately ~1.6:1
When loaded with 1.5 tons of fuel it is approximately 1.36:1
These are still numbers more than capable of demonstrating superior maneuverability in conventional fashion to the Flanker. In some cases, the sustained turn rate is even higher than the F-16C albeit higher number of ordnance and more fuel.
The flanker just doesn’t have the same control at high AoA as the Hornet. It’s sole special ability is to achieve that AoA rapidly enough that flow separation occurs before instabilities force uncontrolled asymmetric motion.
We are talking about the controllability of the aircraft, more specifically how safely the aircraft can be flown at high AoA, because that will give us the answer to how often a pilot gets to that high AoA and the Hornet comes out as a safer aircraft, i.e. the Su 27 has the ability to go high above 24 AoA, but its control system is not as precise and there is more room for error.
Edit :
My posts are always about Flanker B, not more modern variants.
If you believe the F-18 is this amazing, you are going to have a hard time convincing the Chief designer of Northrop who specializes in high Alpha Design who also written extensively on the limitations of such aircraft in the hands of the NAVY & their disregard to the YF-17.
Of course, to learn more from me that would entail you go fanboy & romanticize the F-18 in the F-18 thread.
This is the Su-27 thread.
If your aircraft cannot produce sufficient thrust in high angles of attack you have lower degree of controllability of the aircraft. Your point of stall will come very quickly without this critical component.
You need immediate foreword airspeed for any aerodynamic control surface & vortex generators to work.
Thrust to weight of 1:1+ is a requirement of several others for Supermaneuvrability Classification.
Supermaneuverability, in fact, only the last generation of aircraft can practically do it, and I doubt if it is practiced. Maybe yes maybe no. It has its disadvantages - loss of speed, for example. But we are talking about whether the Su 27 is as you say - the best - and it is not. Not the best. Very good ? Maybe. But we keep talking about one thing, but one thing doesn’t make the whole plane, remember? It’s all about finding a compromise and that’s the beauty of it.
This conversation is over until you do some real hard looking at the overall picture.
The F-22 & Su-57 is supermaneuverable. Air Superiority fighters of the 5th generation are supermaneuverable by default. The Chinese J-20B is now supermaneuverable with its TVC engines.
These aircraft all have design lineage that can be traced back to the Su-27.
Before anyone screeches “what about F-35”.
The F-35 is not supermaneuverable because it lacks the aerodynamic patterns we previously discussed & it’s not designed for Air Dominance & Air Supremacy.
The F-35 is a dedicated multirole aircraft & swing role capability. That is why it is called the Joint Strike Fighter. The F-16 can defeat a F-35 in a dogfight.
F-16 can also beat F-22 and Su 27 and Su 35 and also F-16 can lose to Phantom II F-4, so ? On paper it’s very nice, in rally it’s more complicated. But let’s talk about the Su 27 and its capabilities and limits.
rafale
That’s nice, but this will get us to the Fokker D.VIIF or Bleriot’s plane. I don’t see the contribution of the Su 27 so dramatically, every aircraft is based on something.
Why? it’s only done on paper right?
This conversation is over.
Yes, only when it starts off the training dead behind it. Training exercises are meant to demonstrate a common enemy’s tactics. Not a 1v1 of which aircraft is better like gamers think goes down.
The F-22 is still completely classified. They are not performing to the full capability BY LAW. That is why the F-22 sometimes leaves fuel tanks strapped to it to lessen the performance & degrade its stealth in training.
The Russians do not go out training with other nations performing the best to their ability either. But will use their aircraft to mimic the way US fighters fly to simulate the doctrine of the enemy, NATO. The ROF & specifics of these exercises such as weapon loadouts, fuel states are completely classified.
This is another common video gamer misconception & is simply propaganda that means noting in regard to either aircraft’s true capabilities.
1 Like
For the “purity” of the experiment, it was necessary to show the F-15A/S…because the Su-27 is a heavy fighter…In addition, these are Finnish modernized ones (I have already written about them here) with a Digital Electric control system …
It was not possible to find a similar angle (special shooting)…
2:38
3:19
5:40
1 Like
Of course you don’t see the contribution. You think only 4th generation fighters are capable of supermaneuvrability & think its only done on paper…
You also seriously think the F-18 has better control over the Su-27. Control as in what? in landing & taking off from a boat?
Ok sure. But then you have the Su-27K which still does that better and does not need a catapult to launch. That is how powerful these aircraft are over the F-18. Nothing about the F-18 can top the aerodynamic design of the Su-27. Nothing.
1 Like
@BBCRF does the latest MiG-29 not delete these engine vents? Do the latest Sukhoi models use them?
I believe the answer is no… @Ziggy1989
Funnily enough, your description of how or what these vents are used for is erroneous as well.
This is indeed the Su-27 topic, perhaps we can discuss the meaning of the various vents around the intake nacelles and what they do in order to rectify this misunderstanding.
Additionally, while the F/A-18 does not use the center of the body for additional lifting the same fashion as the F-14 or Su-27, instead it places the engines directly next to one another and has additional wing-body space on the side of the nacelles before the wings extend out. The aircraft has quite a lot of wing, a lower sweep angle… it was intended to (and does) have better handling at higher AoA than the Su-27 with the exception of momentary maneuvers such as the Cobra. It must be said though that such maneuvers are not reversible or ‘controlled’ in the same fashion as the F-18’s high alpha capabilities because once started they must be followed through.
Hi bro just a question and a half.
This entails the F-22, 35, J-20, Su-57 and KF-21 correct?
Though we obviously don’t truly know but the F-35A is not super maneuverable right?
Also for the second Q.
Isn’t Russias doctrine by heart in the 4th gen scene clearly to prioritize super maneuverability over anything compared to NATO doctrine which seems to be more bvr focused?
Just very curious to your take on these questions! Answer when you can bro! :D
3 Likes
You are so uneducated & keep getting smacked around by me I am starting to feel bad.
These vents were so important that the Americans copied the design & implemented them in this fighter them in this fighter. The automatic opening & closing at angles of attack.
1 Like
Lol
Look up what these are for and try again
One of them are intakes (mig-29)… The other are not…
3 Likes
Not the F-35 all evidence in its aerodynamic layout (though it’s got a vicious thrust) is capable. I believe I can find US pilots mentioning it too.
The KF-21 might as it is a dual engine setup with everything else, but no TVC that I am aware. I do not know what kind of thrust its working with or how quickly its max thrust & AB is engaged. Some aircraft have high thrust to weights but must slowly & judicially engage the throttle to max.
The General Electric F110-GE-400 have this issue in the Tomcat.
1 Like
They are called intake louvers. Get an education. Go to college, do something. Please.
He’s googling them right now as we speak…