The Russian Sukhoi Su-35: handbrake turns in midair :)

[bbow73]

eTyT0OfPq1k

don't know if it's hang time or defying gravity, but either way, what are those electrical discharges when it does it's slow maneuvers?

[sigma6]

wouldn't want to face off with that in an F-35... must be so embarrassing for Lockheed...

[bbow73]

handbreak? like Toyko Drift?
At 3:40 it's neither a cobra nor kulbit maneuver. don't know what's going on

[Builder]

In air combat energy - in form of speed and altitude - is the most important factor. Those maneuvers kill all the energy, meaning you are a sitting duck. They are pretty much useless, except as a last straw in a close air combat when you are out of all other options.

The F-22 can do similar high alpha maneuvers, but only rookies are using them in combat. The more experienced pilots keep their speed and stealth.

[sigma6]

the weight to thrust ratios are off the charts

[Hervé]

New Russian fighter jet's amazing flight demo breaks the internet (http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/su-35-flight-demo-breaks-internet/ri20454)


Russia Insider (http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/su-35-flight-demo-breaks-internet/ri20454)
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 19:45 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s20/408609/large/su_35_img.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s20/408609/full/su_35_img.jpg)
The titillating Su-35


The Russians demonstrate that you don't need to spend a gazillion dollars to make an amazing fighter jet

This is a story of two jets-and two air shows.

The Paris Air Show was supposed to put to rest the unpatriotic criticisms of Lockheed's "5th generation" 100-gazillion-dollar baby: The majestic F-35.

It didn't.

The jet performed mediocre at best. At worst, people were basically calling it a sack of 5th generation garbage:


https://www.sott.net/image/s20/408610/large/f_35.png (https://www.sott.net/image/s20/408610/full/f_35.png)
© Defense-Aerospace.com


American tax dollars, hard at work. advertisement To quote from the must-read article on Defense-Aerospace.com: (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/184921/f_35-paris-flight-demo%3A-much-ado-about-nothing.html)
This writer, which has been watching air displays since 1975, found it bland and totally unremarkable except for two things: the noise - it was extremely loud, far louder than at last June's trial flights in the Netherlands -- and the airplane's fast rate of climb, thanks to its engine's 40,000 pounds of thrust.

But none of the maneuvering demonstrated anything that's not been seen for years, whether it's the "pedal turn" or the claimed 7 g maneuvers that were totally invisible from the ground.

After having seen the displays put on by real fighter jets such as the F-15 and F-16, Gripen, Rafale and Eurofighter, not to mention the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29, the F-35's effort looked pretty lame.

And this is not a solitary opinion. The first three comments posted on Aviation Week's pre-show story tell a similar tale:

Dave59 on Jun 19, 2017
"He will start with an afterburner takeoff, almost immediately pointing his nose to the sky and letting the aircraft climb away essentially vertically. This impressive move is unique to the F-22 and the F-35, he said." -- Lockheed Martin test pilot Billie Flynn

The F-15 has been doing that in airshow displays since the eighties. Personally seen a lot of times.

TheSandbagger on Jun 19, 2017:
Never believe a snake-oil salesman or an LM PR jockey.
Come to think of it, what's the difference?

Invictus Slo on Jun 19, 2017
Mig-29 in RIAT 2015 ;).
So much about being unique. This was back in June.

Fast-forward to the present.

The Su-35 gave a performance to remember at MAKS, the annual international air show held outside of Moscow.

Via Popular Mechanics: (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27410/this-su-35-flight-demo-will-make-your-head-explode/)


https://www.sott.net/image/s20/408612/large/su_35_2.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s20/408612/full/su_35_2.jpg)© Popular Mechanics


Popular Mechanics is probably referring to this:


https://www.facebook.com/russiantour/videos/10156443640104942/



Of course, maneuverability isn't everything.


eTyT0OfPq1k

But the Russians just demonstrated that you don't need to spend a gazillion dollars to make an amazing fighter jet.

And the internet noticed.

[toppy]

It's unbelievable...

[raregem]

What would/could cause a jet like the SU-35S to stall?
Do fighter jets stall?

