SU-30 Video

[Smedley]

I guess our guys would blow this guy away about 200 miles, out but I would sure hate to fight him in close with guns.


http://www.crazyaviation.com/movies/CA_SU-30.wmv

[ABX]

That's an incredible display of a very agile a/c, thanks for posting it.

[DB6]

Altough I've seen it before it never ceases to amaze me, particularly the somersault within the loop. And that thing is about 6 feet longer and more than twice as heavy as the Saab 340 I fly......
Mind you, I wish the Saab could do that :E .

[Farrell]

And that thing is about 6 feet longer and more than twice as heavy as the Saab 340 I fly......
Mind you, I wish the Saab could do that :E .


It can do it DB.......once! :}

[ThreadBaron]

'Scuse me! Was that flying, or falling? Ah, ...... both.:uhoh:

For any specification for a military aircraft that includes the word 'agile', there is the definitive!:D

[ABX]

Does anyone know when that footage was shot?

Was it at an airshow or promo footage?

Blooming good display in any case.

Cheers,

ABX

[ErgoMonkey]

it maybe Paris or Farn airshow, if not its done similar..........the F22 can do the same, although the somersault is a gimmick, close in you'd have one shot, your pitch rate would be that high it would be almost impossible, by the time you have regained your situational awareness you've lost all your a/c energy and will have a SRAAM on your arse

[Genghis the Engineer]

Interesting bit of video - looks damned painful for the pilot in places!

Not Farnborough, and I don't think that background is Paris either. The buildings look Eastern European to me.

G

[Raymond Ginardon]

it maybe Paris or Farn airshow, if not its done similar..........the F22 can do the same, although the somersault is a gimmick, close in you'd have one shot, your pitch rate would be that high it would be almost impossible, by the time you have regained your situational awareness you've lost all your a/c energy and will have a SRAAM on your arse
Indeed - to 'Joe Airshow' it looks impressive. The somersault appears to be very much an open-loop manoeuvre and I think you'd perhaps have some 'issues' trying to fire anything but a gun - and even with a gun, what would you hit while doing that??!!
That being said, it still fits into the 'Jigger Me!!!!' category.
G - what bits do you think would be painful? :ooh:
Cheers,
Ray :-)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Turning it about Raymond - are there any of those manoeuvres, apart possibly from the landing, which look physically comfortable to you?

Damned good fun mind you - I'd play given, err, well all sorts of opportunities unlikely to be presented to me for the foreseeable. Ah well, best left to the flying heavy metal grown-ups.

Incidentally, given the minimal amount of kinetic energy apparently present in a lot of those manoeuvres, would anybody really want to fire a prolonged burst of canon from that aircraft?

G

[Raymond Ginardon]

Well, yes, I guess if you put it that way. Perhaps not comfortable, but certainly fun :-)

Not sure about the gun, I remember hosing off all (578 rings a bell, if it was full?) my rounds (one burst) in a hornet once while doing some stuff. Twas S+L and the only thing that I noticed was a nose 'nod' by about a degree (ish) and a 1 knot speed loss (but that was well within the noise). I don't know where the gun(s?) is/are on that beasite and where they point - yes, 'forward', I know!!

I thought you'd like the whole 'tumbling' thing G ;-)

Ray

[Genghis the Engineer]

Would be interesting to do the maths, if the data was available; but, I'd have thought that a low mass aircraft (it is displaying...) at low energy (seems to be low speed / hung on the edge of stall most of the time) plus a reasonably energetic canon would not be a recipe for happiness, regardless of the location of the weapon.

Anybody got any A-10 time? That would be a reasonable comparison.



I thought you'd like the whole 'tumbling' thing G ;-)
Ray

Like? I spent 7 years of my life working hard to avoid it, and make sure so did everybody else! Fascinating subject, but I've no intention of ever going there.

Cheers,

G

[Raymond Ginardon]

It was meant tongue in cheek ;-)

[gingernut]

Fantastic video- why did the elevators appear to flap around just before landing?

[Genghis the Engineer]

It was meant tongue in cheek ;-)

And taken as such :E

G

[Raymond Ginardon]

Fantastic video- why did the elevators appear to flap around just before landing?

(probably) Because the thing has feedback - if it is disturbed from where it 'wants to' be then it will wiggle the stabs to get back there. It may have flown through a little turbulence and be reacting to it. Same thing happens on a lot of FBW aircraft, to varying degrees.

Also possible that the pilot is, for whatever reason, slamming the stick about!

Ray :-)

[gingernut]

Thanks Ray:)

[antic81]

Hi Raymond

The gun on this aircraft is situated on top of the fuselage where it blends with the wing, on either on the port or starboard (I forget!)above and behind the pilot.

I saw a fairly similar display at an air show in South Africa, back in '96, was an incredible spectacle and definitely one of the highlights to a great show!

Its not FBW, in fact I dont believe the Soviets have any FBW aircraft?

Cheers

Ant

[John Farley]

It is extremely common to for some posters to assess extreme airshow manoeuvres and to conclude they have no value in the context of the operational role of the aircraft and so dismiss them as gimmicks.

Such people are failing to appreciate that these routines have often been carefully designed to demonstrate (to insiders) the margins of handling, stability and control and engine operation that exist and surround the normal service envelope of the aircraft.

Some of the manoeuvres on this video say several things very loudly (to those who can speak the language). For example that the engine/intake combination has a surge margin beyond the normal running line that is ahead of many other contemporary fighters and the aircraft has no minimum speed below which the FBW system must necessarily act to prevent the aircraft going slower – which of course is an issue with unstable designs in close in combat.

It was the same with my Harrier displays back in the 70s when as well as just entertaining the folk queuing for ice-creams I was showing service pilots of the day the alpha and beta margins that they could relax inside when doing normal takeoff and landing manoeuvres.

BTW antic81 it is my understanding that the Su-27 was FBW from the off. The Mig-29 went FBW from the mid 90s

[Raymond Ginardon]

JF,

Indeed. There is (sometimes) a disconnect between what people are seeing and what is actually being demonstrated. Although I would not be worried (too much) about him getting a shot off at me while doing the somersault, it (and the other mvrs) would certainly make me think thrice about buying the merge with this guy :-)

antic - SU30 is quadruplex FBW,

Cheers,

Ray

[antic81]

Hey Guys

Thanks for that, dunno why I was under the impression they had no FBW, anyway live and learn!

Thanks for that!

Hey atleast I knew where the gun was....well sort of!:}

Cheers

Ant

[ErgoMonkey]

So for the 'insiders' , what does such a airshow/extreme manoeuvre mean?, up close (gun) as originally posted I fail to see what the advantage is, very few fighters adopt thrust vectoring, this and the F22 being the only operational (unless I missing some) , coupled with the fact the Typhoon (allegedly) came out on top in close combat with the F22 in China Lake circa 05.

[John Farley]

I don't like repeating myself so I will just say Post 20 para 3

[Raymond Ginardon]

So for the 'insiders' , what does such a airshow/extreme manoeuvre mean?, up close (gun) as originally posted I fail to see what the advantage is, very few fighters adopt thrust vectoring, this and the F22 being the only operational (unless I missing some) , coupled with the fact the Typhoon (allegedly) came out on top in close combat with the F22 in China Lake circa 05.
Ergo,
I don’t know where to pitch this because your profile doesn’t say much about you – so I do apologise if this comes over as ‘sucking eggs’!
From an operators point of view, against this adversary, you’d have ‘extreme difficulty’ (intentional understatement!) in some situations.
A visual fight can go in all sorts of directions – many of them would favour an aircraft such as the SU 30. If it’s ‘who can go the slowest’ (downrange travel), ‘who can turn with the smallest radius’ and ‘who can point his nose’, then this chap is on to a winner against a dissimilar aircraft. Even though he may not actually be able to get a weapon off, to have an aircraft ‘point’ at you during a fight is a distinctly toe curling thing and can ‘force’ you to make a mistake and/or give up any advantage you may have gained.
It’s important to remember that that’s only half the story – he needs to have the situational awareness and a suitable man-machine interface to effectively employ his weapons (not the subject under discussion here – but worthy of note I think).
There is a penalty for this kind of manoeuvrability in regimes other than that which the video shows. Unstable aircraft come into their own in regimes that are not readily ‘displayable’ at air shows but are nonetheless operationally highly desirable.
Lastly, if anyone is talking openly to you about ‘stuff’ that has gone on at China Lake (etc) then I would confidently say they are just doing it to impress you and they are most certainly not ‘in the know’.
Ray :-)

[CaptainSandL]

Basic question from somebody who has never done any display flying, just a bit of aeros over 20 years ago. Do those smoke generators not make it more difficult for the pilot? At a couple of places in that routine, during the tumbles, the aircraft seemed to fall back through the smoke and the poor guy looked to be IMC for a few seconds. Surely not healthy at that altitude & attitude! How much would a display pilot refer to instruments? I suppose it must be easier in a HUD equipped aircraft.

Hats off to display pilots.

[SR71]

Is that not a Su-35?

Only one version of the Su-30 has thrust vectoring.

