SU-37: On the cusp of super maneuverability

[warchild]

First, Credit where credits due. The Su-27B used as the development stand in ( stunt plane? ) for this video was created by Mark Harper of ALS-Sims, and is one of the very best looking modern military aircraft i have seen..
The music, is "Inner Universe" performed by Origa, who remains one of my most favorite singers.

This is a technology demonstration of the upcoming SU-37's flight model created by myself and the Jade Island flight test center. The visual model is the ALS-Sim SU-27B. We used it because frankly, no other Sukhoi model can hold a candle too it. its simply outstanding.

Even though the SU-27 does not have canards installed or modeled, the flight model makes use of operating canards, and their effect can be easily seen in this video. there is also a very primitive form of thrust vectoring which can also be seen in action here. Please keep in mind that the flight model on this plane is dumbed down. Its a basic model, and frankly, i have no idea how much is left to do on it. The remainder of the flight model needs to be approached with extreme caution as one mistake could destroy the entire thing. I feel like a zoologist in a lions den. he can see me, i can see him. he looks hungry and i'm all outta tranquilizers. I hope you enjoy this demonstration.
Pam

PS: Full screen it to 1280x720 for best viewing


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtAlXBPjyZ4

[stovall]

Thanks Pam, nice video to remind us what a great aircraft the Su-27 is. Nice music also.

[fox18delta]

Awesome project. Thanks for doing this. The ALS Su-27 is indeed a great looking jet.

If you were in need of any first hand info re; flight dynamics, there are one, maybe two
private owners of SU-27's in the United State right now. Might be as easy as sending an email.
The Sukhoi's originated out of this company in Illinois at KRFD.
http://www.prideaircraft.com/flanker.htm

Look forward to you work on this one, you are one of the best :-)
paul

[warchild]

Thanks guys.. I'm actually building for Paul Dominiques SU-37/35. Counting in the SU-27 MK, the SU-30 MKH youve got a whole new breed of animal. FDE wise, its like balancing plates on broomsticks that are themselves balanced on more broomsticks. Thats why the caution. It'll be awesome though. ive got some preliminary pics of pauls work so far and i've just been blown away. no textures and only external but it looks incredible.. :)..

[sinanziric]

Making Military jets is never easy due lack of documentation especially Sukhoi (Russian Mil Jets), I Admire those people :), i wish you
luck :) Aerosoft F-16 MilViz F-15 is proof that its possible but hard, that's why I usually fly GA planes since they are usually the BEST in fsx.

[warchild]

My partner Paul Frimston and i may have stumbled on a way to make vectored thrust work properly. This is provided we can wrap our brains around the scripting we need to create in the include files.

[Ferry_vO]

Impressive work! Good to see this one doesn't go out of control at zero airspeed! But the big question on any Flanker is of course: Can it do a 'Cobra'?

[warchild]

My good man, when this thing is finished it will not only cook you breakfast but wash the plate too.. ::chuckles:: yeahh, it does a basic FSX style cobra right now. Thats where when you pull the nose up, the plane climbs insted of rotates, but, i'm rather determined to find a way to cancel vertical thrust or reduce it sufficiently to allow not just the cobra, but the flip as well. Once we work out the vectored thrust, we'll also be able to do a horizontally stationary flat spin, Pirouettes, and other things. But the TVC is over my head at the moment and the idea is quite ambitious. However, if we cant get it perfected for the first release, then we'll perfect it for an update release of the flight model.

[JohnC]

Having worked the flight model for the ALS-Sim Su-27, there's a bit I can add to this conversation. And yes, I'll be happy to help out Pam if she's interested.

First, there are a range of outcomes when attempting a Cobra. By definition; Lifting force = 0.5*density*Area*CL*Velocity^2. This last term (velocity) is hugely important. The faster the maneuver is attempted, the greater the vertical velocity because (a) there's still some left over horizontal velocity that's been redirected to the vertical and (b) the initial lift prior to lift negation gets the aircraft moving in the vertical. The effect of (b) can be easy to underestimate because lift doesn't stop at stall, especially in modern combat aircraft. Fuselage lift produces increasing CL in an F-16 from stall (20-25 deg AoA) all the way up to 35deg. The newtonian effect of air slamming up against an angled plate also produces moderate lift (with a huge drag cost) up to ~45 deg.

Real Life:

Slower Speed (Flat) Cobra:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfTH796fv1A

or if you insist that the slow cobra be an Su-27 without canards (check 4:49):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsoYm6VkNYo

Higher Speed Cobra (check 0:30)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daOPK07baBw


You can see the range in this video below, with a high Cobra at 3:08 and a flat Cobra at 3:42.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fmw3f083_s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fmw3f083_s)


The absolute trickiest part of getting the cobra to work in FSX has nothing to do with lift. When the aircraft passes through 90deg AoA, the sideslip angle flips to 180deg; and FSX's crude interpretation of Beta mechanics really doesn't like it at all. You can make this out as a slight wobble in the nose in the above video at 3:42.

So getting something like this to work, would be absurdly difficult:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiNrMPGVFwY

[warchild]

Precisely, and yet the maeuvrability of the SU-37 makes the cobra a kiddy school maneuver. you see, because the canards work actively and independently of the elevons and ailerons, the effective range of the applied rotational force lies entirely within the circle defined by the leading edge of the canards, and the trailing edge of the engines. So this plane litterally revolves around its dynamic center. A conventional plane is a bit more complex as the rotational arc is defined by the sped and pitch of the aircraft. The faster the aircraft is moving the further out from the plane that the dynamic center exists. Kind of like a pendulum in a clock or a pencil on a string.
With its TVC and the active canards, the SU-37 ignores standard physics. theres no carry over of forces from one plane to the next because they are nullified by the counter forces created by the control surfaces and the tvc. Ive spent a lot of time looking at clouds the last couple days, and thinking of all the videos i've seen of the su-37, and it really does maneuver just like those clouds. Completely ignorant of anything else that "should" be going on.

WHen you enter a slow cobra in the SU-37 and pull back on the stick, the canard leading edge sweeps up and the TVC swings up, creating rotation without lift. As you pass through 90* the canards rotate back to zero and the plane rides on its thrusters. At 110 degrees, the pilot pushes the stick forward. the thrusters rotate downwards to -15* pushing the back end of the plane upward. The canards sweep downward providing a downward force , bringing the front end down. As the nose lowers through the arc and gains momentum, the canard once again swings up to counter the effect of the downward momentum by producing an upward force, allowing the plane to continue in a standard horizontal direction. once Inertia has stabilized back to the horizontal plane, the canards sweep back to their normal position and go back to acting as suplemental elevons.

