I just posted a picture of the speed regimes you didn’t see it?
If subsonic regimes reach to the very threshold of transonic… then the highest speeds/numbers that still fall under the subsonic regime are generally called high subsonic.
How is this not making sense to the point that you demand a full aviation 101 course on it? Cmon bro.
You are putting words in my mouth, never said full combat load.
Additionally, what do you mean immediately? It can either cobra or it cannot.
Yes, agreed. But what is low speed in your mind? 550mph is pretty slow for a supersonic fighter jet of the 4th generation that is literally designed to turn and burn.
I think some simple math would demonstrate that an attainment of high AoA with accelerations of 60+ deg/s would not be possible within the G tolerances of the aircraft at 550 mph… even if deceleration were occuring. In fact, I think peak instant turn rate at higher speeds for the aircraft is far below the required vertical acceleration for a ‘Cobra’ which would definitively disprove such an argument.
Then why are you so fixated on being able to do it at a higher speed than current?
The in-game Su-27 can cobra. It’s just not particularly useful because it just presents a fat target for someone who is behind you.
In general aviation terms anything above 250mph is considered high subsonic speed. The only place that mentions high subsonic speeds is the Wikipedia article on the Cobra maneuver and it doesn’t define the speed.
I am glad you asked. Because limiting the speed at which the Su27 can reach max alpha in level flight degrades its performance in other supermaneuverable techniques.
Yes, that is a why a detailed study on supermaneuvrability itself is called for and analyzing footage. Such as the amount of vapor emitted in maneuvers by the su27. Many sources state the same, high subsonic. But no direct numbers, for obvious reasons.
GJ knows the speeds, and had it modelled previously, but they reduced it after release.
I am not asking for a transonic supermaneuvrability. Even GJ having at 800-900km previously was not the edge of subsonic.
No. Because that is less than half of the speed that covers the entire regime.
Do you call 45% a high percentage?
Cmon bro, don’t start acting up on me. I know you see the logic here.
How so? I’ve not had problems with the Su-27 super maneuverability performance since the flight model change. It’s definitely better than it was before in a dogfight due to better energy retention and higher sustained turn rates.
So there are no published sources stating that the Su-27 can enter a cobra maneuver at 800-900 kph…but you think it can and that’s just the way that it should be? And the evidence that it can because you are defining high subsonic speed as being a band between 800-900 kph.
What is your source besides your own conjecture?
NASA seems to define the High Subsonic speed regime as being anything between 250mph to 750mph.
The current speed regime that the Su-27 is able to Cobra within is within what NASA would define as high subsonic flight.
Well, we can get into it when we determine proper speeds.
But, for one it is a little silly now that if you dare attempt any supermaneuverable regimes at Mach .76 (930km) your airframe explodes, and both wings fly off. Even at min fuel clean.
Very interesting there is such a fine line of a few mph between able to pull max alpha and sudden death and spontaneous combustion, no?
Cool we are getting somewhere. But 250mph is not high subsonic.
NASA is literally just describing the typical speeds that transonic aircraft fly…
A lot of aircraft that are transonic and supersonic capable have a hard time flying at 250 mph or less due to things like swept wings etc… That is why they specifically say, “speeds greater than 250 mph.”
Also keep in mind you posted speed regimes done by NASA on Airliners.
I never said the cobra can be done at 800km to 900km. I said the limitation placed at 800km (invisible wall that stops the aircraft from pulling any alpha) which makes the jet climb and stall out instead of performing a proper cobra at lower speeds. The cobra in game is no longer performed properly as result.
The limitation has effects on super maneuverable techniques that take place under the speed at which its set. This covers other techniques I mention that does not necessarily mean that the entire maneuver is taking place at 800km-900km. Being able to pull alpha at 800km-900km (as a starting point) allows the aircraft to swing its momentum for controlled side slipping and high angles of attack and maintain altitude and current direction.
Any lower as it is in game, you end up gaining altitude and then lose altitude and need to recover as the nose pitches down. That is not how the cobra is performed shown here.
I’ll post some vides how the invisible wall at 800km that limits alpha and 900km limit that means immediate death. As well as cobra at all speeds.
It seems like the semantics are taking over the discussion. Just show the instant turn rate line on the turn charts for Su-27 and see if it lines up in-game. I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that it does.
