No, you made claims and I debunked them. Now you’ve gone off on a tangent for multiple days over semantics denying any ignorance
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
1 Like
What is it ?
Written. Permissible angle of attack at the entrance to the engine
2 Likes
“a first uncritical fascination, if you go deep”
What the hell are you talking about now?
It’s an airplane dude, some people like it, some people don’t. Its nor that serious.
1 Like
I did not make the claim the Su-27 stalls much poorer than it does. I did not make the claim the F-18 is better in every way over the Su-27.
YOU DID
Click to reveal
You made all these wild claims & have ZERO EVIDENCE. All you have is a Napolean complex & nothing else to do with you time but make up stuff.
"Just rely on sources to speak for you"?
That is a statement of a weak mindset. You have no idea how bad that makes you actually look.
This line of thinking is corrupt because you you admitted you must rely on public information found on the internet to speak for you even in the smallest matters of a video game. relying on sources to speak for you is the reason why still have trouble learning the most basic subjects involved.
Spoiler
This line of thinking is precisely why you are still unable to comprehend the most basic subjects related to these aircraft, possess a terrible reading comprehension & lack any form of critical thinking.
This is why you are incapable of properly interpreting anything you find on the internet without deviating from reality or falling victim to propaganda. You continually rely on articles found on the internet to speak directly for you.
You did not learn anything if you cannot articulate the logic of your own positions. Neither does it ensure that you are correct on any of these topics but, rather is quite the opposite.
Sources are not there to speak for you.
Primary, Secondary & Tertiary sources provide varying degrees of evidence in differing perspectives to support your thesis.
You must still articulate your own thesis & explain the process at which you arrive at any given conclusion.
This is why I simply ask individuals to explain their own arguments described in their own word. How they respond immediately reveals whether they understand their own logic, if its legitimate or is nothing more than a fictional personal desire of distorted values, numbers & intentional misrepresenting & misleading.
You will always refuse to explain the logic of your ideas or provide any source that aligns with your theories because all of them are made up. Just like what you are doing now in your CLAIM that the Mig-29 & Su-27 is now all of a sudden both inferior to the F18C in angle of attack, thrust to weight & control.
Spoiler
You rely on sources to speak for you because you are incapable of articulating your own argument & explaining the process at which you came to these wild conclusions. Because they are entirely made up you are unable substantiate the in plain English. So, you refuse to provide any further details & sources. When people have the same literature you reference, you refuse to provide the pages and location of.
All you can do is misrepresent facts, distort number & refuse to clarify your own previous statements at request.
Lastly, a little birdy would like to remind you that both of your bug reports were rejected. Every single point you made in both reports were rejected.
You are lying once again & intentionally misrepresenting truth. There was only one developer who commented in these reports & you know this.
ISO is the only developer who commented in this one report.
MiG-29 AoA still underperforms according to fix // Gaijin.net // Issues
You intentionally said Devs (plural) tie in moderator comments to falsely portray that the developers feel the Mig-29 is over performing feel 60deg is too high as well.
The only individual who is a developer said the following in report decided of his own volition to reduced post stall stability. The angle of attack remained the same but the speed at which it can achieve 60deg increased
“However, we will reduce post stall stability a bit, it will able to achieve ~60deg at 550km/h but is seems a bit off from real characteristics and balancing.”
The Developer was specifically noting the SPEED at which it can achieve ~60deg "seems a bit off from real characteristics and balancing.
(Note: Mig-29 is a highly balanced regulated aircraft in terms of game efficiency & BR. It has powerful missiles it never carried as act of balance/game efficiency. It also not permitted to use its R-73s likewise.)
Lastly, the Mig-29 was already a 50–60-degree capable aircraft prior to you second report as stated it would be by staff in the first report
MiG-29 underperforming AoA / nose authority // Gaijin.net // Issues
TrickZZter quote :
Cobra itself is not useful maneuver figure, and has no any positive effect battle performance.
I’m glad the developers know this, though personally I think as a last-ditch maneuver before certain death it may be valid.
1 Like
You are wrong!.The best U.S. pilot uses it in aerial combat…0,54 min…
3 Likes
Well, that’s nonsense.In close combat, she can decide the outcome of the fight in your favor
2 Likes
Projection
b-but tom cruise
First of all, that is not a developer.
He is also not a legal representative of Gaijin Entertainment.
Second, he is not a Russian pilot.
He has no authority to dictate what is useful or not in the fine arts of taking another’s life behind the controls of a fixed wing aircraft.
Third, no one is referring to cobra usefulness in my previous post. If you like, we can discuss the advantages & disadvantage of such maneuvers?
