SU27

[Ghostwolf]

Hi!

Shouldn't the SU27 be way more agile?
Not as agile as the F35/EF, but at least similar to MIG29/F15?
Currently flying it feels very very shiftless.

Is there a list of project reality specs of each aircraft?
Like maximum speed, stall-speed, agility?

[ComradeHX]

It should.

F-35, as what equals to monkey version of F-22, sacrificed a lot to do everything while being somewhat stealthy, IIRC.

[Truism]

I'm sorry, but that's a bold assumption based on very incomplete information. No one actually knows what the F35's flight characteristics are really like outside of a few test pilots. The plane isn't even due to be operational for nearly 2 years (Dec 15).

Based on stated figures, the F35 has the same thrust:weight at half a tank as the SU27, however it's a very different shape. The SU27 is a very fast aircraft, but I've seen nothing that actually makes allusions to the SU27's maneuverability vs the F35. We know that publically accessible aerodynamics models just don't work with next gen fighters, for example using those models the F15 is more maneuvreable than the F22, when in reality the F22 has an instantaneous turn 4 degrees per second faster than the F15 and a sustained turn 14 degrees per second faster.

Your post is one of the many reasons the F35 has no place in this game yet. We just don't know anything about the aircraft yet.

[ComradeHX]

I'm sorry, but that's a bold assumption based on very incomplete information. No one actually knows what the F35's flight characteristics are really like outside of a few test pilots. The plane isn't even due to be operational for nearly 2 years (Dec 15).

Based on stated figures, the F35 has the same thrust:weight at half a tank as the SU27, however it's a very different shape. The SU27 is a very fast aircraft, but I've seen nothing that actually makes allusions to the SU27's maneuverability vs the F35. We know that publically accessible aerodynamics models just don't work with next gen fighters, for example using those models the F15 is more maneuvreable than the F22, when in reality the F22 has an instantaneous turn 4 degrees per second faster than the F15 and a sustained turn 14 degrees per second faster.

Your post is one of the many reasons the F35 has no place in this game yet. We just don't know anything about the aircraft yet.

You know F-35 tried to reduce radar signature with the shape, and that isn't usually going to improve maneuverability.

I could be wrong but I am assuming aircraft with larger wing and higher speed have better maneuverability.
That's why SU-27 > F-35 in maneuverability(to say nothing about the electronics...etc.).

I would not be surprised about F-15 being less maneuverable; it was designed to compete with MiG-25.
And F-35 is equivalent to monkey version of F-22; it's probably going to be worse in every way except cost.

[Truism]

You are wrong. Aircraft aerodynamics and flight characteristics are far, far more complex than that and have been for a long time.

An example of another aerodynamic factor in flight characteristics is inherent stability, which is the tendency of a plane to return to straight, level flight when there are no control inputs. Conventional planes maximise inherent stability because it makes the plane safer and easier to fly. More modern fighter planes reverse this trend and aim for inherent instability (ie. the plane will tend not to inherently maintain straight and level flight) because inherently unstable designs are also much more maneuverable. The downshot is that the more inherently unstable a plane is, the harder it is to fly. Very inherently unstable planes require computer control to fly, hence fly-by-wire becoming so commonplace. The level of inherent instability that a design can tolerate is dependent on how sophisticated its avionics are - therefore a plane designed in 1977 (eg an SU27) is likely to have much more inherently stable aerodynamics than an F35 or F22 designed in the 2000's because computers and avionics were so much less sophisticated forty years ago. Less sophisticated avionics in and of themselves are likely to contribute to reduced maneuverability, but the aerodynamic limitations they impose are also likely to have a negative impact on maneuverability.

Observing the dimensions of an aircraft to make very accurate determinations about its flight performance hasn't been reliable for a very long time. It's not to say that aircraft dimensions and specifications aren't important determinants, but they're not definitive like they used to be.

As I said, the F35 shouldn't be in a reality based game for lots of reasons, including ones highlighted by the existence of this thread. Many of the hallmark features of the F35 are not even in game - the integrated data fusion systems, pretty much the main reason for everyone being willing to pay so much money for the damned things, are not even modeled slightly in game, and frankly, they can't be because the system isn't even finished yet.