Oh, and if it does… Would clearly suffice as evidence to the contrary that the Su-27 would be able to feasibly Cobra at speeds > 250 mph. (Or whatever y’all decide is ‘high’)
Angle of attack does not mean turn rate. lol.
You can perform alpha without changing course of direction or altitude in supermaneuverable capable aircraft. Literally what the cobra maneuver is.
The structure of the Su-27 does not allow it to perform the Cobra maneuver at “high” speeds; it would immediately tear apart unless reinforced with more expensive and durable materials.
There is no evidence supporting this claim. Pilots in my country are also taught how to perform the Cobra maneuver, but, of course, not at the speed you mentioned.
What speed does it rip apart?
What claim?
The pilots in your country don’t mention a speed therefore it means what exactly?
Do you have a clue what speed the flanker is doing in this high alpha maneuver? Its well over 300
knots.
The amount of vapor before the maneuver indicates its running around 400+knots. Yes, you can get a rough estimate of fighter aircrafts airspeed by the amount of vapor that is being displaced in a maneuver. Fighter pilots are trained for this.
If it can perform a J-turn without ripping apart. It can perform a cobra without ripping apart.
I cannot provide detailed information to you, but I can give you an illustration.
The upper part of the Su-27 is not actually robust enough to withstand a high G-force in a short period. If you attempt to perform the Cobra maneuver at speeds of 850-950 km/h to see if it works, it will tear apart before you can determine if you can execute the Cobra or not. After that, you will succeed in making your aircraft perform the falling leaf maneuver until it hits the ground. Your commander will be delighted with this.
In the air force of my country, even in aerobatic displays, the Cobra maneuver is not encouraged for regular combat training due to the strain it puts on the aircraft’s structure, which can lead to structural limits being exceeded if abused. There are exceptions with aerobatic aircraft; they are reinforced and have weapon pylons removed to perform the Cobra maneuver more regularly and safely, although it’s still not advisable to attempt it at “high” speeds.
I never claimed the Cobra can be performed at 800km-900km.
I even clarified the position.
You cannot give me detailed information, but an illustration be circling two circles on the wings.
Got it.
You defeated your own argument. Does the jet rip at sufficient dogfight speeds or not.
@BBCRF says other wise that the Su27 airframe and Mig29 can withstand quite a bit of Gs.
Additionally if it’s safe to do for airshows it means its probably a lot more capable in ACTUAL COMBAT.
The falling leaf is irrelevant to the cobra. You brought up the cobra why are you pivoting into another maneuver?
no
because your The upper wings part is gone.
Backwards line of thinking.
If the aircraft performs the cobra at X speed for fun at airshows without risking over G and structural complications in the longevity of the airframe. That means the aircraft is much more capable when pushed to the limits in real combat.
Airshows do not push the aircraft anywhere near to its structural limitations.
Nor does any country publicly demonstrate the full capability of their fighters so adversarial nations can take note.
Airshows aircraft are typically reinforced to increase their lifespan and enhance the structural integrity. Of course, they require regular maintenance, though less frequently than combat aircraft. Fighter jets, on the other hand, are not reinforced for cost reasons. Investing a significant amount of money in a fighter jet solely to enable it to perform the Cobra maneuver would be considered impractical.
Are you really going to sit here and say that Sukhoi and Mikoyan specially manufactures airshow airframes that are reinforced that the Russian federation orders?
Please provide a source for that when you get a chance.
Neither the F-18s of the Blue Angels or the F-16s of the Thunderbirds have “reinforced airframes” in their airshow modifications.
So “typically reinforced” is thrown out. Maybe its a Russian thing. Can you prove it?
Certainly, since it cannot perform the Cobra maneuver, people come to see the Su-27 do it. Therefore, it has to execute the Cobra maneuver regularly and multiple times.
Both the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds perform high G manuevers and perform far more airshows per year than any nation as far as I know.
They would certainly need this “reinforced airframe”.
Can you provide a source that Russian Sukhois and MiGs are reinforced for airshows? Do you have the serial numbers/product names for these specially made airshow variants?
So if countries go out of their way to not demonstrate the full capability of their fighters…what makes you think that the numbers that Gaijin used on the first model were accurate and the second are inaccurate?
