At what altitude? 700 TAS
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
It’s just me, or Su27 FM has been nerfed where right now slight roll in mach 1+ speed will result wing overlord crash??
i really hate random crash shit, almost like using F-14 tomcat
I don’t see any recent FM changes to the Su-27.
Been like this for a long time unfortunately, breaking wings is common.
Especially because of garbage instructor that limits your everything and still somehow manages to increase your risk of structural damage 🤡
1 Like
Damn
I spammed Su27 alot when it was first released, got about 200+ matches
never had wing overlord crash
Then i got back playing Su27, wing overlord crash became way too common, made me stop using it again lol
I kind of got used to it. Haven’t ripped the flanker in awhile. But at least it isn’t as bad as the F15….I am purely su27 now until they do something about it.
Funny Cover of Interavia Vol 44 Iss 7.
Spoiler
At its normal operating weight of 48,400lb, the Soviet Su-27 Flanker has a fuel fraction of 45%, which is 10-15% higher than that of any Western fighter. Its two 27,500lb thrust Lyulka AL-31Fs give it a power: weight ratio at take-off of 1.1:1. The two demonstration aircraft flew from Moscow to Paris non-stop and there is no in-flight refuelling.
About 80% of the wing and centre sec- tion must form integral fuel tankage. Long and short range air-to-air missiles can be carried on ten pylons, some between the engines, and there is a single 30mm gun to starboard. Maximum weight is 66,000lb and maximum Mach number 2.35.
The brilliant demonstration flights, with the controlled wind-up departure and stable recovery of the Cobra manoeuvre and the tail-slide from an 80° climb, illustrate the effectiveness of the quadruplex fly-by-wire system. The Cobra can only be initiated at airspeeds below 200kt, that is, at the airspeed typical of really close-in dogfighting. Almost continuously positive tailplane angles during aerobatic manoeuvring suggest a large degree of static instability. Canadian pilots have performed the Cobra unintentionally in CF-18s during dogfights and recovered easily, but it is not considered routine.
It is said that the pulse Doppler radar has a 4ft antenna diameter for detection at long range, but the system can handle only one target at a time. The pilot has a small radar scope beside the head-up display, as in the MiG-29, and the rest of the cockpit is “PanAm 1975”. Missile seekers can be steered with a helmet-mounted sight. The ejection seat, which performed so well in the MiG-29 accident, weighs no less than 225kg and operates also at Mach 3.
As well as showing an extremely short take-off run, the Su-27 landed slowly and rolled only a short distance without a drag parachute. This is probably made possible by brake-cooling using a fan inside the mainwheel hubs. Sukhoi is developing a STOL Su-27 with a canard and vectoring engine nozzles.
6 Likes
200×1.85=370 km/h
As stated in another book, this description is not correct.And also in the instructions for performing the Cobra maneuver, and where does the F-18 do the Cobra maneuver?
1 Like
It’s just a simple article about the 1989 Paris Air Show. Cold War hadn’t even ended yet, so Soviet officials were unlikely to tell Western reporters about the details.
1 Like
F-18 has always been capable of “Cobra”.
1 Like
It’s not a cobra.
1 Like
proof
Negative static stability with sufficient elevator size and deflection rate, it is self evident. It can exceed the AoA or G limitations with a lever. Cobra is not special, also why they don’t bother doing it. They follow the rules and guidelines and don’t need to do such pointless maneuvers to demonstrate their aircrafts’ superiority.
4 Likes
Well, I used to think everyone here knew that the F18 could perform a Cobra maneuver by u lever…
You can jumb in various ways, and while the process and outcome may not be exactly identical, they are defined similarly. Americans aren’t fond of executing the Cobra maneuver, and they don’t hold it in high regard either so…
My impression is that the original “legacy” F-18 was more controllable and maneuverable at very low speeds than the Su 27.