In my humble opinion, the F35 should just be cut from the game and replaced with F16s at least until the F35 becomes operational in at least one country, but preferably when there's some kind of reliable data about how it performs and what it does.

[Ghostwolf]

Well, I mean the DEVs just could increase SU27 agility to a level above F16 and below MIG29 ? I guess it'll fit in right there.

[Pronck]

If it is realistic, I would support the idea, however if it isn't keep it as it is, don't balance every aspect of the game out.

[ComradeHX]

You are wrong. Aircraft aerodynamics and flight characteristics are far, far more complex than that and have been for a long time.

An example of another aerodynamic factor in flight characteristics is inherent stability, which is the tendency of a plane to return to straight, level flight when there are no control inputs. Conventional planes maximise inherent stability because it makes the plane safer and easier to fly. More modern fighter planes reverse this trend and aim for inherent instability (ie. the plane will tend not to inherently maintain straight and level flight) because inherently unstable designs are also much more maneuverable. The downshot is that the more inherently unstable a plane is, the harder it is to fly. Very inherently unstable planes require computer control to fly, hence fly-by-wire becoming so commonplace. The level of inherent instability that a design can tolerate is dependent on how sophisticated its avionics are - therefore a plane designed in 1977 (eg an SU27) is likely to have much more inherently stable aerodynamics than an F35 or F22 designed in the 2000's because computers and avionics were so much less sophisticated forty years ago. Less sophisticated avionics in and of themselves are likely to contribute to reduced maneuverability, but the aerodynamic limitations they impose are also likely to have a negative impact on maneuverability.

Observing the dimensions of an aircraft to make very accurate determinations about its flight performance hasn't been reliable for a very long time. It's not to say that aircraft dimensions and specifications aren't important determinants, but they're not definitive like they used to be.

As I said, the F35 shouldn't be in a reality based game for lots of reasons, including ones highlighted by the existence of this thread. Many of the hallmark features of the F35 are not even in game - the integrated data fusion systems, pretty much the main reason for everyone being willing to pay so much money for the damned things, are not even modeled slightly in game, and frankly, they can't be because the system isn't even finished yet.

In my humble opinion, the F35 should just be cut from the game and replaced with F16s at least until the F35 becomes operational in at least one country, but preferably when there's some kind of reliable data about how it performs and what it does.

You do realize that SU-27 does fly-by-wire, right?

Soviets had these supermaneuverable aircraft way back then. U.S. didn't until F-22.

[Roque_THE_GAMER]

from my experience i agree

the SU-27 far as i played with CAS is the worst air to air jet combat even the MIG-29 do better, the SU-27 fly like a bomber heavy and slow, i not a very experienced CAS player in PR and i don't even fly other simulators but the SU-27 from other information i take it should do better than MIG-29

i do even would like to do some tests but like i said im not a very experienced CAS player, i do prefer armor combat is more like my play style so that's is just my point of view.

[Truism]

You do realize that SU-27 does fly-by-wire, right?

Soviets had these supermaneuverable aircraft way back then. U.S. didn't until F-22.

I never said the SU27 wasn't FBW, only that it had less sophisticated avionics than mire modern aircraft.

[ComradeHX]

I never said the SU27 wasn't FBW, only that it had less sophisticated avionics than mire modern aircraft.

I saw your edit about how "SU-27 isn't supermaneuverable"...

No one can tell how much corner was cut in F-35.
So it's more logical to assume it's sacrificed much in maneuverability than not.

[mangeface]

Truism, while on one hand I kind of want agree that we really don't know enough about the F-35 to determine it's maneuverability, but having worked on aircraft for years I can tell you outright with no hesitation, an F-35 isn't going to touch an Su-27 in the maneuverability department.

I also agree with what you said, the F-35 has no place in this game. With just over 100 (of a projected 3,000-5,000 production) low rate, initial production aircraft built and still being in operational evaluation (and having tons of kinks to work out), the Dutch should have F-16s in the game.

[H.Maverick]

I don't get what you guys are complaining about when it comes to the SU vs the F35, me and a clan mate shoot down all the F35's with the SU-27's no problem, its all about how you work together, taking the F35's down is easy as shit if you got a proper wingman.

