Force_Feedback

Last line: Controller: "Come on, pull up at 150 carefully.. Is that a recovery? Line.. Recover! Recover! Where are you going? [Jump!] [Jump!] Eject! Eject!" [] = text that could be heard, but was not on the transscript. Before that all they said to the pilots were some updates on the wind direction and speed (20 deg. 6-7 m/s) And the test pilot on the phone said wind couldn't have been the cause (he's probably right, ~8 m/s isn't that dangerous :P)

The ejection seats are gone, guess they have weight issues!

All those (retired) FSB agents over at Russia Today, really sad to see such intelligence personnel mis-usage. Funny they say 'in case the test fails', while Japan and the US were like: 'We're blowing that mutha out of the sky if you want it or not' The end result is the same, the way they bring it is more subtile.

I've heard that even the 'new' SMT's for the Algerians have corrosion issues, and those were practically new (rebuilt from stored Mig-29s). Was this one of the overhauled Mig-29's?

The Zaslon APS is not harmful for supporting infrantry, and offers top-attack protection.

The R-77 is dead since 2000, Russians are building '5th gen' weapons now, the first of which are public, the Kh-38 series (replaces Kh-25), no doubt they are also testing new A-A missiles as well.

Easy, place it outside the rear pressure bulkhead, add a composite hatch with a gelcoat on the edges. A water detector (some sort of solvable chemical) and pretensioned springs that actuate on water contact, then add a little co2 cylinder, some inflatable skirt, and voila. The Russkie black boxes even look like little buoys, with an iflatable pointy top. The same principe is used with the emergency beacon when a pilot ejects over water. The transmitter inflates and floats. Not hard to do, buy yes, it will add weight, and cost more money. Saving future lifes isn't worth it.

It still surprises me that civillian aircraft don't have: round DFDR/CVRs, they can withstand so much more force for a given weight (the Russkies have such shape), and why the FRD/CVRs don't float up when contacting water in a crash. Even the damn Su-33 has such black box, a military jet where every kg is punished by death (in Russia :P). Oh, yeah, I forgot, $$$$$$ it's not funny, in a rich man's world...

The Pantsir is a close range AD system, not a medium range one like the Buk/HUMRAAM. It's comparable to the Rapier-2000/atads system.

Ooh, look at that, even a crappy light copter has Igla-Vs, and in DCS...

Isn't duct tape like the Force? :D

Gulf war video of an ah-1 taking off in dust, crashing and the crew jetttisons the windows.

I remember the Russians said the Su-34 had a really good FCS, that it even would not allow the pilot to do a CFIT, but then again they might have been journalists 'transmutating' the terrain following capabilities into something more sensational :/ I think the problem with some FBW aircraft is that the soft limits become hard limits, combine that with pilot error and the results are fatal. I remember a HUD video of an F-16 during some Red Flag, and the pilot got disoriented, he tried to recover (in a way like Mr. Strickland), but met his maker. Due to this AoA limited FCS. I'm not paranoid of flying in an Airbus, au contraire, they're quieter and more comfy than Boeings, but this is about military jets, with high G-loads and lots of room for errors. You can become an expert on the F-18 FCS, it's whole architecture is readily available from NASA, and it gives you a headache after a few pages too :P

Old video, brownout.

Still holding on that 49% cost overrun margin? No wonder we have to pay for the mistakes all those greedy people make :thumbdown: Not to mention LM bribing our government for at least the second time. And all those people will start bitching over here about the sound. Better get the Gripen-NG and be over it. It's proven, quiet, 1 engine, is a bomb truck, and has no degraded stealth.

Seem to be the first production batch, judging from the flare dispenser position.

^ bad comparison IMHO, all the F-16 is having is pitch override (no use when pulling up), the Su-30 has this big FCS override button right there on the stick, allowing the aircraft to exceed the max rotation/alpha combination (and stall after the maneuver). Ow hell, just wait for the accident report from the Indians.

And making lightweight composite blades that have 0 strike resistance (ok, not needed, the vibration will kill you anyway, blah, blah, BUT, better set it down with vibration than ending the day in a 10ft hole. So is that Bo-105 sped-up video from the eighties (awesome btw), if it had honeycomb lightweight crap blades it would be doing tricks in a ditch. Chinook blades, eeeek. I know the Mi-26 uses a cellulose filler (paper), so no tree trimming with that one either. Come to think of it, all choppers are death traps.

Surprising how fragile those rotors are when contacting an object. Now I understand that clip where an Apache clipped some trees during a low level training sortie. I know the Mi-8 often clips tree branches and all is needed is some paint.

Sure, and it compensates with the canards... which are (partially) gone.

The K-36 is rated to and above the speed range of the Su-30, especially at 20.000 feet. I suspect the problems to be with the canards, but that's just speculation. It would explain the oscillations as the FCS would try to compensate for the inbalance and may start oscillating the horizontal control surfaces, leading to high G forces and a break up.

No, but installing automatic (button triggered) barrier nets might help save the airframe, and prevent old ladies on watch duty getting a shock.

Ah, now I've read the whole post :P The FADEC of the right engine got a bug, and it was stuck on full afterburner, brakes, chutes and fuel cutoffs did not work as intended.

My favorite movie, because of the music and that sentence Read the links on the Russian forum and it seems there was a problem with the fuel system and the 117S engines did not perform the way they should, speculations that they were stuck open. But... This was a taxi test, and Russian planes don't have arresting hooks, and the runway probably has no barrier (a person described weeds growing at the edge :P), so the thing is wrecked. So.. The testing of the Su-35bm will take some years longer, yaay for Russian efficiency and funding. /sarcasm

Yeah, funny, but my tax-euros are being spent on the F-35, and my government says, as a reason for that purchase: RAND said so. Given all the past corruption hustles with Lockheed, I'm not surprised if some politicians here got some nice accounts on some African banks with lots of tax-free money. Oh, the joy the F-35 would bring with the whiny people over here, where they complain about modern airliners making too much noise, 151 dBa here we go... But seriousely, that think tank is only taken serious by the defence industry as a means to secure orders, then they keep the cost overruns at 48-49%. Smart bastards, but it's about time to realise that it's your money they're spending on limos and nice private jets.