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

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

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 :-)

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.

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:

SU 30
 

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.

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

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.

Bit late picking this up, John, but - 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 - - phenomenal!

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)

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

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

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

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.

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

G

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

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

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

Incredible video.:ok:

More?
 

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

I've quite enjoyed this thread:ok: