lunaticfringe

Am I the only person who sees this conversation, or others on the forum of this vein, and laugh when someone says "oh, the Phoenix will only be at Mach 2-3 at the point of intercept at low altitude and won't be able to hit"? All Machs are not created equal, and a weapon's control surfaces don't care how fast it's going relative to the speed of sound- they care how fast they're going relative to air density at sea level. For those of you who think otherwise, do the Q math of a Mach 2 missile at 15,000' versus a Mach 5 missile at 50,000'- you'll learn.

The request is fine. However, the intention of targeting the underside pallets isn't actually true. This was more dependent on era and location. For example, most Med configurations in the mid 80s to early 90s was 2x2 and 4x4, depending on where the boat was sailing. So having the flexibility to predispose models on the deck for this reason is good, but it's important to confirm by actual practice for the respective cruise and area.

Yes. You're also dealing with plumbed lines when dealing with non-sealed variants of the AIM-54, increasing the maintenance impact. Being that those were the easier locations to upload and download a weapon from, it's a simpler process long term for crews to keep the tunnel pallets installed forward as the primary Phoenix point, and work around the shoulders as required. As to the 2x4x2 in use, see attached image.

See- this, this right here. This is why we can't have nice things.

Yes.

If it were easy, ED wouldn't be legally boxed in on systems modelling for the Su-27 baseline standard or the MiG-29A as discussed previously on this forum at great length, and reiterated by Dragon. Everything is conceptually simple until you actually go out and attempt to do it- then you run into reality.

Just to clarify, is gifting now re-enabled?

He blew his thumb off making a cannon. The toe, however, was installed in its place. As to him looking here? He's busy flying for CalFire.

A: Sensor Slaving Panel. RDR means that TCS is slaved to the radar (ie, TCS looks at what the radar is focused on). INDEP is radar and TCS are functioning independently of one another. And TCS slaves the radar to the camera. B: TCS ACQ (Acquisition) modes. AUTO SRCH is exactly like it sounds like, and I can't recall exactly what the prioritization is for MAN and AUTO with respect to the SSP, or if there is in fact any interaction. I believe that AUTO performs an acquisition if you're functioning in INDEP or TCS slave and crosses a visual target, and MAN requires the RIO to select the target- for which is helpful depending on the situation to perform "breakout" assessment of groups, or if the TCS has to go past something you have already ID'd, but don't quote me on that. C: Designates what source is feeding to the Mission Video Recorder (MVR)- HUD, MFDs, DD, PTID, etc. Note: the B functions were moved off the panel to the upper right tile section of the DD.

PM me with an email I can send the sheet to.

Do you have accurate grips, or would the Mason drawings be useful?

I knew I was bidding against you. ;) I'm going to be bugging the hell out of you for dimensions. :P

Coincidence, not irony.

Translation: "The chart I misinterpreted and had to be corrected upon from the Su-27SK manual, page 9, is gospel, and I demand ED make the aircraft match it, even though I don't actually understand the underlying physical relationships at play, because Sukhoi provided that data to the PVO to publish. Meanwhile, the structural limitations chart from the same manual, page 15, is garbage, because it makes me look like a hamfist who doesn't know what he's talking about." Translation: "I don't understand the most basic relationships of Mach, weight, the force of gravity, and the application of load on a wing, but I'm going to continue saying ED doesn't know what they're doing. In fact, I'm going to blame everything under the sun that I possibly can- up to and including an inanimate object, to obfuscate the fact that I'm not enough of an adult to admit that I am the one who screwed up and pulled too hard on the stick."

All weapon releases on the F-5E demand trim, especially Sidewinder. Always be mindful of what pylon is letting go. If you're not releasing symmetrically, once separation occurs, immediately put trim opposite of the weight.

It does. And given the manufacturer says so themselves, no one should be surprised by it.

What you planned is an absolute nonfactor to this conversation; what matters is what you did- and what you did, as explicitly evidenced by the track you provided, was to pull in excess of the fatigue threshold for the airframe at your stated speed, as evidenced by both gauges and their intrinsic relationship with the airspeed and weight at which you were currently flying. As a refresher to this conversation: You have been shown, repeatedly, the same data direct from the manufacturer showing that you well exceeded the capability of the Su-27 to withstand overstress at the airspeed (M 1.26) and weight (in excess of 21,400 kg). The track you provided, as outlined by Ironhand, showed explicitly that you still had the stick well aft of 65% at the point of the wings coming off- the exact point that just prior to him I showed that in *any* relationship between inertial coupling- gross, slight, or none, the airframe will disintegrate- in specific accordance to the relationship of AoA and G that was previously outlined- that 10 units of AoA at your stated speed and weight well exceeds the G limit as outlined by Sukhoi (6.5). You were accurately refuted as to your claim that ED fails to calculate G correctly in relation with AoA at the speed given. You were shown, repeatedly, the charts concerning your weight and load being well in excess of what the aircraft was designed for at the speed in question. You were refuted as to the intent and translation of the charts you mentioned being in relation to AoA limits regarding stall, rather than structural limitations. And the specific relationship between Mach, altitude, AoA, and G was outlined. Twice. You present US FAR regulations, rather than nation of regulations regarding the aircraft in question- regulations that Sukhoi, in fact, does not have to meet, because they're not under the auspices of the FAA for the construction of tactical aircraft. You present material deformation data that, as previously stated, has absolutely nothing to do with the construction of the Su-27. The only thing consistent in this conversation at this point is your continued denial of the facts at hand. Fault for this failure does not lay with ED. Not the laws of physics. Not Sukhoi. And not anyone here presenting the correct evidence to refute your wholly disjointed and entirely mediocre claims to the contrary. You broke the aircraft. Anything you say from this point forward in opposition to this amounts to the grasping of straws. And as far as anyone with any sort of knowledge of the subject should be concerned, this matter is closed.

