Bhai, Aap kyu doosre Akim ban rahe ho ?? Na ye question maine poocha hai jo aap answer kar rahe ho.
Bas man Kiya ban liya
Even initial Mig-29 can sustain inverted flight, This is a sign of unstable design, could turn instantaneously, it is a sign of unstable design. Have you seen passanger jets flying inverted??
You can have a degree of instability but a fighter jet can not be a stable design. Period.
Ok yeah, a design will come back to straight level up position after any munuver only if it is a stable design. Till here u & I agree. And a unstable design would need computerised input for a leveled and a stable flight.
You can have a degree of instability but a fighter jet can not be a stable design. Period.
Yes no aircraft is stable f4 phantom during its wind tunnel testing found out to be unstable in roll so the engineer added a 12 degree dihedral to the wing tips to increase its roll stability & f4s horizontal stabilizer generate a downforce to compensate too forward com making it longitudinally stable. And roll stability attained by dihedrals on wing tips. So not aircraft is stable it is made stable, you're wrong.
Now there isn't only stable & unstable thing there is on more thing in between called neutral stability. Neutral stability isn't unstable nor. Remember this,
will use f16 as an example. Lessons learned from f4 were helped f16.
In f16 its wing design make it
neutral in roll while it's centre of mass was behind centre of lift necessitating horizontal stabilizer to produce lift making it unstable in pitch. Now tht's a unstable design. Or relaxed static stability.
With just slightly horizontal upward movement the stabilizer would stop generating lift which then would lead to pitch up as centre of mass is behind centre of lift. This is how they exploit unstable design. To keep unstable design in leveled flight controls need to counter act against it. Which is humanely impossible.
While in f4 the the horizontal stabilizer were already pitched upward to compensate the forward centre of mass. In straight flight they had to always counter react (downward force) to balance com.
Now I will again say that mig 29 was not designed unstable. The aircraft was designed to have positive but close to neutral longitudinal stability.
So mig wasn't unstable in pitch and not even in roll.
Nevertheless it is good dogfighter because of its other features like leading edge root extension, body blended wing design and good thrust to weight ratio.
Even initial Mig-29 can sustain inverted flight, This is a sign of unstable design, could turn instantaneously, it is a sign of unstable design. Have you seen passanger jets flying inverted??
Lol it is not a sign of unstable design
Google the definition of neutral stability
Neutral airplane stability' describes a situation where it will deviate from what it was doing when the aircraft is disturbed(from control input). However, when the disturbance is removed, the aircraft will stay in the new state caused by the disturbance.
This means mig 29 is a neutral stability design and not a unstable design.
Because it's neutral stability it can sustain inverted flight not because it is muhh unstabal dezain
Unstable means jets ke laude lagana nhi hota... Fuel nikal do. Ek taraf pathhar bandh do.
Bonus - as aircraft goes from subsonic to supersonic the centre of lift tend to shift so compensate reduced instability (induced stability)
The fuel in the 2 wing is altered. So fuel pump pumps fuel varyingly from both wing tanks. Such a nice feature to have proudly hamara Tejas has it along with unstable tail less cannard less compund delta wing design.
Which is itself a monumental achievement.
Lol
jets ke laude laga dena fuel nikal do pathar band do
Design, design hota hai... Pahle banana padta hai. Stable design ka matlab maximum wing lift at all altitude and speed. Unstable design means variable lift.
This is outright bs.
Instability has nothing to do with lift.
A unstable design doesn't have variable lift. Not at all.
others are allowed to have opinion
okay
This is absolutely wrong. A unstable design can we be controlled without FBW.
Mig-29 and J-17 is the example.
Another bs.
As I have already told u what is unstability and what is neutral stability I don't u need more explanation.
Again it is humanely impossible to control a unstable design it needs constant control input to keep aircraft straight.
This is only possible with a fbw. And mig 29 lacked fbw system.
Which is something mig 29 & jf17 lack. Now both have gotten it.
But the biggest joke is jf17 being unstable design lol.
And don't tell me about the knowledge of UN Generals who called Su-30MKi, a third generation fighter jet and Rafale, a 5th generation fighter jets in written affidavit in Supreme court.
Now my reference was right here. That airmarshal guy explained well what is unstable design and why it needs fbw. You're some outrightly bright star who brought things out of *. That too said so confidently even I felt I'm wrong.
If you can read, I have mentioned earlier that Beyond 2nd generation jets, most of fighter jets are unstable design.You are a certified dumb who claimed Mig-29 a unstable design. Learn some mathematics dumb
So mig 29 isn't *Unstable now.
No 2nd,3rd generation fighter jet is unstable don't spread you're bs misconceptions. Nobody is that dumb here(certified). Learn some mathematics so you can understand aerodynamics.
to Philippines.
