Is RationalWiki a crackpot site?

Aepervius said:
About time stamp : look at the video a bit later, you see there is nothing under the wings.
Click to expand...

Then explain:

1. Where the missiles come from that they are firing. Do they just materialize out of thin air when needed?

2. Why the hardpoint indicators in the plane are lit.

3. Why planes would be sent on a combat mission without armaments.

The restriction on altitude is due to the aerodynamic change when the pod are loaded.
Click to expand...

Do you have any sort of evidence for this? What about all the evidence which contradicts your claim?
 
caveman1917 said:
This would all probably go a lot easier if people cared to remember that the Su-25 is not a fighter plane. It was not designed for air combat but for ground attack, specifically anti-tank operations. Its main mission profile is low-flying strafing runs on armoured columns, that's what the main cannon is for, not for dog-fighting. There was never any need for the cannon to be used at high altitude, hence why it wasn't designed for that and can't be used above 5km.
Click to expand...
We went through all that in the MH-17 thread when the Putin apologists started spouting the part line that the atrocity was the fault of the Ukrainians.
 
caveman1917 said:
Then explain:

1. Where the missiles come from that they are firing. Do they just materialize out of thin air when needed?

2. Why the hardpoint indicators in the plane are lit.

3. Why planes would be sent on a combat mission without armaments.
Click to expand...

(2) so what ? The video plainly show nothing under the wings. Pods and missile are bulky you know.

Do you have any sort of evidence for this? What about all the evidence which contradicts your claim?
Click to expand...

Plain physic. As soon as you load the pod on the wings the wings profile is changed.

You have provided ZERO evidence that the armed ceiling is about guns. See flight envelope. Loading pod change the envelope, loaded internal guns do not.
 
PS your calculation while interesting betray a misunderstanding stall. It is not dependent on thrust as you write but flight envelope so wing profile plus altitude plus speed. Per see you can maintain speed at lower thrust if all you do is go straight and only fight friction. That is why even if firing at low thrust it would still stay at the same speed minus friction remember newton laws. So your calculation is useless.
 
catsmate said:
We went through all that in the MH-17 thread when the Putin apologists started spouting the part line that the atrocity was the fault of the Ukrainians.
Click to expand...

All I can see there is you peddling the same nonsense regarding the Su-25's flight characteristics, using the same "arguments" - ie just calling anyone who refutes your nonsense "Putin apologists" or "Russian apologists" or something.

So when can we expect some evidence for these tales about that 7km flight ceiling and 5km ceiling "when carrying armaments"? My guess is never. Western useless idiots parroting wild claims by a bunch of racist nutjobs is just so much more "rational" and "skeptical" than actually using evidence.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
(2) so what ? The video plainly show nothing under the wings. Pods and missile are bulky you know.
Click to expand...

The video obviously doesn't allow you to see underneath the wings of the plane from which the pilot is filming said video. The pilot can not see underneath the wings of their own plane, that's why they have status indicator lights in the cockpit after all :rolleyes:

Address all of my 3 questions, including the hardpoint status indicators.

Plain physic. As soon as you load the pod on the wings the wings profile is changed.
Click to expand...

Nobody is denying that the wing profile changes when pods are loaded. You, however, are claiming that loading a specific plane, the Su-25, reduces it's max altitude to a specific level, 5km. You keep claiming this ad nauseam, without any supporting evidence, against all the evidence to the contrary. Vague platitudes about wing profiles does not an argument make.

Regarding your appeal to "plain physics" please refer to post 33 of this thread. I'm guessing that neither you nor the admins/editors on RationalWiki would be able to put 2 and 2 together even if your lives depended on it, with all those vague appeals to "physics" while never showing an actual physical calculation of any kind.

You have provided ZERO evidence that the armed ceiling is about guns. See flight envelope. Loading pod change the envelope, loaded internal guns do not.
Click to expand...

No, you have provided ZERO evidence. I have provided multiple pieces of evidence, which you simply ignore. Including video evidence of Su-25's firing missiles at above 5km, cites of actual reference works on the Su-25[*], as well as calculating the effect of using the main cannon on the thrust.

* if you had bothered to check these sources, you might have found on page 53 of Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot the following:
Alexander Mladenov said:
During pre-planned strike missions, the Su-25 pilots were ordered to enter into steep diving attack runs for bomb drops from 23,100 to 26,400ft (7,000 to 8,000m) and even 29,700ft (9,000m), while minimum altitude to commence climb-out after releasing the ordnance was required to be no lower than 14,850ft (4,500m).
Click to expand...

How does that work, eh? Being ordered to climb to 9km before performing a bombing run when your plane can only fly up to 5km while loaded...

Are those bombs like those missiles in the video, they just materialize out of thin air the moment they are fired?
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Feel free to show that an Su-25 can maintain level flight above 5km with only 13% of its thrust left.
Click to expand...

Easy. Stall speed does not depend on the absolute thrust but on dynamic pressure and lift.

If stall speed depended on thrust, delta wing which have ZERO thrust, would fall like stone.

But this is not what happen, delta wing, and airplane without net thrust (deadstick)can still fly and maneuver as long as their air speed is above their stall speed, due to the lift this generate. With your explanation a delta wing would be permanently in stall.

Here is for a cesna the flight envelope. You will note they do not precise a *thrust* but a stall speed. And if your cesna is empty or full , the max speed you can reach is different (as long as you can have it above stall speed you are fine).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...envelope.jpg/580px-F-104A_flight_envelope.jpg

or from the wiki
For the same conditions a fighter aircraft might require considerably more power due to their wings being inefficient at low speeds, for argument's sake it might require 10,000 hp (7.5 MW). However modern jet engines can provide considerable power, the equivalent of 50,000 hp (37 MW) typically. With this amount of extra power the aircraft can achieve very high maximum rate of climb, even climb straight up, make powerful continual maneuvers, or fly at very high speeds.
Click to expand...

The number are made up but the order of magnitude not : modern fighter jet DO NOT need 100% of their thrust to maintain speed, a small thrust, or for very short time deadstick, is enough (enough to maintain air speed enough to generate lift and be above stall speed). Think about it ! If you needed all that power just to be above stall speed at the slightiest maneuver you would fall like a stone !!! Even a cesna has (normally) more power than needed at the altitude it is rated to make turn (well not high g turn).


That ius why I worked on WAB Weight And Balance, an application to calculate fuel and various parameter like angle of take off and thrust etc... While I was not involved in the heart of it, I know enough to tell you your explanation is crap.

This is all a question of lift, speed, and thus also altitude (stall speed depend on altitude, and at very high altitude *any* speed will stall you).

That is why armed the reduced envelope make the lift of any aircraft different. And while it is true it is not indicated for all aircraft, any aircraft with external pod will have a slightly different maximum altitude they are rated to safely go.

As for the *book* you cited, it would contradict *both* of us. So I will take it with a pinch of salt and rely on the mil gov data sheet.


ETA: note that the maximum rated altitude is usually much *lower* than the coffin altitude. The one at which at any speed you stall (IIRC aerodynamic stall).
 
Last edited:
I also note *again* that you did not cite ANY reference as that the reason of the limited ceiling is the gun.


If refuse to continue a pointless conversation as long as you do not cite where you saw that the gun was the thing limiting the service max altitude while armed.
 
Aepervius said:
Easy.
Click to expand...

Good, then how about you get to it?

As for the *book* you cited, it would contradict *both* of us. So I will take it with a pinch of salt and rely on the mil gov data sheet.
Click to expand...

What mil gov data sheet? Besides, you are being contradicted by a whole lot more than just one book - but I see you've continued to ignore my questions about the video where you claim the planes weren't loaded.

Besides, why should we rely on some unnamed "mil gov data sheet" over an actual full-length reference work? Especially given that the other independent lines of evidence corroborate the reference work and contradict the claims you say you got from a "mil gov data sheet".

ETA: note that the maximum rated altitude is usually much *lower* than the coffin altitude. The one at which at any speed you stall (IIRC aerodynamic stall).
Click to expand...

Yes, about 12-14km for an Su-25, but that's not what we're talking about here.
 
Aepervius said:
I also note *again* that you did not cite ANY reference as that the reason of the limited ceiling is the gun.
Click to expand...

Read it on a discussion forum a couple of years ago, then did the math and found it quite plausible.

If refuse to continue a pointless conversation as long as you do not cite where you saw that the gun was the thing limiting the service max altitude while armed.
Click to expand...

A pointless conversation indeed. Here are the open questions so far for you:

1. How can planes which you claim aren't loaded fire missiles?

2. Why would hardpoint indicators show a plane to be loaded if it isn't loaded?

3. Why would planes be sent into a combat mission without being loaded?

4. How would planes initiate bombing runs from 9km if they can, according to you, only fly up to 5km?
 
I love how caveman1917's apparently simple question about possible bias in RW editing policy, has turned into exactly the irrelevant slapfight he was trying to have and win over there.

Perhaps the RW editors did the right thing.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
I cited you what is stall speed and why it did not depend on thrust but air velocity/lift. I even cited you the example of gliding planes.

You keep ignoring this. You did not bother check probably.

Have a good day and wallow in your ignorance further.
Click to expand...

You were asked to show that an Su-25 can maintain level flight above 5km with 13% of its thrust left. You claimed it was easy but then, as usual, you ignored the actual question and just went off on some vague generalities and started talking about glider planes and Cessna's. Your argument could just as well be used in defense of any plane being able to maintain level flight at any altitude using any amount of thrust, as can be seen by the fact that neither the altitude nor the thrust nor the specific plane even comes into your argument.

So we can add this to the growing list of open questions for you.
 
theprestige said:
I love how caveman1917's apparently simple question about possible bias in RW editing policy, has turned into exactly the irrelevant slapfight he was trying to have and win over there.

Perhaps the RW editors did the right thing.
Click to expand...

If by "right thing" you mean making sure that their pages peddle crackpot claims, then yes, they probably did the right thing.
 
theprestige said:
Why is it important to you to ensure that RationalWiki gives (what you believe to be) the correct operational ceiling for the Su-25 "Frogfoot"?

xkcd is always relevant.
Click to expand...

Because if they (RationalWiki) present themselves as
Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.
Click to expand...

then that is what they should do rather than, well, pretty much the opposite of that.
 
I agree that accusations of Putin-friendliness (and hence the accusation of disinformation) should not be directed on persons who make purely technical arguments, but on the other hand you must also understand that in this area it can be difficult to decide what sources are disinformational, and which sources are factual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom