Source on the MiG-29M being able to carry an external pod? I’ve only ever seen pictures of pods on MiG-35’s.
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
3 Likes
Didn’t you find somewhere in the reading material for the Su 27 something about Wing rock, or Wing drop ?
Great, thank you.
You can calculate the Cn-beta dyn parameter, which is indicative of oscillation frequency of the lateral disturbed motion.
As for the Su-27, Cl-beta and Cn-beta are shown in the manual. Note that mx and my are Cl and Cn with opposite sign. I would expect the Cn-beta dyn curve to be a bit lower than that of the F-16 considering how Cl-beta and Cn-beta goes.
1 Like
So I assume we will never get a real fix for the gripen and will stay a UFO like the F16 rn ??
I’m so disappointed by gaijin…
4 Likes
Not so soon, they keep adding stuff after stuff accumulating the issues to be fixed
1 Like
That’s correct, they have no plans (to my knowledge) to fix the Su-27 either.
1 Like
Rosoboronexport-delivered the first two (of the six remaining in storage at 558 ARZ) Su-30K (former Indian Su-30K upgraded to 558 ARZ.Baranovichi.Belarus)- in the Ethiopian Air Force…The remaining 12 pieces are in service with the Angolan Air Force…
What is wrong with the Su-27? Just a month ago you were claiming that the flight model was accurate before it’s turn rate and energy retention were improved.
The FM is accurate to the sustained turn rate charts and other metrics Gaijin has used. The specific excess power is wrong according to documents not usable for reports or on the forums currently.
We can prove this with secondary sources, but these are not accepted for reports. FM is accurate within the logic that Gaijin uses to test.
1 Like
So then you have changed your mind then and think the plane is under-performing?
did they improve the su 27? I’m not following news regarding the game
I don’t think it is underperforming necessarily, there are things that would be buffed and things that would be nerfed. It was funny and entertaining to pose changes as “nerfs” to rile up Gripen fans but death threats and doxxing aren’t very funny.
In any case, the Su-27’s FM isn’t correct. Whether the changes are good or bad… it is not an Su-27 we are seeing in-game.
No.
1 Like
lol what happened?
FM Su-27 is absolutely not true, it’s anything but Su-27
1 Like
Russia has the same irl problem…
almost as if the limitations of countries irl affect the in game nation 0_0
2 Likes
Except that Russia could have had a thermal pod for well over a year in-game with vehicles that are already implemented. “Russian bias” as y’all like to say. So not sure how “same irl problem” applies in this case… even slightly.
5 Likes
No. The Su-27 flight model hasn’t been improved since the first week or so since it came out.
When it first came out, MiG-23M claimed that the Su-27 flight model was “Actually over-performing slightly”.
A few days later Gaijin increased the turn-rate and energy retention of the Su-27 flight model by noticeable margins to the point where it is today.
Back then I posed the question to him of why it was changed if it was already over-performing…and received the answer that the turn rate and energy retention improvements were in fact not improvements…but “lateral changes”.
And now the claim that is being made within the thread is that the Su-27 is underperforming due to a lack of energy retention / lack of specific excess power.
So what I am trying to follow is what process actually supports that conclusion because he acted incredulous when I suggested in-effect the same thing.
It wasn’t a claim, it was shown during testing and comparison to the manuals sustained turn rate charts. In this specific case - it was overperforming slightly.
After further reading and reports it was adjusted to the proper manual (earlier Su-27 model performance) and as we know, thrust was reduced. There were significant changes to the FM since that point. The turn rates were adjusted based on speed similarly to how the Gripen’s thrust was adjusted based on speed. The F-15 had the same treatment.
These changes did not increase the performance a whole lot, and decreased them in other areas. This is a “lateral change” since it doesn’t outright improve or degrade the aircraft performance as a whole.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say - seems to me it is obvious you’re actively trying to misconstrue what I’ve said or reported. I wasn’t even the person handling the Su-27 reports.
What I said was true at the time it was said, and about the topics being discussed. The FM as a whole is still wrong - something we learned when BBCRF pointed out the errors multiple times.
1 Like