Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 119

Thread: Cockpit visibility and Sukhoi factories

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    898
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    thats not the angle of the cockpit in flight though.
    not US 2 seater, but compare. especially the position of the backseater.
    HAL - one step ahead of IBM

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,086
    @boom.

    su30Mki's both lh and rh rudder appeared to be turned slightly inwards.
    any one know why?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,548
    Quote Originally Posted by i.e. View Post
    @boom.

    su30Mki's both lh and rh rudder appeared to be turned slightly inwards.
    any one know why?
    Some sort of light braking mechanism maybe ?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Malmesbury UK
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
    Some sort of light braking mechanism maybe ?
    I know that the Su-35S uses differential rudder movement as air brakes - because they have go rid of the dorsal airbrake.

    But I didn't realise the Su-30MKI had it as well.

    Well spotted @boom !!

    Ken
    Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
    Flankers (& others) website at :-
    http://flankers.co.uk/

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
    Some sort of light braking mechanism maybe ?
    wouldn't that give you a quite a bit nose up pitch?
    besides, who knows what the local flow at that particular location.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,481
    Yes, good eye, i.e. (read that out loud )! It would be curious if it was indeed for braking though, the Su-30MKI retains a conventional air brake and the Su-35S rudders are toed *outward* for deceleration. OTOH, there aren't many other options, it can't be for additional pitching moment, as on the F/A-18A/B/C/D, since that makes no sense unless the horizontal tails don't generate enough even when deflected all the way against the stops. This is clearly not the case in the situation pictured (you'd expect it to be an issue only at low speeds anyway, such as during a catapult launch, not in cruise) and with TVC available it makes even less sense.

    Maybe it's supposed to provide a smoother variation in braking force, because the dorsal air brake is already quite powerful even at minimum extension?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    898
    ^^ the last point is probably it. in the above scenario the pilot would need fine adjustments in speed to stay in formation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Flanker_man View Post
    But I didn't realise the Su-30MKI had it as well.

    Well spotted @boom !!

    Ken
    i.e is the spotter.
    HAL - one step ahead of IBM

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
    @hotdog, the rear view from this little birdie isn't exactly awesome is it ?

    uh welcome to last week
    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...2&postcount=49

    and its not a little birdie, its the size of an F-16 but with the weight of an F-15

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by J-20 Hotdog View Post
    uh welcome to last week
    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...2&postcount=49

    and its not a little birdie, its the size of an F-16 but with the weight of an F-15
    The size of a Typhoon and the weight of a Phantom, thats more like it.

    Cheers

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ShangHai
    Posts
    557
    Quote Originally Posted by Flanker_man View Post
    Quite good...... sorry - overuse of hyperbolae.......

    For a rear seater, the forward view of the instructor over the front student is one of the best in its class.

    There - is that better ???

    Ken
    Hehei, there is no that better but there is a hedging for your better on aerodynamics, which is drag considering.
    Your forward view gives a higher drag from canopy and more CoG bias for maneuver. That is also a high price, isn't it?:diablo:
    The truth usually between two extremes, the key is when and where.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,826
    Emil@, the Su-27UB, Su-30 two seaters have quite low drag for a two seater, this due to its exellent aerodynamic layout.

    It might look draggie at first glance, but it is not the case.
    Extra weight is more of an issue here..

    The huge MKI has done suprisingly well against F-16, F-15, EF etc etc.
    This is well recorded in Many DACT exercises.
    When it comes to WVR, Typhoon pilots say the MKI is a 'Wolf in Sheep suite'.



    Edit:
    The two seater Flanker is pretty close to F-15C, judged by this US pilot.

    "The Flanker has a very similar look and feel to the F-15, according to Steve. The wings and fuselage are integrated to increase lift and maneuverability and has full span leading edge slats or “live wing” and trailing edge flaperons. Steve says the “live wing,” which is also featured on the F-16 and F/A-18 (but not on the F-15), moves with changes in angle of attack (AOA). The aircraft is light for its size due to the use of lightweight aluminum and titanium throughout its airframe. It also features a fly-by-wire control system, rails for air-to-air missiles, and limited air-to-ground munitions.

    Unlike the F-15, there are no fuel drop tanks, but the aircraft does have a large internal storage capacity of nearly 21,000 pounds. This gives the aircraft a range of approximately 1,600 miles at high altitude. Steve says, as part of the demilitarization, the radar, targeting computer, weapons hard points, and portions of the gun were removed, thus lowering the weight by 3,000 pounds. The lower weight, along with the cleaner configuration, makes it a “hot rod airplane,” according to Steve.
    "

    http://www.eaa.org/warbirdsbriefing/...01_flanker.asp

    http://www.eaa.org/apps/galleries/ga...spx?ID=280&p=8
    Last edited by haavarla; 22nd October 2011 at 12:33.
    Thanks

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Emil@, the Su-27UB, Su-30 two seaters have quite low drag for a two seater, this due to its exellent aerodynamic layout.

