mikoyan

The Colombian Air Force has used the supertucano together with the uh-60 Arpia III http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_AH-60L_Arp%C3%ADa_III in most of their bombing missions agains the top leaders of the terrorist group farc; all of them at night. Here is the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano (look at the combat operations part) article about the supertucano I can attests that this operations did happen and were highly successful; thanks to the usage of this small airplane together with intelligence resources and other aircraft we have almost eliminated most of the leathers of the farc. Here is the video of the last operation on which the air force Killed the top leather of the terrorist group farc "El mono jojoi"

It has performed very good in Colombia used against the terrorist group farc during night operations. As long as they build them here I'll support the idea; I gather that the texan lost because it was not designed as a light attack airplane from its beginning like the suppertucano; Embraer came up with the design after the regular tucano which was a trainer like the texan.

Bad ass instructor!

I think that there are several things wrong with the jet itself: 1-cockpit glass is too narrow preventing pilot from moving freely while wearing nvgs. 2-poorly positioned eos system and operation: they said in the report; the ring is hard to reach when wearing nvgs and suit for low temperatures. The ring was incorrectly installed too. It is also hard to see. 3- they really need to find out what really caused the initial failure. 4- Can't they make that eos an automatic system? Kinda sucks if you have that failure in the middle of an combat at night wearing lots of gear isn't it? to have to grab a small ring down in the cockpit. Yes the pilot may have had channelized attention but they don't say anything about solving the issues with the jet; issues that started the chain of events that lead to the crash. He had to do several task while lacking oxygen supply. Also isn't the stick of the raptor like an f-16 stick? if that is the case; it would be very easy to accidentally put the aircraft in a roll without noticing. That is why I like center sticks better; you have actually move them to make things happen.

What are you talking about dude? watch 3:00

high particle plasma bomb... no just kidding it is a fuel tank

The report gives some hints of the incredible performance of the raptor; 1.6 Mach no burners and a climb to more than 15700m, holly crap! I think that the 1.7 maximal speed is bs; Imagine what is the max celling of that jet! Probably close to foxbat levels!

su-27 crash 1990

Check this out: f-15a Who nows if they did this test with the aircraft loaded? high alpha test (very cool)

now the question is: are pilots trained to fly on all this modes? http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm If not; it would be cynical to blain the pilots alone if they never flew on alternate law before.

What it is astonishing is the good condition of the machine; it looks like it crash landed at a very low decent rate; The engine malfunction makes cense. But loss of control by electronic jamming also makes cense; maybe it lost signal and kept flying until it ran out of fuel and crash landed. I remember that one day I forgot to turn on the switch on the receiver of my rc aircraft; my instructor launched the model and instead of crashing it went away on a circular pattern with an ending point right were we where standing :megalol: the airplane hit a bystander at 45 degrees nose down and was intact after the crash; I though it was going to be total loss.:thumbup: maybe that happened to that giant remote controlled airplane. it went like this: * e stands for: Two stroke .049 russian norvel engine sound, no exhaust, yes; 30% nitro) eeeeeeeee e e e e e e e (far away barely visible) e e e e (noise from the engine starts to increase at a high rate! ) E E E EE EEEEEE (people on the field hit the silk!)WAMG! (uncontrolled kamikaze attack on a bystander)

That is not what the other side says. they even claim an air to air kill by a mig-29.

The "inadequate" is a bit misleading; they were never trained to fly the airplane manually; also, since the airbus are fly be wire; the thing wont let you stall on the first place on normal law; they never experienced a stall because the jet is not supposed to stall. This is why I prefer Boeings; at least it gives you feed back. The joysticks are not synchronized like an old school airplane; so one pilot could be doing one thing while the other a totally different movement, the computer averages both. when the Airbus approaches stall speed the computer accelerates the engines to increase speed; they did just that to come off the stall. The temporary malfunction of the data probe confused the pilots. The darkness played a role too; they didn't have visual clues other than the instruments. They could not see that they were descending so fast; the only indication came from the instruments. They probably got fixated on the instrument malfunction and on trying to get out of the stall like an airbus would do. Confusion played a mayor role. pilot comfortability or dependency to the characteristics of the fly by wire may be also a big factor. "Since this bird doesn't stall I just need more power" instead of reducing pitch and increasing speed; like a regular airplane. It is said that the airplane also flew out of tested envelope; it is not know if the jet was capable of getting out of the stall, if the correct anti-stall procedures would had been carried out; due to high alpha and tail shadowing produced by the wings. In other words Airbus has not put its jets in such a extreme angles of attack to see if the jet can come out of a deep stall. To me it is just too hard to blain the pilots alone from the comfort of my desk; we don't know what they were thinking at that moment what level of stress they were subjected to; if they got fixated instead of thinking through to solve the main problem. The scary thing is that 3 guys were not able to solve one problem! This accident seem to be consequence of human factors an the trigger was the temporary malfunction of the data censors. Check this video to see how an airbus handles: look around 6:00

Why! why! they should sell this thing to collectors or aviation enthusiast instead; why can't the do the same as it has been done with russian jets like mig-15; mig-21s; mig-29 and lastly 2 su-27!

have you guys seen this video?

crazy stuff

To bad that a confrontation is on the horizon.

yeah but it seems that a lot of projects run by lockheed end up delayed and over expensive; when kelly Johnson made the u-2 he said that it would take him one year; and he delivered before one year; I don't see lockheed doing that this days; Yes I know aircrafts are more complex but it looks like there is no control over cost overruns; or delays; no one seems to be held accountable for problems; and worst the government keeps awarding more contracts to the same company.Why they don't keep the navy version for both air force and navy? just remove the folding wing mechanism and hook wouldn't that save them money? and give them a more durable aircraft at the end?

this is an old interesting video; it shows an su-35 doing a tail slide and a cobra loaded with weapons; the roll rate are also impressive! So the flanker is not such a turkey wen loaded with weapons after all.

I think all of them have tvc; if not why the exhaust point downwards with the engine off on the 50-2 and 50-1? maybe they are not being used fo r maneuvering yet; remember what sukhoi did with the su-35 during 2009, no tvc movement at all; a few years latter they enabled them. Changes are radars mounted; looks like it has two lateral radars. Warning sensors and new paneling at the nose. Less data probes at the nose. Chaff and flares dispensers and some square looking panel right next to them.

Check this video... some lock-on video; did ed sell them an advanced lock-on? http://news.cntv.cn/military/20111114/106529.shtml

Is antonov helping build this airplane? most of the fuselage looks like an an-12

Why put hours on the airframe if you can ship it?

Are those strips on the f-15 wings reinforcements? I have a 1/48 scale model of the f-15e and that one doesn't have them; I haven't seen an f-15 on static display here; so I don't know if the American F-15 have those. Quite cool how neat and clean it looks.