FSX seems to be calculating an external dynamic rotational center ( ie, the center of the turn radius of the aircraft is some distance away from the CG of the aircraft ) for every aircraft: Even the Su-37s and F-22s.

Your right John. this is going to be difficult, and all i have are hairbrained ideas not much different than the silly wanna be inventors of the 19th century with their airscrews and pumping umbrellas. I need to construct something within the fde that will do exactly what the control surfaces and engines do on the real bird, and counter anything FSX is trying to do. And i need to do this without making a gauge since i can barely do hello world in C++.. ::LOL:: the joys of completely experimental flight modeling.. ;) To boldly ( boldly? ) go where no other flight model has gone before ....

[Roger]

Great work there Pam!:applause:

[warchild]

I was tyalking with a coleague this morning, and realized the importance of developing TVC for fsx. guys, the Su-37 and F-22 were only the beginning. Super maneuverability is doing to air power what submarines did to sea power. We all know there are only two types of ships in the sea: Submarines, and targets. With the advent of the F-35 the Harrier ( wich i include on purpose ) and the SU-35 there are now only two kinds of planes in the sky. Super maneuverable, and targets. Super maneuverability is here to stay and we flight dynamics engineers really need to start looking at a way of developing a way to implement it in an easy to use, easy to program way. Apologies, i just came from a board meeting and still have my chairmans hat on.. but, yeah, thats what i'm looking to develop for Pauls SU-37.
JohnC will be developing the Lyulka AL-37FU for this plane. I cant tell you how much that means to me. his knowledge of flight dynamics and powerplants is without peer. To me, he's like the Milton Shupe of flight dynamics. One of the greatest thats ever lived.
Having discussed the AL-37 with him last night, I took the liberty of importing his AL-31F into the su-37 ( heh, I like to learn from the best ) and ran the plane through its paces. Since its just a temporary thing, i figured it would be all right ( it'll never leave my desk ).
I can unequivicably answer that YES, the plane does a cobra, and a few other things too. I'm eager to see what he can do with the AL-37FU. it'll be fantastic. But the bottom line is, without TVC The F-22, The harrier, the F-35B the SU-37, SU-35, and SU-27K ( or I ), a few chinese planes, and a whole slew of upcoming jets are operating with only one leg.. SO, thats my main focus with this plane right now. JohnC's engineering, as i discovered last night will go a very long way to making that happen.
Damn. I just got excited all over again.. :)
Pam

[warchild]

I just got off the horn with PaulF, may partner at Jade Island, and he showed me this video below and expects me to be able to think clearly enough to calculate vector tables.. HA!!!..
Bottom line is, we've worked out how to make TVC work in FSX. Its easy.. I'll be starting in on those tables after i write this and take a cold shower.. god this is better than,,, well its better, period.. Watch the canards closely on the SU-37. Man do they do some work, and check out that crazy TVC.. The song is simply to die for as well...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ml_F6K8TPgs

[aeronca1]

If the aircraft your team is developing will do that in the sim, then my credit card had better get an asbestos coating as it is coming out of the wallet at Mach 10. WOW!

[warchild]

I promise you, it will do that. Fully controllable, 100% comfortably.. No gremlins to sneak up on you and spoil your fun.. It wont be tomorrow that we have it done, but it will be done. we've figured out the basics on how to do it. now its just the legwork, and finding the right programmer to turn our numbers into something FSX can understand.
Sooooo, any programmers want to make history with us??? PM me..
Pam

OK, also, just for clarification. This is an SU-37. No one else is making one and there is no conflict of interest for anyone that wants to join in. I am not out to steal anyones secrets techniques or whatever. I'm out do do something here never seen before in flight simulator. I will Gladly share my knowledge of what we have done, once its finished, with anyone, because thats how we all grow. PM me..

[LonelyplanetXO]

Just out of curiosity Pam, is there any published threads or screenies of Paul Dominiques SU-37/35 project? (other than yours, of course).

LPXO

[deathfromafar]

Warchild, as always you've done mastery work in Flightsim Flight Dynamics, I look forward to giving this a whirl when it all becomes available, better yet my son who's a burgeoning FS pilot(and not long from beginning flight instruction in real Cessna's). He fly's my PC more than I do now.

Anyhow, wanted to make a quick point on one of your previous statements:

With the advent of the F-35 the Harrier ( which I include on purpose ) and the SU-35 there are now only two kinds of planes in the sky. Super maneuverable, and targets. Super maneuverability is here to stay

Honestly, I have studied this frontwards and backwards for many years and accrued many differing opinions/viewpoints within Military and Engineering communities and arrived at the conclusion that TVC is a complete waste of time and money on any airframe. Well before the Russians ever flew the SU-37, we flew TVC equipped testbeds like the F-15B STOL/MTD, X-31, F-16MATV, and the F/A-18HARV. A lot was learned from those test aircraft and I'm convinced that we could have fielded into service workable versions of the TVC's into most of our front line fighters if we had not been so heavily invested in the ATF program and follow on programs leading the JSF. From all the nomenclature published on the above mentioned test airframes, there is no doubt that 3rd and 4th Gen Fighters could have benefitted from this(aircraft like the F-16,15,18, etc) but there were a lot of issues regarding added weight of the systems for the TVC's and increased maintenance costs and heavier wear & tear on the airframes which were not designed to handle those types of stresses associated with TVC maneuverability in which the latter would certainly accelerate. The other issue is training pilots to handle the extraordinary dynamics of flying a jet post stall almost entirely on thrust at extreme and often disorienting attitudes/forces. It's certainly a more involved process at all levels on tops of already high end performance and cost. Currently, the F-22A is the most fielded TVC aircraft and the SU-30MK/I following it. The operators of these aircraft have ran face first into the exceptional costs of operating and maintaining these aircraft. On the F-35, we are seeing a departure from the F-22 in TVC and focusing on Advanced Radar/Sensors such as the AN/APG-81 AESA and AN/AAQ-37 EO DAS systems coupled with new generation AMRAAM and AIM-9X weapons which are Super-Maneuverable beyond any Aircraft TVC capability and can be fired over-the-shoulder all aspect(within envelope). It's a lot cheaper to make the missile do the work that no plane can currently perform in terms of maneuver envelope. Back in the early 70's, the US NWC was developing a Sidewinder replacement called the AIM-95 Agile Dogfight Missile. It was a small Short Range IR missile in which 3 could be carried per pylon on an F-4 and perhaps more on the then new F-14A at the time. The project was very promising but got the axe when the USAF didn't want it and the Navy was forced to drop it as well staying common with the AIM-9. Someone did pay close attention to the program however. Later when the R-73 came out in 1982, many US analysts took note of the similarities of the Archer compared to the Agile system especially in the TVC and off-boresight design(although the Archer is larger). It was a missile that definitely held an edge over Western SRIR missiles and pilots of Sukhois and Mig-29's and thus an edge over our fighters in close range engagements. In actual combat, so far Mig-29's equipped with R-73's and R-27's have failed to kill a single front line western fighter in BVR or close in ACM engagements(this due to exploiting known weaknesses in Russian hardware in conjunction with tactics and good SA).

Our ATF program that led to the F-22 is still the only 5th Gen Fighter in service at the moment and it and the F-35 will likely remain the only 5th Gen Fighters in service for some time. There has been a lot of discussion about making MSIP/TO upgrades to the F-22 to elevate it into capability and systems commonality with the F-35 as well as possible deleting of the TVC systems on the F-22 to save weight and reduce maintenance loads/costs and slow the airframe wear rates. In the end, what is really going to make or break future fighters(5th Gen and on) is Stealth, RADAR/Advanced Sensor Systems(w/JTIDS or similar D-L capability), Super-Maneuverable Weapon platforms, and Active Self Protection Systems(covering a wide range of threats). Such capability could certainly be added to aging designs(pre-5th Gen) in modular MOH packages at much lower costs than buying or developing 5th Gen designs.

Supermaneuverability in an airframe is very impressive to see, but it's window of significance in combat is all but closed now. Let's face reality, it's highly unlikely any more close in ACM merges will ever occur again. Anything not up to speed in the above mentioned factors will very likely become burning plummeting chunks of metal long before they ever get to use their TVC's.

[warchild]

No, not yet. Paul is creating the visual model and hasnt reached a point yet where he is comfortable showing it off. I've seen it though, and frankly, i'm blown away. Blown away enough so that i'm willing to learn C++ on top of my work at Cascades Peer and self help center, and the three or four other major projects i have going just so i can keep a promise and program one very specific system.
yup, its gonna be a great model..
Pam

[warchild]

Warchild, as always you've done mastery work in Flightsim Flight Dynamics, I look forward to giving this a whirl when it all becomes available, better yet my son who's a burgeoning FS pilot(and not long from beginning flight instruction in real Cessna's). He fly's my PC more than I do now.

Anyhow, wanted to make a quick point on one of your previous statements:


Honestly, I have studied this frontwards and backwards for many years and accrued many differing opinions/viewpoints within Military and Engineering communities and arrived at the conclusion that TVC is a complete waste of time and money on any airframe. Well before the Russians ever flew the SU-37, we flew TVC equipped testbeds like the F-15B STOL/MTD, X-31, F-16MATV, and the F/A-18HARV. A lot was learned from those test aircraft and I'm convinced that we could have fielded into service workable versions of the TVC's into most of our front line fighters if we had not been so heavily invested in the ATF program and follow on programs leading the JSF. From all the nomenclature published on the above mentioned test airframes, there is no doubt that 3rd and 4th Gen Fighters could have benefitted from this(aircraft like the F-16,15,18, etc) but there were a lot of issues regarding added weight of the systems for the TVC's and increased maintenance costs and heavier wear & tear on the airframes which were not designed to handle those types of stresses associated with TVC maneuverability in which the latter would certainly accelerate. The other issue is training pilots to handle the extraordinary dynamics of flying a jet post stall almost entirely on thrust at extreme and often disorienting attitudes/forces. It's certainly a more involved process at all levels on tops of already high end performance and cost. Currently, the F-22A is the most fielded TVC aircraft and the SU-30MK/I following it. The operators of these aircraft have ran face first into the exceptional costs of operating and maintaining these aircraft. On the F-35, we are seeing a departure from the F-22 in TVC and focusing on Advanced Radar/Sensors such as the AN/APG-81 AESA and AN/AAQ-37 EO DAS systems coupled with new generation AMRAAM and AIM-9X weapons which are Super-Maneuverable beyond any Aircraft TVC capability and can be fired over-the-shoulder all aspect(within envelope). It's a lot cheaper to make the missile do the work that no plane can currently perform in terms of maneuver envelope. Back in the early 70's, the US NWC was developing a Sidewinder replacement called the AIM-95 Agile Dogfight Missile. It was a small Short Range IR missile in which 3 could be carried per pylon on an F-4 and perhaps more on the then new F-14A at the time. The project was very promising but got the axe when the USAF didn't want it and the Navy was forced to drop it as well staying common with the AIM-9. Someone did pay close attention to the program however. Later when the R-73 came out in 1982, many US analysts took note of the similarities of the Archer compared to the Agile system especially in the TVC and off-boresight design(although the Archer is larger). It was a missile that definitely held an edge over Western SRIR missiles and pilots of Sukhois and Mig-29's and thus an edge over our fighters in close range engagements. In actual combat, so far Mig-29's equipped with R-73's and R-27's have failed to kill a single front line western fighter in BVR or close in ACM engagements(this due to exploiting known weaknesses in Russian hardware in conjunction with tactics and good SA).

Our ATF program that led to the F-22 is still the only 5th Gen Fighter in service at the moment and it and the F-35 will likely remain the only 5th Gen Fighters in service for some time. There has been a lot of discussion about making MSIP/TO upgrades to the F-22 to elevate it into capability and systems commonality with the F-35 as well as possible deleting of the TVC systems on the F-22 to save weight and reduce maintenance loads/costs and slow the airframe wear rates. In the end, what is really going to make or break future fighters(5th Gen and on) is Stealth, RADAR/Advanced Sensor Systems(w/JTIDS or similar D-L capability), Super-Maneuverable Weapon platforms, and Active Self Protection Systems(covering a wide range of threats). Such capability could certainly be added to aging designs(pre-5th Gen) in modular MOH packages at much lower costs than buying or developing 5th Gen designs.

Supermaneuverability in an airframe is very impressive to see, but it's window of significance in combat is all but closed now. Let's face reality, it's highly unlikely any more close in ACM merges will ever occur again. Anything not up to speed in the above mentioned factors will be burning plummeting chunks of metal long before they ever get to use their TVC's.