    It might look draggie at first glance, but it is not the case.
    Extra weight is more of an issue here..
    Are you sure?
    From what I know, the stepped canopy adds quite a lot of drag and the Flanker two seaters have a top speed of "only" Mach 2 compared to the single seaters Mach 2.35.
    In the subsonic area it doesn't matter that much probably, but to say the Flanker two seaters are low drag isn't correct.
    The F-15B/D f.e. is also somewhat slower due to the reshaped canopy, but its only a very small penalty since its only a slight change in shape.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    1,997
    the radar, targeting computer, weapons hard points, and portions of the gun were removed, thus lowering the weight by 3,000 pounds. The lower weight, along with the cleaner configuration, makes it a “hot rod airplane,” according to Steve."
    Surely that's a bit of a red herring - don't most versions of the F-15 have a better thrust-to-weight ratio than most versions of the Su-27 family?
    Patrick

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Levsha View Post
    Surely that's a bit of a red herring - don't most versions of the F-15 have a better thrust-to-weight ratio than most versions of the Su-27 family?
    sigh....

    for trimmed flight:

    T=D
    W=L;
    CM = 0;

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    1,997
    Well that's a lot of use - is that in English?
    Patrick

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,826
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle View Post
    Are you sure?
    From what I know, the stepped canopy adds quite a lot of drag and the Flanker two seaters have a top speed of "only" Mach 2 compared to the single seaters Mach 2.35.
    In the subsonic area it doesn't matter that much probably, but to say the Flanker two seaters are low drag isn't correct.
    The F-15B/D f.e. is also somewhat slower due to the reshaped canopy, but its only a very small penalty since its only a slight change in shape.

    Ofcourse an UB has more drag vs singel version, my point was not a whole lot.
    And from some view, the UB looks draggie due to the elevated cockpit, but i tell you, due to the breakup of the air vortices that feeds into the wings(blended wing/body design) And add the High(er) body lift. The Su-27UB Rocks.

    Lets just forget about anything regarding 'Top Speed' here.
    Cause fighters never go there anyway.
    Lets stick in Subsonic as you say.
    Granted, the two aircraft were to do the very same manuveres, The Flanker design has better aerodynamic turn n burn, IMO it loses less energy vs F-15 in lower speed regime.

    But if you where to compair an F-15B vs Su-27UB, i'll take the UB thank you very much.
    Last edited by haavarla; 23rd October 2011 at 19:43.
    Thanks

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Levsha View Post
    Well that's a lot of use - is that in English?
    for trimmed flight:

    Thrust = Drag
    Lift = Weight
    Sum of Pitching moment = 0;

    Lift to Drag is just as important as T/W.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Ofcourse an UB has more drag vs singel version, my point was not a whole lot.
    And from some view, the UB looks draggie due to the elevated cockpit, but i tell you, due to the breakup of the air vortices that feeds into the wings(blended wing/body design) And add the High(er) body lift. The Su-27UB Rocks.

    Lets just forget about anything regarding 'Top Speed' here.
    Cause fighters never go there anyway.
    Lets stick in Subsonic as you say.
    Granted, the two aircraft were to do the very same manuveres, The Flanker design has better aerodynamic turn n burn, IMO it loses less energy vs F-15 in lower speed regime.

    But if you where to compair an F-15B vs Su-27UB, i'll take the UB thank you very much.
    We're not comparing F-15 and Su-27, but the increase in drag caused by the second seat. And here it is very clear that the Su-27 to Su-27UB conversion adds much more compared to most if not any other fighter. The F-15 is just an example where you can see a slight performance decline.
    But its a design choice, they wanted a trainer with good forward view for the guy in the back, thats what they got, but the price is drag.
    And while top speed isn't very important, it nicely illustrates the drag increase

    Now, back to topic...
    ... will there be a J-20 two seater and will it have 360° view?
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,734
    Hopefully not at the expense of anything else, since true 360 view is absolutely useless.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    1,997
    Quote Originally Posted by i.e. View Post
    for trimmed flight:

    Thrust = Drag
    Lift = Weight
    Sum of Pitching moment = 0;

    Lift to Drag is just as important as T/W.
    Thanks for clarifying. I found a good Wikipedia article on this:

    The thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading are the two most important parameters in determining the performance of an aircraft...

    ...In cruising flight, the thrust-to-weight ratio of an aircraft is the inverse of the lift-to-drag ratio because thrust is equal to drag, and weight is equal to lift.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-...io#cite_note-0

    I take it we're talking about the advantages of the 'lifting body' aerodynamic design of the Su-27?
    Patrick

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle View Post
    We're not comparing F-15 and Su-27, but the increase in drag caused by the second seat. And here it is very clear that the Su-27 to Su-27UB conversion adds much more compared to most if not any other fighter. The F-15 is just an example where you can see a slight performance decline.
    But its a design choice, they wanted a trainer with good forward view for the guy in the back, thats what they got, but the price is drag.
    And while top speed isn't very important, it nicely illustrates the drag increase

    Now, back to topic...
    ... will there be a J-20 two seater and will it have 360° view?
    no, there is no reason why they would build a twin seat J-20 unless they have issues building good flight software

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,826
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle View Post
    We're not comparing F-15 and Su-27, but the increase in drag caused by the second seat. And here it is very clear that the Su-27 to Su-27UB conversion adds much more compared to most if not any other fighter. The F-15 is just an example where you can see a slight performance decline.
    But its a design choice, they wanted a trainer with good forward view for the guy in the back, thats what they got, but the price is drag.
    And while top speed isn't very important, it nicely illustrates the drag increase
    Is that so?
    So whats the fuzz about the MKI's performing better vs all teens at RF08
    The MKI is in essence an advanced Su-27UB version.
    But it still have the same elevated cockpit feature, so how can it be so draggie and still perform on par with singel station fighters?
    Thanks

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Is that so?
    So whats the fuzz about the MKI's performing better vs all teens at RF08
    The MKI is in essence an advanced Su-27UB version.
    But it still have the same elevated cockpit feature, so how can it be so draggie and still perform on par with singel station fighters?
    the trouble with arguing one feature will make something "draggier" is that drag behaves different with speed. or I should say L/D behaves differently at mach, and angles of attack.

    something matters very little at low speed while at high mach blows up.
    Last edited by i.e.; 25th October 2011 at 18:14.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    ALBANIA
    Posts
    321

    Cool

    [QUOTE=haavarla;1815230]
    The MKI is in essence an advanced Su-27UB version.
    i would say it is more a two seater su-37.both have canards,tvc engines the same radar no-11m.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by mikoyan1991 View Post
    i would say it is more a two seater su-37.both have canards,tvc engines the same radar no-11m.
    actually...

    Komsomolsk-on-Amur which was responsible for Su-35/37. which builds the 30MKK/M/2.
    Irkutsk was responsible for the 27UB and 30MKI

    so, sure, the statement that MKI is in essence an advance su-27UB version has much more merit to it than first look.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    The MKI is in essence an advanced Su-27UB version. But it still have the same elevated cockpit feature, so how can it be so draggie and still perform on par with singel station fighters?
    What do you mean by 'on par' with single station fighters? Which single station fighters? using what parameters for comparison?

    If you're talking about low speed turning ability, perhaps canards, TVC and powerful engines? If you're talking about BVR capability, perhaps a big bad ass radar? However, that doesn't mean to say all of that doesn't come with a significant drag penalty due to its stepped tandem seating arrangement and canards...swings and roundabouts...the SU-30 series delivered on what was requested: a large twin seat fighter bomber based on a trainer with great forward visibility and significant space for fuel, ordnance and radar...but poor rear visibility, high drag and a large RCS. Take your pic what your priority is.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    ALBANIA
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by i.e. View Post
    actually...

    Komsomolsk-on-Amur which was responsible for Su-35/37. which builds the 30MKK/M/2.
    Irkutsk was responsible for the 27UB and 30MKI

    so, sure, the statement that MKI is in essence an advance su-27UB version has much more merit to it than first look.
    MKI and su-27ub came from the same factory but it has canards,tvc engines and no-11m the same as su-37,while su-27 doesnt have them.KNAAPO and irkut are different campanis but in the same umbrella,SUKHOI CORPORATION

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,299
    Exactly what he was saying ... and since there were some "reservations" on behalf of the Indian side that a Chinese twin-seater would be build side by side at Irkutsk, this contract was transfereed to KNAAPO, which based theit twin-seater (the MKK) on the stronger airframe of the Su-27M/Su-37.
    ...

    But can we go back to the topic !???

    Deino
    ...

    He was my North, my South, my East and West,
    My working week and my Sunday rest,
    My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
    I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

    The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
    Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
    Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
    For nothing now can ever come to any good.
    -------------------------------------------------
    W.H.Auden (1945)

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,734
    Just some tidbits:

    The MKK airframe is not based on the Su-27M, it is very much based on vanilla Su-27UB (not that there is anything wrong with that). Tailtips aside, the airframes are very similar. Su-27M had some differences, anyways that project was never really finished.

    Also, KnAAPO and Sukhoi are very closely aligned, Irkut is if anything a separate competing entity.
    Last edited by TR1; 26th October 2011 at 10:14.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    ALBANIA
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Just some tidbits:

    The MKK airframe is not based on the Su-27M, it is very much based on vanilla Su-27UB (not that there is anything wrong with that). Tailtips aside, the airframes are very similar. Su-27M had some differences, anyways that project was never really finished.

    Also, KnAAPO and Sukhoi are very closely aligned, Irkut is if anything a separate competing entity.
    yeh it is true but sukhoi company has about 14% shares in irkut.watch this
    http://sukhoi.org/eng/company/structure/

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES