I know it does not matter in the grand scheme of the game.
I do like conversing with you on your thoughts on the aircraft. This is not a way to trip you up. I am simply providing additional context such as the compressors of the engines. They require a very balanced, even airflow to compress the air without surging. These engines are very delicate at the compressor & are highly susceptible to disrupted airflow. The issues can range from Rotating stall, Axi-symmetric stall or compressor surge to total engine flame out.
The ability for airflow to reach the compressor evenly at angles of attack is critical. That is why the Su-27 & Mig-29 have such large main intakes. But large intakes alone cannot limit the distortion & disruption of balanced airflow to the compressor. Auxiliary intakes are needed.
The only reason I provide additional perspective that loss of thrust is just one concern of alpha flight. A Flame Out is worse & is a higher likelihood for aircraft that are designed to operate at such extreme angles of attack. I just want you to be armed with additional perspective for your review that’s all. I did not spend the time typing all that because I did not value your evaluation.
Just wanted you to be armed with additional information that is rarely discussed on the forum for your review.
Right, most are under the impression these are minor effects on the aircraft as well. It’s easy to forget that compressor stalls exist, especially at high angles of attack in a game where none exist. Angle of attack is detrimental to engine performance.
If the Su-27 is capable of exceptional flight performance that is beyond traditional aerodynamic technique at angles of attack beyond maximum lift, then in must possess exceptional technologies.
One of many is the aircraft ability to provide stable, balanced airflow in such extreme conditions & not flame out.
The exhaust & auxiliary exhaust on high alpha fighters are pretty distinguishable for a reason. No other aircraft have such large main intakes & auxiliary intakes. Again, just providing some additional perspective for review that’s all bro.
I am working on collecting sources that N001VP (N001VEP) has additional search modes & increase to targeting range at the very least. There is no reason why the SM radar be another copy paste. It should have all the upgrades & of the exported version in Su-30MK2-based SMK mid-life upgrade & some. I am expecting them to model it in soon. But just researching and saving.
As for the FM I am not sure what can be done in mouse aim. I would refer to @BBCRF or @_Fantom2451.
My issues are in full real, when performing supermaneuverable techniques, the aircraft likes to randomly stop mid turn, pause & drop straight down as if there is no momentum to carry the aircraft like the instructor switched back on.
You already spend the entire day yesterday lying how much better an US naval support attacker is better than both the Su-27 & Mig-29 in every way. Why leave now?
You spent all day lying about the Su-27, misrepresenting its aerodynamics & engine performance trying to nerf it.
Ummmm… You don’t even know what Lift is.
You thought Bisonic was a real speed regime & an actual word…
“We know the FM’s aren’t correct but the high alpha performance is as good as it historically could be”
"60° AoA with nose approximately 90° from the ground is the MiG-29’s ‘Cobra"
What hell are your you talking about???
The word “ground” is not found a single time this study… This guy actually has no idea how angle of attack is measured… It has nothing to do with your nose’s relation to the ground. Where did you interpret this?
Straight making up nonsense to convince others that their models are not underperforming & nothing they can do at the same time. How miserable does someone have to be to do this? It has nothing to do with the ground.
Does anyone want this entire study to see for yourself he keeps referencing nonsense.
I have you the link to the article, it supports what I said if you read it fully. The MiG-29 does not overshoot to a true 90° alpha. That single sentence just conflated them.
I moved the F-18 discussion to the correct thread, you’re free to continue rambling over there if you’d like but I’d prefer you contained your nonsense to a single thread or topic at a given time. You make yourself look bad regardless.
Word of advice, I wouldn’t go around telling people they don’t know what they’re talking about if you demonstrated your lack of knowledge in the same or previous posts. Just rely on sources and let them speak for you. That’s why my reports get passed… Note that the MiG-29’s real AoA capabilities were amended because of the reports I made… You don’t do anything to improve the game.
The claim was quite clear, and while I too would like to know where this information came from, because that would imply the vector changes to +30 degrees at the peak of the manuver.
However,
The constant belittling and ridicule needs to end and was past the point of insufferable long ago.
So, because you cannot explain your own logic and science therefore you revert to “how dare you question me after all I have done?”
You actually discouraged many users from submitting additional reports stating that what “you did” was perfect & it cannot be improved anymore. You do have an odd attachment to being acknowledged.
You spent yesterday discouraging others here who feel the Su27 is lacking as made-up nonsense.