But i see what you mean when it comes down to maneuverability and Speed, as far as i know, the SU's top speed should be a lot higher than that of the F35. Almost 600 km/h

(according to wikipedia) both planes got a top speed of
F35 - 1930 km/h
SU-27 - 2500 km/h

Meaning that if you can't outmanoeuvre the F35, the Su should still be able to outrun him, and then come back if capable to do so, in a more favourable position on the F35's six'o clock and shot him down fairly easily.

Which is what i noticed when i was behind a F35, even with full afterburner, he outran me, the only reason he was shot down, was because of him being able to outrun me later to show up on my six, was because my Wingman was behind him again. But it seems to me a 1v1 fight is not gonna end well for the russians in this.

[Jafar Ironclad]

FYI, I've already reduced the turn rate of the F-35A a bit for the next update.

[Hokunin]

Su27 should be more agile - cuz it is a fact in RL. Otherwise, it doesn't look good at all...

According to David North Editor-In-Chief Of Aviation Week&Space Technology, Su-27 has a higher roll rate(max about 270 ?/s. This value is higher than the F-15, and approximately corresponds F/A-18.

??-27 ?????????. ?????? ????????????? ? ??????? ?????????



In 1992, in Langley Air Force Base(Virginia), during training fights between russian and usa jets, Su27 defeated F15.

Russian Su-27 DEFEATS US Air force F-15 in combat exercise - YouTube


Su27 has a special variable thrust vector mechanism which besides adding agility, it allows it to do Pugachevs Cobra manuevre, is it possible to do it in-game?

Su27 Cobra Manuevre - YouTube

[H.Maverick]

but at what cost Jafar? AT WHAT COST!?

also, the speed issue? i do feel like the SU should be the fastest one of the two, but good thing you fixed the turn rate of the F35 a bit, hopefully it can be a bit more even this time lol


Would be cool to do a cobra maneuver in the air, but... its the engine limits i guess

[X-Alt]

F-35 also needs to be easier2land, as it bursts into flames quite easily even with a near-perfect approach. I have seen J-10s in vBF2 do the Cobra, so if its possible within PR, the somewhat under-powered Su-27 should be able to do so. Extra maneuverability would really help against Jurofighters in Screaming Seagull too!

[tankninja1]

You know F-35 tried to reduce radar signature with the shape, and that isn't usually going to improve maneuverability.

I could be wrong but I am assuming aircraft with larger wing and higher speed have better maneuverability.
That's why SU-27 > F-35 in maneuverability(to say nothing about the electronics...etc.).

Wing size and max speed aren't necessarily related to maneuverability. The F4 Phantom was very fast and had a large area but it could be out maneuvered by a MIG 21, which was smaller and slower.

I would expect the F-35 to preform closely to an F-16 due to a similar main wing shape and similar thrust to weight ratio (but then again the only way to know for sure is to look at very specific technical information that is classified or to actually fly it.)

In terms of bare aerodynamics the F-35 introduces very little that is new to airplanes design. The key ground breaking technology is the stealth technology, which is nulled in PR. Reduced radar cross-section will cause radar guided weapons effectiveness.

[[F|H]Zackyx]

I would expect the F-35 to preform closely to an F-16 due to a similar main wing shape and

The turn rate of an aicraft dependent mostly on its wing loading its realy easy to understand you divide de combat weight of an aicraft by the lift surface of that same aircraft , the lower it is the better you can turn . This method will work just fine 90 % of the time and DEVs should use this to to determine turn rates in game.

[ComradeHX]

Wing size and max speed aren't necessarily related to maneuverability. The F4 Phantom was very fast and had a large area but it could be out maneuvered by a MIG 21, which was smaller and slower.

I would expect the F-35 to preform closely to an F-16 due to a similar main wing shape and similar thrust to weight ratio (but then again the only way to know for sure is to look at very specific technical information that is classified or to actually fly it.)

Shape matters.

It's a return to "have long range missiles; don't need dogfight" idea.

F4 < Mig-21 in maneuverability just like F-35 < SU-27.