Concur with DarkFire

Desaturate the Pitch Y channel to 65% (ie, 65% maximum stick deflection). Repeat the maneuver with a max pull, making certain to zero out roll once inverted. Repeat the maneuver in the horizontal, again, zeroing roll. Breaks. 10 AoA. 9.2-9.5G. And it breaks at 55% deflection with any amount of roll still in play. Take that as you will regarding the original track.

I'm sorry- why are you quoting US FAA regulatory rules for the construction of Russian fighter aircraft? You should consult the FAVT. And at the end of the day, why not quote the manufacturer's limitation sfrom three pages ago? What's 130% of 6.5G? Its where you broke the aircraft.

You're goddamned right. If you want to attempt balance from a Soviet/Russian standpoint, you'd be wise to look at the work of Babich and two decades worth of PVO Herald and Military Affairs in the 70's and 80's. I'm not saying it will work, but that's how you start from a thematic sense.

Oh Christ, that's funny. Right there on my notepad, and I didn't use the conversion I'd already done. Mach 1.26 at 23,950 = 758 knots Indicated Vs at 23,950 = 110 knots Converted Vs at 23,950 = 160 knots 758/160 = 4.7375 4.7375^2 = 22.44 G Available 22.44 G/24 AoA units = 0.935 G per AoA Ratio is 0.935 G to 1 unit of AoA. 10 AoA will still kill it. Even genteel pulls in tests 4 and 5 immediately following roll, it dies. And it carries the same indicated G you had when it blows: 9.2. Track 7b is interesting. Pull 6-8 units of AoA, and no pop. The maneuver is completed, and a pair of horizontal turns using the AoA gauge. First turn- roll, wait, pull. An excursion to 10G is noted, but no pop. If there's fatigue modelling, this likely took it to the limit, and the only thing that saved it was the onset of induced drag- which is being offset in your descending track by speed gained through loss of altitude. Second turn- roll, pull. Excursion to 10+G is noted, pop. There's inertial coupling in there. Flanker Test 15bbeta.zip

The equation used to calculate available G at a given speed is derived from stall speed from a given bank angle. VsΦ = Vs√n Vs = stall speed at 1.0G wings level flight VsΦ = stall speed at the given bank angle n = load factor for the given bank angle All you're doing is skipping the bank angle choice, because it's arbitrary so long as you have the minimum airspeed to do it. Instead, you're performing the equation to find the required speed for a given G- Vs times the square root of the desired G. Proof? See the attached EM. Want more? Look at your normal bank angle chart.

Physics: Aircraft as configured gives AoA and G warnings at approximately 110 knots indicated preceeding stall. Mark the aircraft as stalled at that point. Knots true for 23,950' is roughly 160 knots. Available G = [speed/Vs]^2 Mach 1.26 at 23,950 ~ 830 knots. 830/160: 5.18. 5.18^2: 26.8 G at Max AoA. Baseline maximum AoA on the Flanker is what, 24 at M0.5? That's the pure performance of what the wing generates, not where the limiter is set, or what the airframe can withstand. Those latter two values descend as speed goes up. The wing in the given configuration is making roughly 1.1 G for unit of AoA; this is the reason for the all but perfectly linear growth observed on both your gauges and mine between AoA and G. Look at your gauges as shown- the math above proofs out. And that's why when you put the needle at 9+ AoA, your wings come off- because you have completely overloaded the aircraft. Last recorded G is in fact 9.2 on the needle. Nice CV you have there; I design simulations as a trade, and currently have one undergoing review for course usage at the USAFA. Subsequently, since you want to roll out your background in building planes, I find it interesting that you immediately chose to claim ED calculates G incorrectly, when the most basic amount of math used to design those planes you say you're involved in engineering would prove that the simulation model was patently correct here, and your aircraft came apart exactly like it should have- to the stated Sukhoi numbers for the given weight and Mach. Five times in 1.5 Beta, sloppy or clean. Three more in 2.0 Alpha, just to confirm uniform performance. Angle of Attack remains roughly 1:1 with G in this situation as it should, and both rip the wings off right around 10 units AoA- exactly like they should. It's not a bug. It's you. Flanker Test 15beta.zip Flanker Test 20alpha.zip

There might be. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the preceeding three pages of jazz hands.