I remember back in 1956 ( yup, sadly, i'm that old ) when they said the very same thing. Missiles were in, dogfighting out, so they made the F-4. truthfully, if it wasnt for the f-8 crusader, we would have had our buts handed to us in Nam.
The sad truth is, that except for this moment in time, piloted aircraft will have no use for super maneuverability, but, the sadder truth is, piloted aircraft especially in combat, will some day disappear. UCAVs are already springing up ( and i dont like it either ). Supermaneuverability being experimented with and studied now on manned aircraft, will allow those aircraft to track incoming missiles and at the last moment, pull some computer generated 15 - 19 G stunt to jink out of the way, and align itself for a retaliatory reaction. Right now, any of us in here with a minimal amount of familiarization, can sit in a box somewhere and fly a Predator. We dont need the sound, we dont need the movement or the feel of the forces on the plane. we were trained after we flew in FSX a few hundred times. in the future, they wont even need the man in the box, but supermaneuverability will prove its weight in gold in the future of defence. For now though, it lets us dance in the clouds and fly in all sorts of manner with the very eagles we once envied. :) and thats why, come hell or high water, i HAVE to find a way to make it work. I will not accept "I Cant". I made a promise..
Pam

Ah, one etra point of interest. Part of the problem we/v had with TVC is that we in the US, havent been able to design seals between the engine and the nozzel that would remain sealed. also, our designs change the shape of the exhaust, crimping it and squishing it, and therefore, making it worthless.. Lyulka/Saturn overcame both of those problems. theirs works, ours?? We have too much negativity and are far too quick to say it cant be done or is useless ( no association meant. I used to be an electronics engineer and the business is FILLED with aint worth it's and cant be dones, like your cool white light bulbs. Those couldnt be done either )..

On, the f-35. It uses two advanced lyulka AL-31F engines with full 3D vector control, inlike the 37 which actually only had 2D vectoring like the F-22. That other stuff you mentioned?? thats there too, and in the Pak Fa, theyve added anti stealth technology.. What kind i dont know.. its scary..

By the way.. your extremely knowledgeable.. Can i pick your brain from time to time please?? I'm not so knowledgeable and i appreciate people willing to talk with me..

[deathfromafar]

Yeah, in general, I tend to go the "Swiss Army Knife" Keep It Simple Stupid principle. I've had my run of hardware/technology failures just when I depended on them most. Back in the early days of the guided missile and air to air radars, the hardware had a lot of shortcomings/limitations and the ivory tower types bought far too heavily into the said capability of such systems. As you noted, it bit us in the rear hard when the rubber met the road. Of course a fair amount of espionage never hurts in trying to find weaknesses in "potential" enemy held weapon systems which can be exploited. In the case of Vietnam, all the Navy F-4's where gunless short nose variants and the F-4C/D were the same with the E having a mounted gun but the F-8's Colt 20mm guns were nearly worthless as they would jam under significant G forces. There were only 4 F-8 gun kills and the rest with AIM-9's. The mighty Phantom still had the highest number of kills at 147 total but it had a lower kill ration than the F-8. Anyhow, the biggest problem with our missiles was their tendency to go TANGO UNIFORM under significant G loading prior to LOCK/FIRE and lots of times the pilots had trouble just getting a solid lock tone & sometimes none at all. Of course the engineers and planners at the inception of guided missiles weren't thinking of dogfighting and subjecting temperamental gadget electronics to anything but "straight and level" acquisition/lock/fire" scenarios. They managed to improve some of this fairly quickly before wars end but still the limitations persisted to the irritation of the combat crews. In the late 60's, we acquired some captured Mig-17's and one Mig-21F from Israel. In the case of the Mig-17, it was a damn good dogfighter with about 5 to 6 degrees per second better level turn rate than the F-4 and F-8. In the typical "wagon-wheel" fight tactics the NVAF pilots would employ, they would easily wax an F-4 or F-8 that tried to enter into a turning fight with them. But what one of our test pilots who flew discovered by accident was that at over 500 kts or above, the Mig-17's non-boosted controls would begin to get very stiff and even to the point of freezing in the pitch axis. They passed this info to our pilots who faced Mig-17's and specifically F-8 pilots. The F-8 pilots employed a tactic to bust the wagon wheel open by speeding up over 500kts weaving into the formation of Migs. The F-8 still had plenty of pitch moments to turn with as the Mig-17 had little to none at that speed. The F-8 pilots would light them up quickly! I'm sure it didn't take log for the well trained and aggressive NVAF Mig-17 pilots to stay clear of the F-8 in such situations.
As far as the US Mig-21F tests, we discovered it was a fine well made fighter with many advantages over US designs. It was fast and very maneuverable but at lower altitudes it would bleed energy badly. Above 30,000ft the Mig-21 held a good turn advantage over the F-4, below that altitude the F-4 could manhandle it and exploit quite a few weaknesses. But that was/is the name of the game, knowing your enemy and his equipment and using the advantages and tactics to defeat them in the most efficient and quickest way possible.

I will say this about the Gen 3-4 Russian Jets. With some of the avionics and weapons and TVC, yes they can be extremely potent over ANY previous Gen design if utilized correctly but I confidently assert they are ZERO of a threat to our Gen 5 designs except if they somehow made merge en-mass which is not totally out of the realm of possibility. We have acquired a good bit of intell/knowledge of our repeated exercises with Indian AF SU-30MKI's and have seen up close the very significant strengths of that jet and it's avionics but also it's glaring weaknesses. Again, pitted against Gen 3 fighters with Legacy Radars/Systems, it was accepted that the SU-30's had an edge but even against more current AESA Radars and Weapons(Fire Control and Tracking), they could be overwhelmed. Bear in mind that some Aggressors(flying F-16's) made quick work of the SU-30's in a knife fight and with a good bit of workups from our Aggressor Instructors, we got the Indian pilots up to speed holding their own(which is the objective of such training).

But still, the countries who buy into Gen 5 Fighters(Multi-Role) will have the top shelf gear. At this juncture, I don't see any F-22's ever being produced in an export version and the F-35 will be bought by quite a few developed nations who can afford it's price needing the capability. I think we'll see the F-22's production come back but I bet only 100 to 150 max with many improvements over the current version. They will cut numbers of the F-35 to do this in time. But the other side of the coin is that planes like the J-20 and T-50 may generate foreign sales. The J-20 in it's current config doesn't look like it will be a true Gen 5 player but that could change. The T-50 on the other hand is more credible albeit that Sukhoi engineers have admitted it will be far less stealthy than the F-22 and 35. As far as anti-stealth capability, I have heard the exact term many times but to shed light on that probably means that their Phazotron sets will have some "sniffer" capability that will search out datalink or radio transmissions going to and from an F-22/35 as will as other electromagnetic signatures(hell, even skin/leading edge friction emits detectable IR/Static/Electromagnetic signatures). NCTR(Non-Cooperative Target Recognition) narrow beam radar modes I figure are probable worthless against baffled air intakes on stealthy aircraft. But with JTIDS datalink/radarnet datalinks feeding an active radar picture from an AWACS to the F-22/35, they can stay "noses cold" to prevent setting off an enemy aircraft RWR/Sniffer set mode but still see what's out on front of them. By now, I'm sure we've examined the T-50's probable RCS and band range and Russia has long done the same regarding the F-22 as well and "adjustments" have been updated into set software and emitter/sniffer elements to "bridge gaps" so to speak which is a constant state of being in modern combat aircraft. The other rarely discussed factors are certain "keyhole" technologies within Electronic Warfare which enable ECM and Electronic Warfare Operators to literally/virtually switch off/blind enemy radars. You never know "who" made certain components of a given system which may contain a flaw or hidden kill switch. Hence the latest flap about one Air Force who became rattled when they found out that their brand new Psyches were outfitted with Russian installed Israeli made radars and avionics. Again, it's a given that there is some "reciprocal espionage" regarding foreign military weapon sales while the big players keep the real cards close to their chests(their prime equipment they won't sale to foreign buyers).

Anyhow, I guess back to my bottom line about TAC factoring in is that where we are now in terms of Stealth, Radar/Sensors, and highly reliable air to air weapons with massive all aspect capability, the need for nose on, going 6 o'clock is no longer a factor. The past "limited geometry" fight is now evolved into a "solid geometry" battle sphere. Honestly, it's frightening seeing how lethal aerial combat has become and getting. The technology is clearly turning the old game and way of thinking obsolete and very quickly. If it were possible to take jets like the F-22 back to Vietnam and unleash them in only a single squadron, I'd be willing to bet they would break the NVAF's back in maybe a single engagement or two and finish off what's left as they sit on the ground in regeneration cycle. These days, if something major goes down, a targeted entity will likely lose it's entire air force while it sits on the ground and if any do make it up, they won't last long. Just think the days of mass aerial engagement are most likely over but I could be wrong. Is why we should keep prepared!

Okay, so I have blabbed weaving in and out of the topic at hand but in a sense trying to keep somewhere on the fringes of the topic. LOL!

[deathfromafar]

Urggg, I meant to post this:

http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/video/index_da.swf?fa=armytimes&wa=armytimes&wd=575&ht=324&cp=21772&bw=&state=vid&em=false&fn=/flv/20080714_rc_f22

Not sure if you've seen this version of the demo but it's pretty cool!

[warchild]

you realize of course i'm going to have to reread this several times just to soak it all in dont you?? :;chuckles:: Having been out of the military for fourty some years now ( argh) I only get to see civilian approved propaganda films from our nation as well as others. Its when i sit down with my calculator that i start scratching my head wondering how we could ever make some of the obviously overblown claims we make ( we, the russians, the chinese.. seems the only ones not boasting are the indians and israeli, and frankly, they both scare me ).. the numbers dont support it..
I'm surprised that the Pak Fa isnt stealthy. With those wings, it could carry a massive loadout. Make one hell of a strike platform.
i'm not surprised at what you say about the F-35 and SU-35. small, inexpesive ( comparitively ) and highly capable. more so than other nations leading fighters. And both of them developed for the same reason. The F-35 replaces/supplements the F-16, F-22, and F/A-18 and the Su-35 replaces/supplements the Su-27, and 37, with production and maintenance costs being the primary reasons for replacing/supplementing the f-22s and su-37s. If i'm not mistaken, the Su-30s are pimrily developed for export sales such as to India and south Africa.
One aircraft neither you nor i have mentioned is the T-90 (?) Pak Da.. To be honest, i dont even know if its a real plane or some teenagers bad joke. Would you know anything on that one??

I( just watched the video of the F-22. Pretty cool indeed. I made the initial flight model for the Iris F-22 using the same base fde as i'm using in the su-37. David made some small modifications to his liking and the rest is history, but to be honest, i didnt know half as much then as i do now.. Whats really amazing is if you watch the video in the link you just posted, then watch the video i posted above of the SU-37s flight model. They're almost identical. kinda scary in a good kinda way :).. The f-22 is quite an impressive bird, buit without active canards, its limited. The SU-35/37 with their canards, can flip on its back without exiting their flight paths. the entire radius of their loop is contained within the su-35/37s control surface zone. the F-22 can exit a high AOA maneuver from many angles, the Su-35/37 can exit a high AOA maneuver from any angle, including a few i didnt believe were invented yet. I think the biggest telling though is that at Farnbourough ( SP? ) in 1999 after the show was over ( a show which Sukhoi was almost sabotaged by the folks who make the eurofighter ). and the su-37 and F-22 had flown, Director Simonov of Sukhoi issued a standing challenge to any nation to dogfight the Su-37. To this very day, Lockheed backpedals and makes excuses, and with the Crash of Su-37 #711 the showdown will never happen. Its a pity really. That would be one HELL of a dogfight. but as you say, the combat environment any more is getting frighteningly terrifying. Even for an old combat vet like myself.
I'm loving this conversation :) :) :)
Pam

PS.. Amen to being prepared. never overestimate yourself, and never underestimate anyone else. If we accept the facts that exist, then we can build against the negatives, the downsides, and strengthen/supplement the positives, the upsides. Its justnthat damnit, i'm an american. i do not like accepting that we arent what we once were any more.. but we arent. Humble pie can taste pretty fowl.. as in crow..

[napamule]

I am talking about the Virtavia F-22 in FSX. Made a short video. I'm just showing off? Perhaps. But it remains that FSX has possibilities. It's the model that makes it all possible, not the pilot skills, or even the flight dynamics. My opinion of course. Link: http://youtu.be/2ar4dr1-WdA .
Chuck B
Napamule

[thunder100]

Part of the problem we/v had with TVC is that we in the US, havent been able to design seals between the engine and the nozzel that would remain sealed. also, our designs change the shape of the exhaust, crimping it and squishing it, and therefore, making it worthless.. Lyulka/Saturn overcame both of those problems. theirs works, ours??

Pam

Without beeing deep insider there is annother US problem-->on the other side of the engine.Historically the US jets tend to flame out in high AOA configurations-->something was overcome in Russia since Mig-29.

And this part need to be solved even on UAV's(also my personal enemy's)

I was time ago with 2 buddy's(Marines pilots) at an airshow including SU-27.At a high AOA flyby(hoovering) both said that their F-18's(Both on C's but had flown E's as well) would simply fall out of air as the engines will almost instantly stall

And history always repeats itself.After a future bloody nose as a manmounted pilot can overcome the computers of UAV#s by sheer human unpredictability,the wheels will start to turn back

Lets see

Roland

[warchild]

I am talking about the Virtavia F-22 in FSX. Made a short video. I'm just showing off? Perhaps. But it remains that FSX has possibilities. It's the model that makes it all possible, not the pilot skills, or even the flight dynamics. My opinion of course. Link: http://youtu.be/2ar4dr1-WdA .
Chuck B
Napamule


:::LOL:: That looks like you were having a blast..

[warchild]

Pam

Without beeing deep insider there is annother US problem-->on the other side of the engine.Historically the US jets tend to flame out in high AOA configurations-->something was overcome in Russia since Mig-29.


Roland

if you look closely at russian air intakes, you'll see slots on the bottom and sides. in the mouth of the intake theres an air damn that lifts up into position above the slots to funnel the air back into the mouth of the engine. Thats the part that changed. It isnt that we couldnt figure it out. its grade school simple. I just think that perhaps we havent had the right incentive yet. but that leads to a conversation area that isnt healthy for the forum so i would prefer we not go there.. :)
Pam

[LonelyplanetXO]

Hm, F18's cant do high AOA? I suspect disinformation there... check this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIwy10GG6Y) out from an airshow I remember a few years ago


this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGBD9qPUu8k)one's same display, better quality but doesn't show the really high AOA maneuvres in the first one.

LPXO

[deathfromafar]

The old Hornet is actually a heck of a lot more maneuverable than many give it credit for but rarely does it get seen to this level or better. I can't remember the last time I saw a US F/A-18A/C being flown like that. Mostly I saw Canadian Hornet demo pilots really wringing them out. But also factor in that average Hornet pilot experience and a slew of maneuver/configuration restrictions probably account for much of the average(some would use the word "lame") demos we've seen in recent years. The Viper and Hornet can get away with some high AoA tricks even though they lack louvered aux intakes that allow the engine to breath normally at high alpha. It is true that most of the newer dash series engines in the 3rd Gen US Fighters are not as susceptible to compressor stalls, surges, and flameouts(I'm referring to the F-16 and F/A-18) due to refinements in the core hot section components and in conjunction with good intake geometry/position. Still, they were never intended to cope with High AoA or extreme lateral airflow divergence(from extreme yaw) but the F-16MATV and F/A-18HARV did pretty well.

One other factor I didn't mention regarding TVC is that any aircraft that carries an external load and utilizing TVC may run into serious stability issues with an asymmetric load at high AoA. What this means is that when they are heavier on one side after firing even one weapon, the asymmetry "could" be significant enough to cause departure even in TVC post stall envelopes due to the weight asymmetry exceeding the moment values of the TVC control inputs. This is obviously accentuated up at higher altitude/lower air density. I'd be willing to bet that the TVC Sukhois have significant restrictions on TVC use in such configurations/envelopes to prevent departures and overstress on the airframe. The latter brings up the other question as to what gross weight/weapon loadout config restrictions(on conventional fighters with wing stations) might exist on TVC use at all altitudes. One advantage of the F-22 is that it keeps it's weapons internally close to the CG and is pretty much in the same drag and balance profile at all times.

Here's an interesting video regarding weight asymmetries and maneuver limits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv9YC-gaNYo

[Sundog]

For an idea on just how maneuverable an F/A-18 is, consider that one of the most maneuverable aircraft ever built was the X-31, which was optimized for post stall maneuvering. They conducted mock dogfights between the F/A-18 and the X-31 and sometimes the F/A-18 won. The only serious problem the Hornet has ever had is lack of range and not enough thrust. In a fight it had better kill it's opponent when it pulls a maximum post stall maneuver, because it probably won't survive long enough to get a second chance due to how much energy it bleeds in such a maneuver and the lack of power to quickly recover.

Something else that should be noted is that a lot of those cool maneuvers you see flown using TV down low can't be performed at alt, since thrust drops with an increase in altitude. The Indian's learned this the hard way when they fought the USAF with their Su-30's. They kept trying to use extreme maneuvers with their TV at alt against some F-16 pilots, but it really just caused them, the Su-30's, to bleed energy rather quickly and they were stalling out. The F-16 pilots then just used their superior T/W at alt to go vertical and dive back down on the Su-30's. Though the USAF pilots said the Indians would be more formidable once they learned to properly apply their TV aircraft.

[warchild]

the assymetrical weight issues were addresed in the flankers by making the TVC selectable: manual or automatic.
And please dont get me wrong. i'm enjoying this conversation immensely and am learning loads. But i must admit that i find it quite humorous that when the SU-37 gets mentioned in these forums on anything more than a passing basis, that everybody has to drag out their american favorites. Why does that happen with this plane?? it doesnt happen with any other. I could talk till im blue in the face aout the eurofighter or the gripen. I could throw out Saab, and Dasault, and BAE all day and no one would blink, but mention an SU-37 and all hell breaks loose. you dont want to know the opinions of the rest of the world on our F/A-18s.. Its embarrasing. Our F-15 on the other hand Is highly respected. The russians even went so far as to create three complete new planes just to counter it ( two sukhois, two migs. the sukhois were part of the same family ). Our F-16?? The Su-27 Pilots and the F-16 pilots look at each other from afar and glare.

The SU-37 was a technology demonstrator. WAS.. it crashed. its gone now. it was a peaceful warrior, and judging by the reactions ive seen in this thread, it scared the pants off a lot of people. No insult meant, but try to look at the thread from an analysts perspective and the message is clear. Come on guys. The Su-37 was a plane. a damned good plane. So is the SU-35 ( which, since Russia is now a democracy and no longer our enemy, is offering to South korea in lieu of a debt that is owed). I dont mean to hurt anybodies feelers, but, they are all, just planes.
Now, I hate the Swastika, but, I admire and respect the German Warbirds. Theyre planes. I didnt like growing up thinking that each minute may be the minute that the idiots in moscow and washington turned the entire face of the earth into carbon ( seventeen times over ), but those days are behind us now. Time to put the hate and fears aside. its ok to love the f-22 and its ok to love the Sukhois..
lets try and keep the thread on subject. Ok??
Pam

[warchild]

For an idea on just how maneuverable an F/A-18 is, consider that one of the most maneuverable aircraft ever built was the X-31, which was optimized for post stall maneuvering. They conducted mock dogfights between the F/A-18 and the X-31 and sometimes the F/A-18 won. The only serious problem the Hornet has ever had is lack of range and not enough thrust. In a fight it had better kill it's opponent when it pulls a maximum post stall maneuver, because it probably won't survive long enough to get a second chance due to how much energy it bleeds in such a maneuver and the lack of power to quickly recover.

Something else that should be noted is that a lot of those cool maneuvers you see flown using TV down low can't be performed at alt, since thrust drops with an increase in altitude. The Indian's learned this the hard way when they fought the USAF with their Su-30's. They kept trying to use extreme maneuvers with their TV at alt against some F-16 pilots, but it really just caused them, the Su-30's, to bleed energy rather quickly and they were stalling out. The F-16 pilots then just used their superior T/W at alt to go vertical and dive back down on the Su-30's. Though the USAF pilots said the Indians would be more formidable once they learned to properly apply their TV aircraft.

yeahhh, the Su-30s use the Saturn/Lyulka AL-31FP which is a modified AL-31F. Base thrust is 22000 pounds. your not going to get much out of a horizontal of vertical maneuver with that. The SU-37 uses the AL-37FU, which produces a wet thrust of 31988 pounds. giving the plane a total thrust of almost 64000 pounds. twice its weight. Vertical climb speed is 48000 feet per minute. max altitude?? 48000 feet. its dry thrust is somewhere between 25000 and 27000 pounds. meaning that at 48000 feet its still delivering a useable thrust to weight ratio of approximately 1.5 to one. Its cruising speed is 840 knots, without afterburner. We can suspend our disbelief all we want, but the numbers are there. The reality is there. Frankly, the Su-37 was made to counter the F-15. it was the Pak Fa that was made to counter the F-22, and chinas more advanced designs ( if they're real ). I cant speak about the Pak Fa, as i have absolutely no verifiable information on it ( i require three sources of information ). But the SU-37?? I can talk a little on it. It was a good plane, like its older brother, the SU-35 has become.
Pam

[JohnC]

yeahhh, the Su-30s use the Saturn/Lyulka AL-31FP which is a modified AL-31F. Base thrust is 22000 pounds. your not going to get much out of a horizontal of vertical maneuver with that. The SU-37 uses the AL-37FU, which produces a wet thrust of 31988 pounds. giving the plane a total thrust of almost 64000 pounds. twice its weight. Vertical climb speed is 48000 feet per minute. max altitude?? 48000 feet. its dry thrust is somewhere between 25000 and 27000 pounds. meaning that at 48000 feet its still delivering a useable thrust to weight ratio of approximately 1.5 to one. Its cruising speed is 840 knots, without afterburner. We can suspend our disbelief all we want, but the numbers are there. The reality is there. Frankly, the Su-37 was made to counter the F-15. it was the Pak Fa that was made to counter the F-22, and chinas more advanced designs ( if they're real ). I cant speak about the Pak Fa, as i have absolutely no verifiable information on it ( i require three sources of information ). But the SU-37?? I can talk a little on it. It was a good plane, like its older brother, the SU-35 has become.
Pam


I've got to disagree here, it's just not possible for gas turbine's to produce that much thrust at altitude. There is a very strong correlation between thrust produced and atmospheric air density. Attached is a chart which illustrates the maximum Dry and Wet thrusts, as well as Thrust Specific fuel consumptions for the AL-31F. You can see that for maximum dry thrust; at ground static the engine produces 73kN (~16,400lbF) and at Mach 1.0 at 11km (36,000ft) this drops to 26kN (~5,850lbF). Afterburning thrust sees similar losses with 119kN (~26,750lbF) at GS and 52kN (~11,700lbF) at M1.0 & 36,000ft.

Note that at 36,000ft air density is 29.7% relative to Sea level; Note that if the comparison is only at M1.0; Max SL wet thrust is 140kN compared to 52kN (or 37% of Sea Level Thrust).

The empty weight of the Su-37 is almost 41,000lbs; given that the Maximum wet thrust of the AL-37FU is 32,000lbs at Ground Static; it's safe to assume that at M1.0 at 36,000ft, there exists an Engine Thrust to Weight ratio of 0.68. ON top of this, you always, always have to subtract the drag force of the aiframe plowing through the atmosphere. The Net Thrust to weight ratio at M0.8|36,000ft is probably well below 0.5 for this aircraft (which is quite super).

[warchild]

I think i might be confused here John.. I was obviously confused about the empty weight, even my own flight model has it correct, which would give the plane a Sea level thrust weight ratio of 64000/41000 or what is that that? 1.5:1 approx ( sorry, havent had my coffee yet ). So if at altitude we were doing only M0.8 ( which would allow for maneuvers without killing the pilot at that altitude ) and each engine were putting out less than or equal too one half of its total thrust, wouldnt that mean the total thrust of both engines would be combined and we would actually have a thrust to weight somewhere between .68:1~1:1 which i'm basing partly off what you said above, and partly off the SU-37s max speed at altitude of 1357 knots or M2.3. Just grabbed my first cuppa coffee.. bear with me here.. See, M0.8 would be just a little shy of 50% thrust at altitude just as its a little shy of .5 thrust 30000 feet, and a bit over .5 thrust at 19000 feet. (At see level, i'm sure its closer to .75 thrust as see level max speed is 756 knots ). ::chuckles:: Wanna kill a Sukhoi? Get it down low.
Pam

[JohnC]

No worries, it's easy to get confused. Once you're in the after-burning region of thrust, thrust increase is almost linear as Mach Number increases. Using 36kft as the example altitude; while the AL-31F produces about 52kN at M1.0 it produces a walloping 120kN at Mach 2.0. Also note that since fuel consumption is proportional to thrust...you go through fuel in a hurry when going that fast. If you're starting a M2.0 run with a Mirage III at 36kft (we really like that altitude), you should have a minimum of 3/4 of a tank of fuel.

As far as thrust to weight ratio is concerned, there are a few things to consider. (At Sea Level) Remember that 41,000 is the empty weight; that's when it's running on fumes. It can carry up to 21,000lb of fuel; which means the Ground|Static full fuel T:W ratio is only about 1.03.

So running from the Above. If Thrust (afterburning) increase with Mach Number. If you are traveling at M0.8|36kft; then engine thrust is about 38.7% relative to G|S; which would give a thrust of 32klbF*0.387 multiplied by two engines, or ~25,000lbF of total thrust. That gives an Engine thrust to weight ratio of 0.61 (no fuel) or 0.49 (half fuel). If you subtract the drag force of the airframe...which I can't easily do from this computer; but I would estimate that it's between 4-6,000lb (An Airbus A321 produces about 8-10,000lbs of drag at the same Mach|Altitude). Then Net thrust at M0.80|36kft is at best 21klbF, which gives Net Thrust to Weight ratio of 0.51 (no fuel) or 0.41 (half fuel).

Hope that was helpful?

