[LeBigTed]

Hi Mates,

Today at Le Bourget Airshow, an impressive demo: Su-35 Flanker-E ;o)

If you can do that on IL2, I offer you a round ;o)

+ another video

Ted ;o)

[Serpiko]

That jet in the first video does impressive things... but, even more impressive, it doesn't look as it's using thrust vectoring! I mean, engine exhausts don't appear to move, aside from power variations. Are you sure that isn't a "simple" Su-27?

[Deutschmark]

Man!!! the guy in the other video is throwing that jet around like a Pitts Special :OO

Deutschmark

[Jambo]

Thank you for sharing Ted! 8)

Hope you had a very nice time there.

I think the plane (in the 2nd. video) is a Su-30MKM
Anyhow - a very beautiful and agile aircraft! 8)
Ingredible and awesome! hock: 8)

Wish you all a very nice day!

[Fireskull]

Hi,


Both aircraft are extremely maneuverable and are fun to watch at airshows.

However, in real combat the jets would be traveling far too fast in defense against enemy missiles to do such maneuvers, making such tactics useless in combat and actually would make them more vulnerable to enemy missiles.

I watched each video closely and did not see any movement of the nozzles, called thrust vectoring, but thrust change is possible by venting vertically through openings. Because I know very little about these aircraft, I can not say if this type of thrust vectoring is being used in these two videos.

The use of canard (foreplane) in combination with tailplane on the aircraft of the second video is an extremely agile combination. Experiments in the 1960s by USA manufacturers lead to the conclusion that such combination of both foreplanes and tailplanes is not needed for combat, adds to the vulnerability of the fighter, and increases drag over using only foreplanes or only tailplanes.

I speculate that the use of both foreplanes and tailplanes is a propaganda tactic for domestic morale and/ or foreign sales of Russian aircraft. :wink:

They are very fun to watch, none the less!


Clinton

[Serpiko]

The use of canard (foreplane) in combination with tailplane on the aircraft of the second video is an extremely agile combination. Experiments in the 1960s by USA manufacturers lead to the conclusion that such combination of both foreplanes and tailplanes is not needed for combat, adds to the vulnerability of the fighter, and increases drag over using only foreplanes or only tailplanes.

Well, maybe the "supermaneuverability" given by extra canards and thrust vectoring is useless in combat, but I guess that the near-stall controllability it brings is a valuable perk in carrier operations, when you have to land a 20-25 tons bird on a deck!

[Fireskull]

Well, landing on a carrier deck is very different from mid air near stall maneuvers as far as I can see.

[Serpiko]

I mean that, maybe, near-stall controllability allows for lower final approaching speed. But, how I said, that's only a guess.

[Fireskull]

Carriers require very precise approach and landing, so I doubt it, but it is possible.


Clinton

[Serpiko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d0nXsG0DcM

hock: hock: hock:

Not exactly what I was talking about, but... :mrgreen:

[Fireskull]

I am not sure, but I still think that the SU-33 has to approach with a "hot" velocity because it must maintain horizontal stability on landing. The SU-33 is of course the carrier based version of the SU-27. I see in the video there, Serpiko, that the approach to the carrier is about typical for a fighter, but might be a bit slower.


Clinton

[Serpiko]

Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree. Nevertheless, the Su-33 in that video reaches an extreme angle of attack at minimum speed; in those conditions, most planes are likely to experienxe a catastrophic loss of control, even if they had the same raw thrust. So I think that, at least in this case, near-stall performances saved both the plane and the pilot.

[Fireskull]

I agree and that seems obvious. Wouldn't it be interesting to watch about 5-10 landings with this fighter?


Clinton

[caldrail]

The use of canard (foreplane) in combination with tailplane on the aircraft of the second video is an extremely agile combination. Experiments in the 1960s by USA manufacturers lead to the conclusion that such combination of both foreplanes and tailplanes is not needed for combat, adds to the vulnerability of the fighter, and increases drag over using only foreplanes or only tailplanes.

Well, maybe the "supermaneuverability" given by extra canards and thrust vectoring is useless in combat, but I guess that the near-stall controllability it brings is a valuable perk in carrier operations, when you have to land a 20-25 tons bird on a deck!

Useless? That would depend on circumstance surely?

I recall as a young lad me and a mate of mine fantasised about a Gerry Anderson-esque organisation with all sorts of invented vehicles. I came up with a thrust vectored interceptor (not bad for a child of eight). My friend insisted I was talking rubbish because it would only cause the plane to be stationary in a following enemies sights. As it happens, the tactics used by Harriers in the Falklands not only vindicated my childhood concept (which sadly will never be built ) but proves that creative use of assets can always fin d a use. There is elsewhere on these forums a video of a Me109 pilot using his flaps as an airbrake. I know of at least one business jet pilot who performed short field landings by engaging reverse thrust while still airborne.

The problem with jet fighters is the accelerated loads caused by manoevering at speed. At top speed, agility is very limited, whereas beneath 400mph a jet can exploit agility much more freely, both for structural and human factors. In some circumstances, the potential agility displayed by these jets would be hard to compete with and might even save their lives when pursued by missiles that cannot turn with them.

[Fireskull]

In the Cold War when these characteristics were being examined closely with many millions of dollars spent on research and alpha development (quite a number of cancelled projects, actually), the main adversary was thought to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) or "Russia" as we say in the west (though it was much more than just Russian). Increase in speed, acceleration, climb rate, and service ceiling were considered top priority against the USSR being the only power in the world to pose both a threat in numbers and speed of both fighters and bombers. The USAAF fighters were expected to keep the multi-role characteristics in variants of fighter types and frontline types keep the air superiority role, but speed was generally needed over maneuverability when forced to choose between the two. However, Russian aircraft which we see here were initially conceived in the final stages of the Cold War and outperformed USAAF fighters in many categories. It was this occurrence which gave extra motivation for the US Defense Department leadership to insist on maintaining top speed and service ceiling while focusing more on digital/electrical avionics and STEALTH characteristics. In this regard the USAAF has been able to stay 1-3 iterations ahead of Russian Air Defense, but I feel that the gap has slowly been closing in the last 30 and especially recent years.

Now, nobody said that slow speed and maneuverability are useless in all situations for all air power nations. As I indicated, I am not very familiar with the Su-27 and the variant called the Su-33, though it appears to me that thrust vectoring is mitigated in these planes for the sake of other factors, perhaps cost being one of them. It is well known by military aircraft history buffs that Russia has made the combination of economy of cost and general performance high priorities in order to provide the possibility of export sales in the future. They truly are masters of balance and compromise in aircraft concepts, no doubt in anybody's mind - right?