I posted a similar link on the Tech Log forum a while ago....

:confused:

[Jaguar Pilot]

With reference to the stabilator moving a lot just prior to touchdown I fail to see why a pilot would be causing such large inputs, and in my experience neither would a pitch autostab system. Perhaps John Farley has a view.

One thing is for sure - I couldn't do that with my jet when I was the RAF
Jaguar demonstration pilot. High incidence = loss of directional stability
due to fin masking = departure.

[Raymond Ginardon]

JP,

So you never ever in your flying career had one of those 'cripes!!' moments shortly before touchdown in response to a gust or a misjudgement?

That sort of movement is not unusual in a FBW system at low speeds. The Jag is a diferent kettle of fish.

Ray

[BombayDuck]

For those who don't know, the Sukhoi Su-30MKI ('Multirole, Commercial, India in Russian) features Thrust vectoring and is operational. The nozzles move 16 degrees in all directions (unlike the Raptor which moves its paddles either up or down). I've seen it perform many times, including this month at Aero India where both it and the MiG-29OVT (similar nozzles) performed twice a day for five days :)

Jag pilot - from my limited understanding of aerodynamics, apparently in the Sukhoi the canards have a large role to play in maintaining airflow over the wing and past the vertical tails. Of course, the ability to move the nozzles sideways takes some pressure off the rudders. In the MiG-29OVT however, the design of the aircraft is such that the fuselage produces a large portion of the lift so I am told it helps. Since I'm not an aero engineer, feel free to correct me :)

Raymond - to add what you said, initially when the MKI arrived in the IAF, it wasn't very successful against the vanilla MiG-29 we operate, what with the fact that our Fulcrums are only used for A2A and the pilots have had a decade under their belt in air combat. Tactics in the last few years of course have evolved (and exercises with the USAF, RAF, RSAF have certainly helped) and the odds have swung.

I talked to an MKI pilot at AI, he tells me more than anything else its the GIB who is critical in that particular aircraft. In a high-alpha maneuver where the pilot has his hands full, its the WSO who is calling out the threats.

But more than the fancy maneuvers, they appreciate its large payload (12 weapon stations) and tremendous range and endurance (10 hrs with a single refuel).

You can find pics and videos of all the aircraft that performed on Bharat Rakshak (http://media.bharat-rakshak.com/aero/).

[BOAC]

Bit late picking this up, John, but I was showing service pilots of the day the alpha and beta margins that they could relax inside - and very well you did it too. I'm sure you saved many of us a few missed heartbeats on the jet. Thank you.

As you say, amazing engine margins on the Sukhoi:ok:

BombayDuck - they appreciate its large payload (12 weapon stations) and tremendous range and endurance (10 hrs with a single refuel). - phenomenal!

[Genghis the Engineer]

12 weapons on wing stations, AND 5 hours endurance on a single fuel load, at the same time - or is it an either/or?

G

(Just curious)

[PT6ER]

OK, cant not ask this although I suspect I may regret it. (Apolgies for the double negative).
Numbnuts question:
Does the pilot in this or any other variable geometry jet eflux equipped machine have discreet control over the vectoring nozzles or is it all "programmed" into the FBW system and results from normal stick and rudder inputs?
I am not an FTP but a "lowly engineer" so please be gentle :ok:

Thanks

[John Farley]

JP

I agree with RG that such very coarse very quick movements are not unusual with FBW. Another factor is that at that relatively low speed (just before touchdown) the two tailplanes are working as tailerons (they provide roll control as well as pitch control) which tends to increase their activity.

BOAC

Mank thanks for your kind words.

JF

[Genghis the Engineer]

PT6ER, it's unlikely that the pilot of a modern FBW jet such as that will have direct control over anything much. The basic principles of FBW are that instead of demanding that something moves on the airframe (a nozzle, aileron, elevator, etc.) they demand a response (pitch up, climb, slow down, etc.) and then the FBW system decides how best to provide it.

There are exceptions - but generally speaking that's how much of such an aircraft is operated, whether civil (e.g. an Airbus) or military (e.g. a Typhoon).

G

[BombayDuck]

Genghis - Two refuels with full load for most of a ten hour flight. One refuel for an air to air load. Sorry for not getting specific before :)

In large exercises, what they do is take off at the base, drop bit of their load at one corner of the country (say the desert of Rajasthan), go to another (Agra), refuel, go to a third (Hyderabad) at a second range, go to the center (Gwalior) and meet the same refueller and then land back at base. With six air to air missiles remaining.

