Like this…. ???

Ken

I am baffled by the rather peculiar looking intake. Could anyone offer enlightenment?

I had watched that incident at Le Bourget. No lightning strikes, but a small bird seemed to be sucked into one engine. The few seconds of temporary thrust drop was enough to bring the MiG-29 out of control. Just too low in height for every recovery attempt by an outstanding test-pilot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramstein_airshow_disaster
It had forced new safety regulations for air displays just in time. The MiG-29 display was parallel to the audiance north of the runway.

Your claim about the G-limiter is nonsense. Neither the MiG-29 nor the Su-27 is an unstable design. The flight system of both. the former one analog and the later one a digital one to assist axis control. For the special displays some part of the axis control augementor has to be disabled temporary. Not allowed to ordinary frontline pilots for good reasons.

This is inaccurate on so many levels. First of all, Ramstein?!! Really?!! You might want to read the link you provided.

A bird strike that takes out an engine during a low pass is bound to make troubles. The MiG pilot tried to save the crowd by crashing the plane in an empty spot. If it was an F-22, I suspect the end result won’t be too different.

And secondly, while the MiG-29 was marginally stable, the Su-27 was unstable in longitudinal mode. The MiG-29 has a mechanical control system with stability augmentation. The Su-27 had an analog FBW and digital ones since the 90s. Both has system built-in to limit aircraft in safe flight regime.

Yes correct. That would be the term ‘relaxed stability’ or lack of it.
That is not the same ‘stability’ we are talking about.
If you like we can discuss the fact that Flanker design has a symetric airflow over the wings when engaged in crazy AoA with out any yaw and roll slide(no spinn), its in fact dead steady.
Yet it is ‘Unstable’ to control without FCS, just like most other jet fighter.

You might want to replace “stability” with “controllability” to save us from confusion. Stability really means the ability to return to equilibrium from uncommanded deviation.

The F-22 is classified as an “Air Dominance” (aka Air Supremacy) fighter. It’s a step above “Air Superiority”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy

A political buzzword invented to address the fall of cold war. You want air superiority when fighting the russians, but air dominance when fighting iraq.

[QUOTE=nJayM;1759740]Any change of speed produces acceleration but in a civil aircraft in flight is minimal. e.g. compare the calculation for a car (0-100) and a civil airliner taking off and even then where the acceleration is highest, it is nothing compared to the car

The plumb line will/may rock/sway side to side minimally if any as even in a stricken aircraft disengaged from auto pilot the crew would normally execute any change from level flight very gently.

I’m not trying to sound sarcastic but you do realise that changing the DIRECTION of the velocity vector also count into the overall acceleration of the aircraft (and overshadowing the component from change in speed)? In a well balanced turn your plumb line should always point through the floor regardless of bank angle so that the aircraft does not go into a side slip.

To push it to an extreme, if the pilot reduces engine output while pushes the york to execute a -1.5g nose down pitch while keeping airspeed constant, the plumb line should just point straight through the roof.

A civil aircraft in flight may accelerate in a nose down or decelerate in a nose up but usually so gently (even following a crisis) that the plumb line will move slightly but revert to pointing to the centre of earth very quickly.

If you turn, you are accelerating. The whole reason of banking the airplane into the turn is to line up the lift vector with the desired acceleration vector so that the wing does most of the accelerating work.

What an ugly bird … 😮
Then without its big engine , it is a brick .

Luckily , it has some top of the line avionics .

Cheers .

Ugly? Hey that’s completely personal opinion. I’d say it’s a fine-looking bird all right.

Seeing as how we don’t know what the design goal was, it’s still an ambiguous statement. Even exceeding this unknown goal, still doesn’t tell us how it compares with the F-22, F-35, or T-50.

No sh*t bro, I bet the person who sets the design goal knows not much better than we do on how stealthy those American and Russian designs are.