Its very controllable in low speeds (carrier operations) but lacks the high thrust to weight and ability to pull maneuvers otherwise not possible with traditional aerodynamic techniques. It lacks the same amount of vortex generators, limited by the FBW & aerodynamic integral design (high lift fuselage) as the Flanker.
All the F-18 is ever seen doing in videos such as the one shared here is fly extremely slow min fuel rapid pitch up climb and level off again. That is not a cobra. It cannot pull any maneuvers like the Flanker nor at the higher speeds the Flanker can do it.
@BBCRF is correct that is not a cobra.
I saw this video long ago and thought it was a cobra as well, but it really is not. Its misleading because of the angle and camera is practically directly under the jet to hide that it was actually climbing.
As you see in the video the F-18 pulls a massive amount of alpha, but since it lacks the thrust to weight the pilot immediately had to level off again and full AB. It is incapable of keeping same altitude/direction and must climb or fall out of the sky.
The F-18 cannot cobra and there is not a single verified aviation organization or study that describes and classifies the F-18 directly or indirectly as supermaneuverable.
That is not what makes an aircraft supermaneuverable.
A key feature of supermaneuvering fighters is a high thrust-to-weight ratio; that is, the comparison of the force produced by the engines to the aircraft’s weight, which is the force of gravity on the aircraft. It is generally desirable in any aerobatic aircraft, as a high-thrust-to-weight ratio allows the aircraft to recover velocity quickly after a high-G maneuver. In particular, a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1:1 is a critical threshold, as it allows the aircraft to maintain and even gain velocity in a nose-up attitude; such a climb is based on sheer engine power, without any lift provided by the wings to counter gravity, and has become crucial to aerobatic maneuvers in the vertical (which are in turn essential to air combat).
The F-18 simply lacks key feature one, thrust to weight. It also lacks many technologies such as aerodynamic integral designs. The F-18 has very poor lift in the fueslage and zero vortex generators outside of its leading-edge root extensions. It is incapable of maintaining the boundary layer as long as the Flanker in high angles of attack on top of its poor thrust to weight.
The F-18 has excellent pitch but without these key features it cannot delay the stall anywhere near the Flanker in high angles of attack.
Absolutely that F-18 is insane!
Yeah, there is a reason why the Super hornet was given even larger leading-edge root extensions and vortex generators such as the leading edge on the wings as seen below.
It was in effort to offset the lack of technologies that are required for high alpha flight to better suit it for carrier operations & increased combat load.
The problem is the Super hornet just does not have the high thrust to weight needed. The fuselage does not generate as much lift and the wing surface is poor as well. The Super hornet is much better than the legacy no doubt for high alpha flight, but it is still not supermaneuverable capable and never been classified as such.
Additionally, supermaneuvrability in combat is not even US Navy doctrine in the first place or US Airforce doctrine outside of the F-22 Raptor. This was all in effort for better low speed handling in carrier operations.
There many benefits to supermaneuvrability. That is why the US had a change of heart and designed the F22 to be capable.
You are only hyper fixating on “the cobra” being pointless in effort downplay Soviet/Russian Combat Doctrine as whole.
But oddly at the same time you say it’s pointless but get excited because you think the Hornet is capable of doing a cobra and therefore assume it can now magically do all the same flight regimes as the Flanker.
The Mig29 can actually cobra, and official aviation organizations from US and Russia agree it is capable of supermaneuvrability. However, even the fulcrum still cannot do all the same maneuvers associated with supermaneuvrability and to the same degree as the Flanker.
While the hornet cant cobra it still pulls more alpha across pretty much all of the flight envelope than either the flanker or the fulcrum. This is evident in 1v1, one circle, high alpha, guns fights that the hornet will pretty much always win against both airframes. Mig29 and su27 both need to 2 circle a hornet and exploit the f18’s poor twr. Also the hornet isn’t capable of the cobra because of the fcs, its aeronautically capable of the maneuver but the fcs won’t let it. It will just continue to turn.
1 Like