probad

slow speed and low aoa, sounds like higher sinkrate than you should be doing.

have you guys ever researched who exactly funds gao??? "credible" is the last word id use to apply to anything that comes out of gao. gao has produced more bogus reports than any one organization ive seen to date. their attempt to criticize the f-35 vs a-10 flyoff test demonstrated complete ignorance of even the rudiments of the subject matter.

the video creator "racerocks 3d" has nothing to do with boeing video is from 2013 anyways.

bio i think it was? remarked that rwr wasn't seen as such a big deal at the time since over the ocean there's not much in the way of terrain masking, and so defense could be predicated on filling the aor with active emissions.

yeah in our aircraft it's not a true high aoa excursion, since the stable aoa flight path follows up along with the pitchup attempt. are there any more demonstrations of other mig-29a's executing a cobra? sifting through other airshow demos and i havent yet found any.

even if our mig-29 was capable of pulling the instantaneous aoa, it would not be able to pitch back down like that given the deflection limits.

confrontational? that's right. i am absolutely going to confront the perpetuation of misinformation. having dampers doesnt mean anything. lots of aircraft that arent relaxed stability have dampers. f-14 has dampers, f-5 has dampers. mig-29 is not relaxed stability aircraft, it doesn't have any system that requires intervention between pilot and controls for the maintenance of stability. the su-27 does, it has asc. the cobra-capable mig-29ovt has thrust vectoring, because that's the only way it can produce capability that the airframe does not inherently possess. our mig-29a/s does not have tvc, and it doesnt have or need asc. nobody credible remembers seeing a mig-29 performing a cobra in 1988. a lot of people remember seeing a flanker performing a cobra in 1989. one would think that if the mig-29 demonstrated a cobra a full year before the flanker did, that it would actually be more notable than the famous 1989 flanker routine. backpedallers itt

in the mig-29 pitchdown trim accounts for like 70% [80%, see below] of the total possible deflection physically possible for the slabs -- but it is reserved for trim only. actual pilot input pitchdown deflection is NOT 15 degrees. 15 degrees cited in the manual is maximum deflection, not deflection available to input. input + trim reserve = max deflection. why do you need to push nose down during landing anyways? sounds like improper technique. if you're properly trimmed, you shouldn't need to make major attitude changes. edit: although there's nothing im reading that asserts that trim range precludes input authority range. would be interesting to hear from yoyo on how this is properly interpreted.

Why? google is your friend google is not anyone's friend when its filled with bogus reporting from people who cant tell the difference between the flanker and the fulcrum, nevermind all the people who think all mig-29 versions are the same aircraft. farnborough 1988 had tailslide and high aoa pass, but no cobra.

mig-35 was claimed to be capable of being fitted with tvc although afaik it hasnt been done so yeah you got something to show me?

are you sure you know what you're talking about? those are newer mig-29 models with tvc they're promoting.

yeah, fc3 is fine. most of the populated servers will be on the open beta branch. get tacview to review your flights and learn exactly what happened. modern air combat relies more on your mental picture than the sight picture due to the distances involved.

im not so sure, iirc mig-35 received new lex design, i haven't see the old mig-29 lex to be capable of producing such strong vortices. that said i do think we will see more distinct wingroot vortices considering vapor is a relatively new implementation in dcs, what we have right now is almost certainly wip and will be improved on.

of course this is right. why do you think it would be wrong? why do you think the mig-29 should be able to fly like a flanker? mig-29 does not have any fbw stability augmentation and is designed with limited instability. there is no cobra switch to disable, because there's no cobra maneuver to perform. cobra is not a maneuver the vvs thought up and is like "okay this is kryptonite against amerika, tell tsagi to make sure every airplane can do this". its a thing a sukhoi test pilot discovered he was able to do flying the flanker because of how the flanker works, and was not a consideration in either su-27 or mig-29 development.

mig-21 as well, and bad things happen when you push negative g's in the fighters in particular. they are not designed to be flown in the negative g regime from the drawing board. with down trim, mig-29 stab deflection is a lot closer to its maximum negative range than you suggest. keep in mind as well that stab deflection is scheduled to airspeed, so there are only certain points in the flight envelope you can achieve maximum deflection. it doesn't matter what you believe is nonsense, reality says things are done differently. western aircraft are capable of bunting, but the russians are not nato and they tailor their aircraft designs to fit their own way of flying. edit: the slab pivot is set at an angle to the aircraft centerline and so if slab deflection is measured off the true pivot axis then it produces higher angles than viewed directly from the side.

is it?

well in line with the established russian flying doctrine of avoiding negative g's. if you want to point your nose away, roll and pull for positive loads. you're not accounting for the range reserved for trim.

basically someone needs to go back to wt and stay there

no it doesnt. well i guess it can, depending on what you view the simulation as being of...

what he means is a return to the old days of software devving, where you keep mum about it while its in -closed- beta -- the tomcat wouldnt be announced as released or be available for purchase until stable release is ready. if the software business started and ended with just writing good programs, that would be okay, but the reality is that it's a business first, and so i think this matter is greater than one of simply "better beta testing." public beta testing aka early access has become an integral part of modern marketing models and that is the superseding consideration.

if you say you can wait a month for a stable update, surely you can wait 2 weeks for a beta patch. historically, egregious issues have been hotfixed in less time than that. you real solution here is to go and make some regular flying buddies because even on beta a lot of servers (including bs) are vacated until a few players choose to seed it.

things are only funny when theyre true pretty damn sure you cant buy 3 bigbugs for the cost of one f-35

by that logic then why arent pilots designing aircraft? sorry not sorry but being able to operate an aircraft does not an aerodynamicist make. yoyo is more credible than some random pilot (there are many of them and they dont even always agree with each other)

i personally think it is a good solution. many people have requested f*lcon style detent before, but the fa-18 solution is original to dcs and is advantaged in offering a tactile response in the buttonpush (which is the important part). this was requested before for the f-5, and i recall cofcorpse responded positively to it, and it would be nice to see it developed into a dcs standard.

keep in mind that aspect is relative and the wez changes shape depending on aspect. a beaming target not only makes it difficult for the radar to break out, but it also depresses the wez. by managing his aspect to the opponent, a pilot can ride the edge of his opponent's wez to play bait, yet with a slight bearing change, be safely out of danger.