Yet you cannot simply explain your own statements??
Ok. That’s cool. run along.
Thanks.
Yeah, its clear & I knew he cannot substantiate. He likely doesn’t even remember saying these things.
If anyone needs the TsAGI report hit me up it’s not large.(just have PDF ver)
It’s okay for you to be wrong, I was wrong about this as well. That’s why my reports for the MiG-29 AoA initially failed. The devs were the ones who explained this to me. If you think that logic is bad, be my guest and explain how or report it.
The aircraft pitches and climbs, the velocity drops but the AoA is peak at ~60° alpha. The movement vector is thus briefly 30° vertical from the ground, nose is at 60° relative to the movement of the aircraft in space…
Essentially, the MiG-29 is statically stable and becomes neutrally stable at certain intervals of AoA. It cannot force large excursions beyond flow separation like the Su-27 because the pitch rate attainment is not as high.
Did they give your Jr. Deputy Developer badge too?
Pitch is not angle of attack. You are conflating the two.
What does this have to do with the ground. What page are you referring to in the TsAGI report.
Definition of Angle of Attack (AOA):
The AOA is the angle at which the oncoming airflow meets the wing of an aircraft.
It is measured using the wing’s chord line, which is a straight line drawn from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wing¹.
The AOA is independent of the aircraft’s pitch attitude.
The angle of attack (AoA) refers to the angle at which the oncoming airflow meets the wing. It is measured using the wing’s chord line, which is a straight line drawn from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wing. Importantly, the angle of attack is independent of the pitch attitude of the aircraft. In other words, the AoA and pitch are related but not directly dependent on each other. While both are controlled with the elevator, they can vary significantly. For instance, during high-speed straight and level flight, they may be close to equal, but generally, some positive angle of attack is needed to maintain lift due to the wing’s designed-in angle of incidence. Pilots need to consider both AoA and pitch in various flight conditions, such as during maneuvers or when maintaining lift during deceleration.
I didn’t say that was in the TsAGI report. I simply stated that the maximum angle of attack is only 60° and it peaks at this angle of attack when the aircraft nose is 90° in relation to the ground in most cases. The early MiG-29 is incapable of a 90° angle of attack Cobra.
This is the devs answer, if you think they’re wrong and can prove it - make a report.
Yes this is what I’m telling you, stories of 90° Cobra with MiG-29 are in relation to pitch attitude and not true AoA.
By the time the MiG 29 and Su 27 were coming into service, there were F-14s with F-110 engines and F-15s with digital engine control on the other side of the planet, which basically solved the problems of pumping or stalling engines. There is not some superiority of Soviet machines. However, it must also be acknowledged that the Soviet designers did an excellent job and their aircraft were very well optimized for maneuver combat ( interestingly, however, the American pilots practiced much more and harder in this combat).
The superiority of the Soviet aircraft was mainly due to passive detection, helmet sight and R-73 missiles. It wasn’t so much the aircraft itself.
I think you’ll read in Menitsky’s book that the MiG 29 performed the cobra maneuver first, so the first MiG 29s performed the cobra maneuver. It may not have been a 90 degree AoA, but even at that time there was no general standard for what a cobra maneuver should look like, that didn’t come until a bit later. Are you really arguing over a few numbers ?
He isn’t arguing numbers necessarily, rather semantics. The devs didn’t even think 60° AoA was really so realistic but caved in and gave it that much AoA capability. In-game you can do even more than 60°…
The F-14 engines are had some issues in case you did not know. Reaching max AB was an issue too.
There is superiority in Soviet design, just as there is superiority in US design. Both stole from each other. Both copied from each other.
The US excelled in their doctrine of fighters. But so did the USSR. Does not mean one had total dominance over the other.
The Americans emphasized energy maneuverability & the Soviets emphasized supermaneuvrability.
The US considered dogfighting as a quantifiable science & the Soviet Union considered dogfighting as an art.
The US favored ranged engagements & their aircraft/weapon systems reflected that.
The Soviets favored close quarters engagements & their aircraft/weapon systems reflected that.
The list goes on outside of fighters. The point I am trying to make is both sides excelled in many fields. No one side excelled in fighter design.
Both made really amazing aircraft. Both made really crappy aircraft.
In fact, the Soviets didn’t practice any supermaneuverability tactics, not in the eighties, not in the nineties. They didn’t have a doctrine based on it.