PT6ER - The nozzles have a selector switch on the throttle, and when pressed, the nozzles respond to stick input. The degree is decided by the computer, not the pilot.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Bombayduck, thanks - as I said I was just curious, but that's still quite impressive performance.

G

[Rickford]

I seem to recall that the SU or the Mig (or possibly both) had a large red button which when pressed would restore the ac back to straight & level flight regardless of where the pilot "lost" control . Subject , of course, to there being sufficient altitude

[j_davey]

i just love how he exits from cobra he performs at 01:30 ... graceful is the word i`d use to describe it!

[surfcopter]

My mother told me many year ago that drinking and flying isn´t good.

Incredible video.:ok:

[ABX]

Has anyone got more amazing flying/aircraft videos to post?

I've quite enjoyed this thread:ok:

[Jaguar Pilot]

ABX,

There are some on www.thatvideosite.com (http://www.thatvideosite.com)

JP

[Shaft109]

Does performing these manouvers stress the a/c more than standard flying, that is this short flight probably added more fatigue to the frame than a "normal sortie". Although as a demonstrator it will probably be junked after a few thousand hours anyway.

And how do you stress parts of the a/c that aren't necessarily designed to cope e.g. the radome is meant to point into wind mostly, how does it cope with a 90* aoa (at 300-400kts?) or the sideways motion imposed on it?

It does however look mighty impressive for a big 'un.

[Jimmy Macintosh]

Bizarrely enough alot of those manoeuvres won't cause as much stress as flying fast followed by a roll and pull.

Rate of change of direction will give the G's and the levels of stress produced will be linked to the amount of kinetic energy of the aircraft.

When an aircraft is designed there is normally a large scale computer model built which will run through the manoeuvres of the aircraft generating the loads for each stage of flight and point in the flight envelope. This normally results in excess of 4000 different loadcases. The worst cases for each of the major axes are selected (both linear forces and moments/torsions) then the parts are stressed for those cases. You'll find that there would have been several cases the apply side loads to the radome and that it is fine. The loadcases can sometimes take into account the additional load of a control surface deflection i.e wing bending due to a max rate roll will include the additional forces generated by the aileron moving.

Hope that was clear ... I'm a bit tired and hope I haven't made a technical faux pas.

[Raymond Ginardon]

Rate of change of direction (itself) will not 'give' G - an ac rating at (say) 20 deg/sec could be experiencing (say) 3g or 9g depending on how fast it's going.
At 90 deg AoA the ac is unlikely to be doing 300+ KTS - the speeds involved at these 'bizarre' AoAs are more likely (IMHO/E) to be double figures (or low three figures).

A very impressive machine :-)
Ray

[angelorange]

Just hitting moderate to severe turbulence can load the wing spar more than some of these manoeuvres

[BGRing]

http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=3768
Will be as close as I will ever Get :\

http://www.knifeedge.com/forums/downloads/screenshot1196601287_8et.jpg

John.

Are you talking about FBW or EFCS's? What is the difference ? (I don't know)
I have been told that the SU29 has a auto level System where, if the Pilot becomes disorientated beyond Regain, they hit the switch and the Aircraft will return to Level. what is that ? EFCS or FBW ?

(Not sure on the details of altitude loss for given attitude etc etc. but with the SU 30MK's, I could imagine a EFCSystem where the Aircraft could do a return from Vertical nose down with in 1000feet (Depending on Given IAS at that attitude) : )

[John Farley]

All the airframe structural cases (for whatever manoeuvre) will be cleared as not causing any overstress on the aircraft (or pilot) by setting an upper limit on the particular manoeuvre entry speed.

The aerodynamic (stability and control issues) will have been dealt with by normal flight test iterative procedures.

The technical challenges of such manoeuvres actually centre round the engines. You have to keep them running and you must not overstress them with the gyroscopic forces that arise at high rates of aircraft rotation in pitch and yaw.

Avoiding compressor stall due to intake flow distortion at large angles of attack or sideslip requires two things. To quote former MiG-29 chief designer Michael Waldenberg these are a “good basic engine surge margin” and a “suitable” intake. Sadly, an explanation of what is involved in both these topics needs more than a few words. However there is more to a “suitable” intake than is apparent from a casual external inspection.

The overstressing of engine components in high rate manoeuvres first raised its head back in the 1970s when the USMC got the bit between their teeth on the Blot flop air combat manoeuvre during which a Harrier can be made to pitch at rates exceeding 90deg per sec. This turned out to be very much more than the engine had been designed to accept mechanically and was also way outside the AvP970 design standards for military engines at that time.

[Charles E Taylor]

I suspect this is not what the MIG 29 designers had in mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFypnPK1dPU

Charles