Depending on the type of aircraft.But for fighters it’s always 1.5
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
2 Likes
The original F-15 has a 7.33G +1.5 safety factor. But it wasn’t a hard limit and pilots often go to 9G and above. The only way to tell how much G a pilot had was to look at the HUD or G meter on the instrument panel. It got more expensive to operate, wings wore out, replaced, etc. An OWS system was introduced to audibly alert the pilot as to how many G’s he currently had. Doesn’t prevent going over 10G, that’s up to the pilot.
10 G ?
10g×1.5
1 Like
Aircraft break down sometimes even below the safety limit, age, accumulated overloading, etc. In games this is not the case.
Su 27 Flanker B is 9+ 1,5 or due to his size the safety factor is less ?
Imagine posting posting blatant BS and then getting upset when you get called out about it.
No, even MiG-23M has 1.5x factor.
1 Like
You mean the J-20B you swore does not exist?
Look dude, you are clueless, everything you say is made up to some degree or another. You are not smart enough to simply crosscheck your ideas before you spew them on the forum. All you do is spread garbage & unnecessary arguments.
I do not care what you do to cope with reality. Do what you need to come to terms with the truth. But stop pinging me to feel a better about your ignorance.
The J-20B exist. You swore no such variant. It’s has thrust vectoring. It’s supermaneuverable.
Thrust vectoring is a technology of supermaneuvrability. The very definition of it.
Supermaneuvrability is the capability of fighter aircraft to execute tactical maneuvers that are not possible with purely aerodynamic techniques. Such maneuvers can involve controlled side-slipping or angles of attack beyond maximum lift.
No one cares about the Abrams, it’s another heavily overrated American vehicle due to Pop Culture. That is why people are shocked its trash in WT. It has nothing to do with the Su-27, its aerodynamic design & its supermaneuvrability
Stop derailing the topic.
1 Like
I dont really see the point in equipping the j20 with a more complicated and likely heavier tvc nozzle in the age of hobs and bvr focus. something like the j10 or j16 yeah, but j20 by design is a long range missile dispenser more than a close range dogfighter
1 Like
Which aircraft and which air force really uses supermaneuverability ? I think we can definitely abandon the idea that the Su 27 in its time used these figures for combat. It occurs to me that the first Russian production aircraft capable of really using these things is the Su 35 with TVC and even better, up to the Su 57.
On the US side, definitely the F-22, but, the question arises, is it being trained ? I think marginally. Because - supermaneuverability is only one piece of the puzzle, and if an aircraft doesn’t have super maneuverability, it has something else to replace it - better stealth, avionics, weapons, etc.
By the way, the best machine for BVR, for me, is the EF-2000 (he doesn’t havesupermaneuverability but it has terrifying G performance and speed), not counting the F–22 of course…
Right, that is a very reasonable & logical conclusion.
On the surface it appears that way & especially when looking at the J-20’s design & role on the battlefield. The aircraft has the furthest range of any American fighter to cover the massive Indo-Pacific & is equipped with powerful long-range missiles. it’s obvious that BVR is this aircraft strong suit.
However, the ability to dogfight at the highest levels is critical for Air Superiority fighters. Multirole aircraft do not have thrust vectoring as requirement for 5th Gen because Air Superiority is not their specialized role.
Remember, in war you must prepare for the worst. No matter how technologically capable a fighter is, no matter how powerful an aircraft’s sensor array is & the missiles they guide, there will always be a possibility that an enemy aircraft will survive to the merge.
According to US doctrine they believe an enemy opponent’s chance of surviving to a merge is always “likely”.
The American’s realized this during Vietnam. That is why post graduate level programs such as the Navy’s Top Gun & Air Force’s Weapon School still exist today. Advanced training in close quarters BFM & ACM for these inevitable scenarios takes place here.
These scenarios may seem “unlikely”, however they are they are an inevitable by-product of a natural phenomenon called the Fog of War.
Yo, kinda like every tank from every nation ever made? Crazy.
This is true. But everything is to a different degree, don’t you agree?
Some more than others are affected by Western Pop Culture. The Abrams is by far the most puffed up by Western Pop culture.
I kinda like the abrams ingame, ppl are just crybabies and like to scream russian bias
1 Like
That is because you are engulfed in Western culture, when you are in America don’t be surprised when you find American armed forces propaganda. This is a primarily western forum, this is normal.
3 Likes
Soviet Top Gun also existed to a limited degree, but stopped with the collapse of the USSR. Soviet WVR training was very limited ( compared to US and NATO training)
1 Like
This is probably true, i’m certain that on the russian sphere of the community they scream “USA bias”
2 Likes
Well, the choice of the word trash was not ideal. “Shocked it is not the impenetrable mobile citadel the assumed it due to Western Pop culture” is more appropriate.
But either way I agree, but I want to keep this about the Su-27 & why high maneuverability is still a requirement.
1 Like
It’s kinda the same that happened with the tiger when ppl that watch history channel documentaries came to wt thinking it was an invincible machine
1 Like