Also, how would the pilot avoid vertigo?

[Fellow Aspirant]

Beautiful flying. Truly an impressive display of control with a very impressive aircraft: the 'hang time' and topsy turvy changes of direction in slow motion are the kind of thing I would associate with a vectored thrust aircraft.

The anomalous 'discharges' that I see from 3:33 to 3:38 are very weird. Hard to tell if they're coming from the aircraft or are generated in the atmosphere by some mechanism on board the jet.

As they seem to only appear during brief instants of very slow motion, perhaps they are indicative of some sort of anti-gravity capability, like the 'gravity well' created by electrical charges at the leading edges of the B 2. :confused:

Nice find, bbow73

B.

[uzn]

I would take my petrodollars to Sukhoi ;)

Just the Best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYDdp1s5FvQ

[Bill Ryan]

The anomalous 'discharges' that I see from 3:33 to 3:38 are very weird.

Small amounts of unburned fuel igniting, I think.

[Spiral]

But the Russians just demonstrated that you don't need to spend a gazillion dollars to make an amazing fighter jet.

And the internet noticed.

That is because the two planes do different things, from two very different mind sets; the SU 35 is created to be an outstanding aircraft, whilst the F35 is a money making venture, the military industrial complex is well out of control.

[Builder]

What would/could cause a jet like the SU-35S to stall?
Do fighter jets stall?

Yes they stall, but they compensate with big control surfaces actuated by computers and lots of engine thrust.

All modern fighter jets are fly-by-wire, meaning that there is no direct connection from the stick in the cockpit to the control surfaces. A computer interprets the inputs from the pilot and moves the control surfaces how ever it is necessary to achieve what the pilot intents.

This opens up the opportunity to move the center of gravity way back and design the aircraft as aerodynamic unstable. An unstable aircraft can turn much faster in a direction because, well it's unstable and wants to turn (out of control). The computer prevents that from happening except when the pilot wants such a fast turn.

[7alon]

What would/could cause a jet like the SU-35S to stall?
Do fighter jets stall?

Yes they stall, but they compensate with big control surfaces actuated by computers and lots of engine thrust.

All modern fighter jets are fly-by-wire, meaning that there is no direct connection from the stick in the cockpit to the control surfaces. A computer interprets the inputs from the pilot and moves the control surfaces how ever it is necessary to achieve what the pilot intents.

This opens up the opportunity to move the center of gravity way back and design the aircraft as aerodynamic unstable. An unstable aircraft can turn much faster in a direction because, well it's unstable and wants to turn (out of control). The computer prevents that from happening except when the pilot wants such a fast turn.

Ah that actually makes sense! Quite ingenious. They let the computer interpret for the pilot how to effectively use the control surfaces when he is turning right or left. So I assume different jets are designed differently as well as having different computer input, depending on what they want to achieve aerodynamically with that specific model of jet?

[sunwings]

6:30:silent:

[Bill Ryan]

It's not a small plane! It weighs 30 tons. And the pilot can make it look like a kitten playing in the sky.

A fun quote:



“I mean, come on,” Stephen Trimble, aviation reporter and editor for Flightglobal’s Americas bureau, tweeted (https://twitter.com/FG_STrim/status/888065916583411714) Thursday after seeing footage of the aircraft’s demonstration. “And people actually thought the F-35A display at Paris last month was impressive. This isn’t impressive. It’s unbelievable.”
https://www.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Su-35-1200x800-777x437.jpg

[Orph]

And as Fellow Aspirant mentioned above, it does have vectored thrust. Without that, it's just another jet.

[Builder]

So I assume different jets are designed differently as well as having different computer input, depending on what they want to achieve aerodynamically with that specific model of jet?

Yes. Every model has a tailor made computer system and getting the software to work is one of the main challenges of modern fighter programs. Btw. ALL of those computers are way out of date compared to what we have in our PCs and mobile phones. That's the price that has to be payed when the development of a new model takes one or two decades and the service life is at least 3 decades. Of course there are computer upgrades, but the basic software has many millions lines of code and won't ever be completely replaced.

While the fact of multi decade usage of an airframe won't go away, it has to be said that industrial military complex did not keep up with the rapid evolvement of software development methods and technologies of the last 10-15 years. The smart kids from silicon valley would kick their ass any day with only a fraction of the resources. But hey, there is no pressure for innovation, it's much more important to sell a too big to fail trillion $ program like the F-35.

[DeDukshyn]

handbreak? like Toyko Drift?
At 3:40 it's neither a cobra nor kulbit maneuver. don't know what's going on

It's a controlled stall with a vertical free-fall -- it looks like it is not moving (except slowly spinning) but actually it is falling vertically toward the camera. That pilot is bloody skilled. :)

[Rawhide68]

Could it be that the russians have built in some antigravity device into that jet. Like the bus outside my door is fueled from garbage fumes partialy.

If we are to believe break away civilisation theory the USA has allready developed much more advanced ships, but ofcource they would keep it top top top cosmic top secret for ever.:Angel:

[Bill Ryan]

Could it be that the russians have built in some antigravity device into that jet?

No. :)

Read about the evolution of the technology here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35

Clever computerized fly-by-wire, powerful engines, and thrust vectoring. (And the skill of the pilot has something to do with it, too!)

As Builder explained (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?98901-The-Russian-Sukhoi-Su-35-handbrake-turns-in-midair--&p=1168172&viewfull=1#post1168172), the plane is designed to be unstable in the air... and the computer systems keep it all under control.

Without a computer interface, no pilot could ever fly the thing, even in level flight. But that means it's really easy for it to be flipped into instability within seconds — which is the secret of its supermaneuverabilty.

[Callista]

Yes - you can see from the vids that at times it looks as though it is about to get completely out of control, then the pilot brings her back just in the nick of time - it's superb flying and an absolute joy to behold.

[Fellow Aspirant]

Could it be that the russians have built in some antigravity device into that jet?

No. :)

Read about the evolution of the technology here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35

Clever computerized fly-by-wire, powerful engines, and thrust vectoring. (And the skill of the pilot has something to do with it, too!)

As Builder explained (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?98901-The-Russian-Sukhoi-Su-35-handbrake-turns-in-midair--&p=1168172&viewfull=1#post1168172), the plane is designed to be unstable in the air... and the computer systems keep it all under control.

Without a computer interface, no pilot could ever fly the thing, even in level flight. But that means it's really easy for it to be flipped into instability within seconds — which is the secret of its supermaneuverabilty.

Okay, but what about the electrical filaments that zip around it, some at great length?

B.

[uzn]

Different Angle of the SU-35 Airshow footage from above

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDDZ217depw

and dont forget Chinas J-20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyCagF0RUQQ

But I would still choose the SU-35. It´s born to fly.

[Builder]

Btw it's not very difficult to do those tumbles with a fly-by-wire plane. The critical part is judgment and experience to do the right thing at the right position, altitude and time. As agile as those planes are, if you enter a maneuver at the wrong altitude, or there is a slight problem with the engines, something like this can happen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sknyliv_air_show_disaster

LeGvP6KfGbM

[kirolak]

Such a beautiful butterfly, such a pity she can kill. . . . .

[happyuk]

One naive question - this is all very impressive to watch - does the plane not make itself a convenient target while doing these histrionics?

[The Moss Trooper]

Here is another un-stable airframe that would fall out of the sky if not for the fly-by-wire system:

6GjtN11wKqQ

Not as manoeuvrable as the SU-35 or Raptor F22, due to not having vectored thrust. Makes a big difference. Makes the Typhoon look almost obsolete.

This is pretty:

r_DN7Ky_CUg

[Builder]

One naive question - this is all very impressive to watch - does the plane not make itself a convenient target while doing these histrionics?

This is what I alluded to in a previous post. Those extreme show maneuvers are useless in combat because the aircraft is basically standing still and waiting to be shot down by anybody within range.

The Typhoon is up there with the best even without thrust vectoring because it is light and has big wings so it can keep its energy through hard turns. F-22 pilots have called the Typhoon "a beast" after facing them in training fights.

Energy ist the currency of arial combat. You only have so much in form of hight, speed and fuel in the tanks. Note that the planes you see performing those airshow maneuvers have neither hight, speed nor much fuel in their tanks (because they couldn't do those maneuvers with full tanks).

The sooner a plane has used up its energy, the sooner it has to drop out of combat, or gets shot down because it's a sitting duck. A less known reason for thrust vectoring is that by using engine thrust to direct the plane, less control surface deflection is needed which reduces drag, which helps preserving energy.

The main issue of the F-35 is that it chews through its energy very fast. Because of its small wings it has a high angle of attack through turns which destroys energy. Its engine needs a lot of fuel to compensate for that, but it can't use external tanks because they would destroy its stealth characteristics. It's great in a straight line hit and run attack, but can't linger at the battlefield which reduces it's effectiveness drastically. So more planes are needed to do the same job which is exactly what you want if you had the monopoly to build this too big to fail trillion dollar fighter generation.

[Builder]

Those videos give a pretty good idea of what's going on in an air combat. Note that it's mostly about distances, speed and detectability. There is no "and now the Suchoi uses it's famous air show maneuver to win the fight" moment:

P-M9jA1INk8

xjS8j2PWtK4

[DeDukshyn]

Could it be that the russians have built in some antigravity device into that jet?

No. :)

Read about the evolution of the technology here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35

Clever computerized fly-by-wire, powerful engines, and thrust vectoring. (And the skill of the pilot has something to do with it, too!)

As Builder explained (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?98901-The-Russian-Sukhoi-Su-35-handbrake-turns-in-midair--&p=1168172&viewfull=1#post1168172), the plane is designed to be unstable in the air... and the computer systems keep it all under control.

Without a computer interface, no pilot could ever fly the thing, even in level flight. But that means it's really easy for it to be flipped into instability within seconds — which is the secret of its supermaneuverabilty.

Okay, but what about the electrical filaments that zip around it, some at great length?

B.

Not electrical filaments -- water vapour created from the increased air pressure against the body of the craft during some of the harder turns.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/05/246C2AB900000578-0-image-m-63_1420459071628.jpg

[Ernie Nemeth]

Some of those surfaces, at the edges especially, experience super-sonic air speeds. I think it is breaking the sound barrier. It looks similar, at least.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=40+pictures+of+airplanes+breaking+the+sound+barrier&tbm=isch&imgil=ktbHqcDCWRLNrM%253A%253BFL7oXegApk-zrM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Ftwistedsifter.com%25252F2012%25252F06%25252Fpictures-of-airplanes-breaking-the-sound-barrier%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=ktbHqcDCWRLNrM%253A%252CFL7oXegApk-zrM%252C_&usg=__wmSgddIhf8OC7jnuDpEIlDP0-gc%3D&biw=1536&bih=681&ved=0ahUKEwjRncq1hqDVAhWExIMKHZCfCEEQyjcINQ&ei=Fu10WdG6NoSJjwSQv6KIBA#imgrc=ktbHqcDCWRLNrM:&spf=1500835102439

accidentally pretty cool pictures

[DeDukshyn]

Some of those surfaces, at the edges especially, experience super-sonic air speeds. I think it is breaking the sound barrier. It looks similar, at least.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=40+pictures+of+airplanes+breaking+the+sound+barrier&tbm=isch&imgil=ktbHqcDCWRLNrM%253A%253BFL7oXegApk-zrM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Ftwistedsifter.com%25252F2012%25252F06%25252Fpictures-of-airplanes-breaking-the-sound-barrier%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=ktbHqcDCWRLNrM%253A%252CFL7oXegApk-zrM%252C_&usg=__wmSgddIhf8OC7jnuDpEIlDP0-gc%3D&biw=1536&bih=681&ved=0ahUKEwjRncq1hqDVAhWExIMKHZCfCEEQyjcINQ&ei=Fu10WdG6NoSJjwSQv6KIBA#imgrc=ktbHqcDCWRLNrM:&spf=1500835102439

accidentally pretty cool pictures

Here's my favourite, lol! :)

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iSkd1u-_aBo/hqdefault.jpg