Sukhoi S-37N/Golden Eagle Stealth Fighter

[metro]

Why use FSW and not go to a Delta Wing?

Besides, did the SU-47 "x-plane" ever actually fly or get off the drawing board? The first and third pics are nice models (left to right), but whoever was using photoshop (or whatever), didn't do a great job. I'm just wondering if the aircraft ever made it to real flight testing? The pics posted here, are definitely not of the plane actually flying.:unknown

 

[zetruz]

Why use FSW and not go to a Delta Wing?

Because FSW gives you lots of advantages.

Besides, did the SU-47 "x-plane" ever actually fly or get off the drawing board? The first and third pics are nice models (left to right), but whoever was using photoshop (or whatever), didn't do a great job. I'm just wondering if the aircraft ever made it to real flight testing? The pics posted here, are definitely not of the plane actually flying.:unknown

h##p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyjxqr4O4Ug Proof enough?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why use FSW and not go to a Delta Wing?

because FSW and Delta handle lift differently.

FSW generates different handling capabilities - IMO, a lot of which are now negated by thrust vectored missiles (at the WVR level)

 

[jaffo4011]

Low speed landing is only important for aircraft carrier operations.

By making an aircraft perform well at low speed you handicap the airframe design and restrict its supersonic performance. As 99% of todays combat is beyond visual range and requires speed, an aircraft manufacturer would be crazy to develop an aircraft designed for low speed handling.

The F-22 has a very high landing speed as the wing do not provide much lift at low speeds. If the F-22 didn't have thrust vectoring its low speed handling would be nothing special at all. With thrust vectoring though, the F-22 can match any fighter in a dogfighter in close in combat and while still having the speed to win the long range intercepts.

i would dispute the fact that most combat is beyond bvr(other than the gulf wars)
slow speed wvr is still a very important aspect of air to air combat as vietnam and the falklands conflict amply illustrate.

in many disputes its not always politically acceptable to take out an aircraft at bvr because of the possibility of mistaken identity and the ensuing political ramifications of taking out a civilian or friendly aircraft.as such good manoeverability still comes to the fore when you need to mix it.

if it wasnt then the world would be best served by pure interceptors with massive radars and missiles like the mig 31 and to a lesser extent the tornado f3.

 

[swerve]

i would dispute the fact that most combat is beyond bvr(other than the gulf wars)
slow speed wvr is still a very important aspect of air to air combat as vietnam and the falklands conflict amply illustrate....

Vietnam was between 32 & 45 years ago. Falklands 25 years ago. Times have changed. And even 25 years ago, the Falklands war looked a bit archaic. We were limited in what we could deploy, & the Argentineans were decidedly behind the times.

 

[jaffo4011]

Vietnam was between 32 & 45 years ago. Falklands 25 years ago. Times have changed. And even 25 years ago, the Falklands war looked a bit archaic. We were limited in what we could deploy, & the Argentineans were decidedly behind the times.

and korea was 20yrs before that etc,etc..it the result is generally the same though with each generation beliving that close combat is dead.

agility and guns still count unless you are in a total war scenario where mistakes dont matter quite so much.

 

[johngage]

In the case of the US, you can understand why the emphasis would be on BVR engagement because of Stealth and AWACS. The US also has a wealth of experience of BVR engagements dating from as early as Vietnam, and constantly refined through two Gulf Wars and Kosovo. But if you are talking about two countries who do not possess Stealth, have no or inadequate AWACS, have pilots who are not skilled in BVR, then isn't it possible that most of the fighting will be WVR simply on the basis of inadequate IFF? The example I had in mind was the Ethiopia-Eritrea War (1988-2000), where most of the kills were made WVR. But even in the case of the Israeli-Syrian clash in the Bekaa valley (1982), where Israel had AWACS, most of the kills were done by the AIM-9L/Python 3. Now this was 1982, and technology has moved on since then. But I imagine that for many countries in the world BVR engagement alone will not be possible.

 

[metro]

because FSW and Delta handle lift differently.

FSW generates different handling capabilities - IMO, a lot of which are now negated by thrust vectored missiles (at the WVR level)

For both subsonic and supersonic flight, doesn't a Delta Wing add significantly more stability and agility, than a swept wing fighter... When comparing something like the the "F-16XL" (one of my favorites, I think that plane had a lot of potential) to the average F-16, isn't the XL considerably better in all departments? It's heavier but "allegedly" could supercruise with the same engine I believe. It can carry a lot more fuel, as well as a larger payload. I think I remember reading that the F-16XL which had already used TVC for a while back.

I think everything I've seen about the XL, was that it very good in flight and really could have served the role of the F-15 and F-16? Or, in the earlier days, since the F-15 and F-16 were both being manufactured for two different purposes, the F-15 an F-16 could have been built with some more convergence in mind for down the road. Which is pretty much what the F-16XL was supposed to be... a deep strike multi-role fighter. This wouldn't have ended the F-15s life, as the F-15 could have gained a lot more by having had given it more of an multi-purpose role as well (like we're now trying to do). The F-22 would have still been built and the F-35 (who knows what will happen with that), but there would have been a true bridge to the F-35.

An XL could've kept, the F-16 line open a lot longer, especially with all of the airframes out there. A combo between the F-15 and F-16 (like an F-16XL with twin engines) could have been very attractive to all those who have/had F-15/16s, as it would have most likely been right up there with the nicest aircraft today (the F-22 aside) and probably could have been sold at a good PP. Well, it doesn't matter much now.


-Regardless, check out this compilation of awesome aircraft, such as: the F-16XL, F-15A, X-29 SWF(a favorite GI-Joe plane from way back in the day), X-31 and a few others. Many people have mentioned several of these in the clip as being among their favorites (they can do some crazy stuff).

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

-I'm just interested in hearing from pilots here (or any others) what you think of these pilots flying commercial aircraft. Is what they're doing, trying to land and/or test planes under pretty crazy circumstances, as difficult as it looks? Is it very difficult to go from Fighters to some of the largest civil aviation aircraft?
I have a lot of respect for AF pilots for everything they, as well as civil aviation pilots (I know many come out of the AFs) who when you see these conditions, you realize that many of them are responsible for 200+ people.

Last question, what's the maximum angle that large civil aviation planes can land at (i.e. the angle off center the aircraft can be facing when landing--not so much the landing gear)??

Just be ready to hit mute on this one... not my kind of music anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOGB2PMQUCM&mode=related&search=

 

[gf0012-aust]

Regardless, check out this compilation of awesome aircraft, such as: the F-16XL, F-15A, X-29 SWF(a favorite GI-Joe plane from way back in the day), X-31 and a few others. Many people have mentioned several of these in the clip as being among their favorites (they can do some crazy stuff).

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

Just to make you jealous - I've seen the X-29.

 

[metro]

Just to make you jealous - I've seen the X-29.

In fight, in person?
Wow, I am jealous, and you're one lucky person

Hopefully my parents kept/boxed my "toys" from when I was a little kid. The closest I got was the X-29 GI-Joe model as well as everything else they made like 25 years ago. I still can't believe the 7&1/2 ft. Carrier. I wonder if I could get money on ebay?

Regardless, you are lucky

 

[zetruz]

For both subsonic and supersonic flight, doesn't a Delta Wing add significantly more stability and agility, than a swept wing fighter...

Only stability I think, not agility.

 

[metro]

Only stability I think, not agility.

Yeah, I'm not sure of the exact lingo for Aircraft... maybe I was watching NBA Classic when writing this? The following is from www.Globalsecurity.org though (a couple paragraphs from a long article), and is what I read about the plane.


-A radical redesign of the F-16A, the XL was a supersonic cruise demonstrator with a cranked arrow delta wing optimised for that flight regime. The aircraft was a major technical success, with two demonstrators eventually flying. The highly swept inboard wing section of this aircraft produced substantial vortex lift at supersonic speeds, while also improving instantaneous turn rate and extending the 9G manoeuvre envelope well above Mach 1. An additional benefit of the new configuration was a substantial increase in internal fuel capacity, providing a 120% improvement in combat radius performance.

Extensive tests for SCAMP took place in Langley facilities, including the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel, the 7- by 10-Foot High-Speed Tunnel, the 16-Foot Transonic Dynamics Tunnel, the Full-Scale Tunnel, the DMS, the Spin Tunnel, and a helicopter drop model. During these tests, a team led by researcher Joseph L. Johnson, Jr. identified low-speed stability and control issues that required modifying the wing apex with a rounded planform. Research on the SCAMP configuration by Langley researchers identified numerous advanced concepts for improved performance, including the application of vortex flaps on the highly swept leading edge for improved low-speed and transonic performance, automatic spin prevention concepts, and optimized wings for supersonic cruise. The final configuration became known as the F-16XL (later designated the F-16E), which displayed an excellent combination of reduced supersonic wave drag, utilization of vortex lift for transonic and low-speed maneuvers, low structural weight, and good transonic performance. The F-16XL flutter envelope was cleared in the 16-Foot Transonic Dynamics Tunnel by Charles L. Ruhlin without significant problems.


-BTW, I forgot to thank you for the the link/proof for the su-47.
It's obviously flying!

I still think the pics are photoshoped though... without using any programs to enhance the pics--if i remember the order of the pics correctly--just slide the 1st pic (model) on the left all the way to the last pic on the right. The plane lines-up perfectly, but has a "scene" behind it.

 

[Incognito129]

FSW is a much cheaper alternative to thrust vectoring. Maintenance is enormous for TVC engines.

 

[qwerty223]

because FSW and Delta handle lift differently.

FSW generates different handling capabilities - IMO, a lot of which are now negated by thrust vectored missiles (at the WVR level)

FSW actually has a few interesting advantages in supersonic flight in comparision to BSW, and thats the reason it worth for engineers to go further in.

Thrust vector offers a different manner of aerodynamic features. Does not directly replace SW tech. And you can see S-37 was built with both tech.

 

[illithid00]

I noticed that there's been several statements which seem to imply that close aerial combat is dead, and future aerial combat will take place at BVR ranges. In response to that, I have one question: If close aerial combat is over, why do 90%+ of modern fighters today still have a gun?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I noticed that there's been several statements which seem to imply that close aerial combat is dead, and future aerial combat will take place at BVR ranges. In response to that, I have one question: If close aerial combat is over, why do 90%+ of modern fighters today still have a gun?

I have no objection to the topic you want to discuss, but it needs to be in its own thread rather than pollute an existing one.

Please start a new thread in light of the above. Once you do that I will delete your old post and re-open this thread so that we don't get it jumped all over and distracted .....

 

[gf0012-aust]

FSW actually has a few interesting advantages in supersonic flight in comparision to BSW, and thats the reason it worth for engineers to go further in.

Thrust vector offers a different manner of aerodynamic features. Does not directly replace SW tech. And you can see S-37 was built with both tech.

I agree there are advantages, but the advantages that were and still are often touted as flight dynamics changes (esp in combat) are far less numerous.

Even the senior test pilot of Sukhoi made it clear that the FSW concept was not competitive across the flight spectrum. One of the technologies which closed off that technology advantage was air to air (and even surface to air by extrapolation) TVC equipped missiles.

When you factor in dual and tri-seeker systems (and there is talk of the US trialling quad seekers) + TVC, the NEZ gets a little sphincter muscle afflicting...