[warchild]

Very helpful. But it reminded me of another question.. your mention of the fuel usage triggered it and its something i've been curious about for a very long time.
you se, one of the planes that got me started in working with flight models, was Ito's Boeing 2707. I still love that plane, or at least what might have been had it not been killed by politics and McNamara's wet dream for a swing wing bomber ( the B-1 ).
but while i was researching that plane, i got into drag, and learned that in trans sonic states, drag got very weird. Accordingly, as you approach the speed of sound, drag increases to almost double its normal value, but at mach 1.2 drops to less than half its normal value. The problem then ( 1963 ) was having engines powerful enough to overcome the drag between mach 1 and mach 1.2. hence, after burners on the concorde. But what i dont understand is the relationship between fuel burn and trans-supersonic travel.
lets say our base-line drag value for some aircraft is 5. That means that at mach 1 that drag value has increased to 10 ( ergo the need for afterburners in most planes with the SU-37 and F-22 being just plain weird ), but at mach 1.2 that base-line drag drops to 2.5. Understandably, you still need enough thrust to maintain trans-supersonic speeds, but, shouldnt you be able to throttle back a ways and save fuel?? Thats always confused me.
pam

[JohnC]

I think a really important place to start is how high the aircraft. Most Supersonic aircraft (there are several notable exceptions) reach maximum speeds achievable speeds between 36-45kft. With aircraft such as the SST, Concorde, and SR-71; speed is the primary aerodynamic concern in design (and I believe all three are exceptions to the generalization I just stated). This is evident by their long, slender airframes. The design of most supersonic aircraft is combat, which means maneuverability and payload capability enter into the criteria in a big way, and that can have large impacts on supersonic drag.

When you talk about drag changing with Mach, I would be shocked if the drag force decreased so significantly shortly after the transonic region of flight. More likely, it's the drag coefficient. Since drag force is proportional to svelocity squared, it means you might see some decrease in drag force relative to transonic, but unlikely that it's down to subsonic levels. The ubiquitous proof of that is how few aircraft are able to super cruise. Combine this with the fact that afterburning mode converts fuel to thrust with about half the efficiency of wet thrust and that wet thrust produces 2-3 times the thrust relative to dry when at supersonic speeds and high altitudes; and it means you burn fuel about 4-6 times quicker when in wet thrust relative to maximum dry. The difference of this is so significant, that going super sonic (and staying there) usually has a well defined purpose centered on the concept of getting somewhere quickly, that supersedes the notion of conserving fuel.

[Sundog]

Yes, you can throttle back and save fuel once through the transonic region. That's how some aircraft achieve supercruise, they use after burner to get through the transonic region and then throttle back out of it to supercruise. However, before the advent of supercruise, which also requires serious thermal considerations for the airframe due to heat soak, most fighters were mostly subsonic, except for when reacting to a problem or engaging in battle, in which case they usually just go full burner and keep accelerating to give their missiles maximum energy when they launch them and of course to maximize Ps for the coming fight; if they survive the merge.

Also, the reason for the large drag rise around Mach unity is the reason it's named transonic. You have a combination of subsonic and supersonic flow around the aircraft which creates some serious mixing where the different airflow regions meet creating a lot of drag. So the drag drops as that is reduced once you have fully developed supersonic flow.

[warchild]

well, what i, in my own hick way, have always theorized is that as you move forward through a fluid, the density of the fluid increases with with speed due to the vehicle forcing the fluid around its body at a rate that is faster than the fluid is capable of moving. this would create a compression cone at the front of the vehicle which would become denser as the vehicle accelerates, due to the fact that at higher speeds, not only is the vehicle compressing the fluid it is traveling through, but the compression cone caused by the vehicle is also compressing the fluid in front of it. Ergo, the "barrier" effect. As the vehicle transitions through the leading edge of the compression cone the cone travels back along the vehicles surface till at some point falls behind the vehicle. What happens then, I dont know. I believe that may be entering the area termed hypersonic velocity. Also, what happens between the time the cone leaves the front of the vehicle and leaves the back of the vehicle, i dont know. thats a science i believe is called wave drag theory, and its pretty complex.
However, getting back to what i started with in this reply. I can see where the drag and the drag coefficient increases exponentially as the vehicle accelerates up to M1. but between M1 and M1.2 the vehicle pushes through the cone, and the leading edge of the cone, instead of being focused on a point directly in front of the vehicle, is now distributed around the vehicles surface. but see, this is the most confusing part. Since the cone is no longer in front of the vehicle, , and the thrust of the vehicle is focused on that point the drag drops, because the plane of thrust no longer travels through the compression cone. But, isnt the compression cone itself compressing even more of the fluid in front of it, and wouldnt that create some kind of bubble that really the vehicle could never get through?? If so, how does that work?? if not, I still dont get it.. Weird science..

[Paul Domingue]

Hm, F18's cant do high AOA? I suspect disinformation there... check this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIwy10GG6Y) out from an airshow I remember a few years ago


this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGBD9qPUu8k)one's same display, better quality but doesn't show the really high AOA maneuvres in the first one.

LPXO

Watching this video brought to mind an interesting bit of documentation I ran across recently. The air show was in 2009 and this document is an analytical report submitted to the minister of defense in <st1:City><st1:place>Canberra</st1:place></st1:City> (May, 1998) on replacing the RAAF F/A-18. It is quite interesting and some what pertinent to the conversation (I think) since this is way out of my realm. :salute:

http://lpad.horizon-host.com/images/RAAF_replacing_FA-18_Hornet.pdf

[Paul Domingue]

Just out of curiosity Pam, is there any published threads or screenies of Paul Dominiques SU-37/35 project? (other than yours, of course).

LPXO

I’m constantly blown away by some of the model work out there and have a bit of an inferiority complex when it comes to my models. Pam has been such a great ego booster and her dedication makes me want to create something worthy of her work. Here are a few previews of my attempt at recreating this awesome aircraft.

588755887658877

[swimeye]

It looks absolutely fantastic, I am no expert but in my opinion you are way to modest Paul =)

[Ferry_vO]

That looks awesome Paul; great work! :applause:

[deathfromafar]

Watching this video brought to mind an interesting bit of documentation I ran across recently. The air show was in 2009 and this document is an analytical report submitted to the minister of defense in <st1:city><st1:place>Canberra</st1:place></st1:city> (May, 1998) on replacing the RAAF F/A-18. It is quite interesting and some what pertinent to the conversation (I think) since this is way out of my realm. :salute:

http://lpad.horizon-host.com/images/RAAF_replacing_FA-18_Hornet.pdf

Paul, thanks for posting that link and I've already added it to my library of technical info. One thing I've always enjoyed is the fairly open sources inside Australia's Defense circles on assessments/comparisons and intelligence "gouge" on potential threats. I find their reports as very thoughtful & thorough.

Also, as noted above, you're quite modest about your model building skills. Your work looks fantastic!