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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
:)
I was considering intake losses, the Su-27 T/W given is for in-game so if there is a discrepancy it should be reported.
I was referring to the Su-27 vent under the front of the intake below the FOD mesh.
This is exactly right, but you should note that the FOD mesh can inhibit their use in normal flight if it isn’t raised to allow them to open… Which ironically also somewhat limits airflow which is what would necessitate the auxiliary intake of air.
Aviation Week article was referenced. I can’t post the article because it’s a paid subscription but several sites shared the information. This was also for an earlier block of the aircraft and there are several ‘upgrades’ that have since further relaxed the maneuvering restrictions.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140228203137/http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html
Friendly reminder to all Sukhoi & Mikoyan enthusiast, Tech Moderators & Developers.
Please beware of this user’s numbers. Always double check. Do not ever take at face value.
Why would he misrepresent the Su-27?
I wonder why he would take thrust without loss for the F-18. But not for the Su-27??
Feel free to find a source that differs - the Su-27 numbers are from war thunders wiki page on the aircrafts in-game stats.
@BBCRF for static installed conditions the F404-GE-400 has ~16,200 lb-f thrust according to the QNEP (primary source). The GE-402 increases that by ~10% which equates to ~17,820 lb-f. I actually rounded the estimate down to the static uninstalled thrust setting of 17,750 lb-f as that seems more realistic given that static installed should not be greater than uninstalled.
Since specific figures were not provided and it was only claimed that static installed thrust increased by approximately 10% we can give it some margin of leeway, if you think it is less than 17,750 lb-f we can justify the claim with some intake losses. For the Su-27 in-game the thrust is possibly too low based on your claims.
Even so, gaijin claims it has ~2% losses. Applying the same figure to the F-18 would bring thrust down to 17,395 lb-f.
The empty T/W is thus reduced to 1.51… still higher than the Su-27 in-game. Let me know if the Su-27 thrust values from the manual differ - I don’t have a good way to translate the manual from my phone at the moment.
Comrades, I just noticed that in the test server update, the J-11A will no longer be allowed to use TWS to guide the R-77 to attack more than one target.
But this is not right. This picture was released by the PLAAF, and it depicts the process of the Su-27 using the N001 radar to guide the R-27ER to attack two targets at the same time. I am not sure whether this is a feature that the Su-27SK has from the beginning, or the J-11A that has been upgraded by the 558 maintenance plant in Belarus. But since our J-11A can use the R-77 - which is exactly what it can do after the 558 maintenance plant upgrade - then why not?
F-18 empty=10400kg .Thrust 78700/9.81×0.9=7220×2=14400
T/w=14400/10400=1.38
This is without taking into account losses
I believe this should be the case with the PL-12 not R-77.
Better rally up a bug report and also use the correct thread.
This is a very rough calculation of losses.In reality, it will be even lower. The Su-27 actually has inflated performance in the game.The F-16 also needs to be reduced by at least 800kgf