The Americans discovered such advantages during experimental evaluations of captured Chinese F-7s (J-7) over the Nevada desert in mock dogfights. Though they could not cobra, they had the ability to rapidly decelerate with simultaneous use of their flaps & airbrake inducing a rapid nose up & increase of elevation when chased in close quarters by American test pilots.
You do not understand that in aerial close quarter combat, situational awareness drops dramatically. You have no idea how stressful it is on the mind. Visibility is reduced in the helmet & cockpit. The body is under constant positive & negative G forces. Your eyes are constantly adjusting to keep track of a small object that skims across the open sky & skips across the earth with its background behind it.
Aircraft are intentionally painted low visibility colors to deceive the eyes. You can blink & your opponent is completely gone. You can look down at your instruments for a spit second & by the time you look up your opponent is no longer in the place you anticipated.
Supermaneuvrability can reset the entire momentum of a dogfight. You are hyper fixated on American propaganda.
The biggest lie & cope is that you actually believe Americans when they say supermaneuvrability is not useful, but at the same time it is a requirement for their US exclusive 5th & 6th Generation Air Superiority fighters.
Oh, please, they’re all evil. Look, you take what’s good for you from the text and ignore the rest. The point isn’t what you’re forcing on people. The point of supermaneuverability is that it’s not the ultimate win, it can be beaten. So why are you still standing on it like a little boy? I’m sorry, but you’re too offensive.
No side is truly evil.
No, I don’t.
I believe I am the only Flanker & Fulcrum fan that generates awareness regarding its poor radar capabilities & the R-27ER’s overperformance.
How is this evident of a blind fanboy? How is this evident of a biased thinking?
No one said this.
A perfect example of an ability to defeat Supermaneuverable aircraft is the F-16. It has one of the most powerful fly-by wire systems in the world that are constantly performing mass calculations many times a second for the most energy effective inputs in control.
However, it too is not perfect. It will not allow the pilot to dump his energy to achieve what would be an easy kill. Rather you must continue to wait & stand-by until you are effectively behind the opponent at an airspeed the F-16 determines optimal & “safe”.
You are not flying the F-16 but merely telling it what to do.
The Greatest Supersonic Ace, an “Ace of Aces” said this. Giora Epstein of the IAF (Israel).
The F/A-18 is more restricted by the fly-by wire because it has poor thrust to weight & had been substantially downgraded from the Air Force’s YF-17 to make it carrier capable. It was exclusively a strike aircraft most of its life, variants (A-D) until the Tomcat stood down & retired. The F/A-18 is not even worthy of a full (F) Fighter designation.
The US aircraft that is most optimal to defeat the Flanker in close quarters is the F-15 Eagle & the F-22 Raptor. At range, the F-14 Tomcat & F-22 Raptor.
These are purebred Air Superiority Fighters. Just like the Flanker. Their first & foremost design objective & entire reason they exist is killing other fighters & bombers.
Note: F-14 Tomcat is an Air Superiority platform. “Fleet defense” against Soviet strategic bombers is no different than the PVO Su-27’s role of territorial defense against American strategic bombers.
No one standing on it like a boy.
You are the one that is getting offended by praise of the Su-27 in the Su-27 thread.
Sometimes it’s better not to write back.
Sometimes it’s better to take your own advice.
This has more benefit than just some super maneuverability gimmick. It is a good way to improve minimum takeoff and landing distance, which is very important in ACE applications
Wrong. Canards can do this.
Does the F-22 look like it needs short takeoff and landing???
Does the US Airforce look like it has a runway distance problem???
Where in your mind would the Americans decide that the F-22 needs STOL capabilities, over an ability to dogfight against Russian 4th & 5th Generation fighters?
Why would the Americans waste money on thrust vectoring capability for an aircraft that does not need short takeoff and landings? Do you know how much it cost to maintain such a specialized capability?
Yes, thrust vectoring has benefits outside of air to air combat. But it is not the reason why the F-22 has them.
I swear to God these dudes look for any reason to avoid the truth. Even the most absurd.
War, runway damaged. STOL planes will able to take-off.
There is no such concept that exist in US doctrine where war would take place & a need for STOL capability in their most advanced fighter. Nuclear war would take place long before that requirement is ever needed.
If the US Airforce cannot afford to construct or maintain a simple runway for the F-22. It cannot afford to fly & maintain the F-22 in the first place. The F-22 requires an immense amount of service and maintenance, beyond your comprehension.
There are 3 capabilities why the F-22 Raptor is banned by American law for export.
-
Its Radar
-
Its Stealth properties & aerodynamics.
-
Its Engine & Thrust vectoring capabilities.
The US holds supermaneuvrability & the best to itself. It does not sell supermaneuverable aircraft.
The Americans will tell you its a “gimmick” & it’s “useless” in aerial combat & then sell your country lesser F-35s. Propaganda, my boy. Beware of it.