F-35 vs Su-30/35

[go4long]

Can anyone tell me what the reflective material is for on the horizontal stabilizers on the SU-35? Took this picture in August and someone asked about it and I realized I had no idea what that could be for.

[linkomart]

Unpainted Titanium if I'm not misstaken.

Very nice picture, by the way.

regards

[go4long]

Unpainted Titanium if I'm not misstaken.

Very nice picture, by the way.

regards

Thanks...it was on my bucket list to see one and managed to make it work this year. I like that they used one with battle markings on it for the demo, and the falcons used 4 operationally painted SU-35's for their demo.

[mixelflick]

Good to see that USAF focusing on warfighting while the RuAF seems all crazy about performing their airshow manoeuvres.

Pretty much all the PAK-Fa and Su-35 demonstrations are flown by test pilots, squadron aircraft put on a more basic show.

Interesting point. If it's true US F-22 and F-35 demos are done with full fuel/weapons load, it would only be fair to have the Russians do the same. I'm not sure how many Fulcrums or Flankers have been sold after some decision maker sees an airshow display, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's more than a few. Yes, I know that's not the best way to evaluate an aircraft but "the Youtube" effect of the SU-35's airshow displays clearly leaves an impression. Said decision makers aren't immune to this effect.

I just wonder how (or if) that impression would change if it was a "stock" bird with a regular pilot, full fuel and 6AAM's.

[gta4]

F-35 normally takes 18400 lbs fuel at stage show engine start. In terms of A/B duration, that is more than the full fuel load of Su-27/35.

[zero-one]

F-35 normally takes 18400 lbs fuel at stage show engine start. In terms of A/B duration, that is more than the full fuel load of Su-27/35.

The Su-27 carries 20,700 lbs, the Su-35 carries 25,400 lbs at full load. There are many claims that the Flanker carries far less than this at an airshow but I have never seen any official statement that this is the case.

[mixelflick]

F-35 normally takes 18400 lbs fuel at stage show engine start. In terms of A/B duration, that is more than the full fuel load of Su-27/35.

I'm sorry, I don't follow?

What exactly are you trying to say? "In terms of afterburner duration, that is more than the full fuel load of an SU-27/35".. ??

[gta4]

F-35 normally takes 18400 lbs fuel at stage show engine start. In terms of A/B duration, that is more than the full fuel load of Su-27/35.

I'm sorry, I don't follow?

What exactly are you trying to say? "In terms of afterburner duration, that is more than the full fuel load of an SU-27/35".. ??

x = afterburner duration of F135 engine with 18400 lbs fuel (F-35 case)

y = afterburner duration of 2 AL-31F engines with 9400 kg fuel (Su-27 case)

z = afterburner duration of 2 117S engines with 11500kg fuel (Su-35 case)

we have x > y and x > z.

[milosh]

F-35 normally takes 18400 lbs fuel at stage show engine start. In terms of A/B duration, that is more than the full fuel load of Su-27/35.

I'm sorry, I don't follow?

What exactly are you trying to say? "In terms of afterburner duration, that is more than the full fuel load of an SU-27/35".. ??

x = afterburner duration of F135 engine with 18400 lbs fuel (F-35 case)

y = afterburner duration of 2 AL-31F engines with 9400 kg fuel (Su-27 case)

z = afterburner duration of 2 117S engines with 11500kg fuel (Su-35 case)

we have x > y and x > z.

Hm I don't know much about afterburners but I think how much fuel AB spend is still conected with thrust, F-35A with 8.2tons of fuel on max afterburner have 8.88N/kg thrust.

To match that T/W ratio, Su-27SM with 9.4tons of fuel (empty weight ~17tons) would need ~117kN engine thrust. Old AL-31F have 125kN and M1 version is 135kN (which is common engine in Russian SM) so with M1 engine Su-27SM need let we call it medium afterburner to match F-35A max afterburner T/W ratio. And when Su-27SM get AL-41 (Su-30SM already have them) it would need probable low afterburner.

Another question is how long you can use afterburner? For old Su-27 I read somewhere it is allow max 5min (constant AB) but for F-35 (I think B and C) I read some report where it is max 2min but not constant.

Okey Flanker is in big advantage over almost any fighter (expect F-14) because of engine gondolas which are make engine cooling easy but still afterburner duration is also important especially in combat when last thing pilot need it think about that too.

[basher54321]

Another question is how long you can use afterburner? For old Su-27 I read somewhere it is allow max 5min (constant AB) but for F-35 (I think B and C) I read some report where it is max 2min but not constant.

That sounds very unlikely, where did you read that?

[milosh]

Another question is how long you can use afterburner? For old Su-27 I read somewhere it is allow max 5min (constant AB) but for F-35 (I think B and C) I read some report where it is max 2min but not constant.

That sounds very unlikely, where did you read that?

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... h-coating/

For example, an F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed,

The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.

But it isn't clear what problem is, it look like structural damage of tail?

Does same problem F-35A have dont know, and I would love to read how long it can fly on max afterburner but that data I couldn't find.

[Corsair1963]

Another question is how long you can use afterburner? For old Su-27 I read somewhere it is allow max 5min (constant AB) but for F-35 (I think B and C) I read some report where it is max 2min but not constant.

That sounds very unlikely, where did you read that?

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... h-coating/

For example, an F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed,

The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.

But it isn't clear what problem is, it look like structural damage of tail?

Does same problem F-35A have dont know, and I would love to read how long it can fly on max afterburner but that data I couldn't find.

According to the your own source it's really an non-issue.........

[wrightwing]

Another question is how long you can use afterburner? For old Su-27 I read somewhere it is allow max 5min (constant AB) but for F-35 (I think B and C) I read some report where it is max 2min but not constant.

That sounds very unlikely, where did you read that?

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... h-coating/

For example, an F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed,

The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.

But it isn't clear what problem is, it look like structural damage of tail?

Does same problem F-35A have dont know, and I would love to read how long it can fly on max afterburner but that data I couldn't find.

The events occurred in 2011, and have never been reproduced or observed in fleet use. The jets were flying in extreme portions of the flight envelope, which aren't likely to be seen in normal use. The B/C jets have all been modified, to eliminate the deficiency. A models have never seen the issue, nor have they ever had the restrictions.

[Corsair1963]

The events occurred in 2011, and have never been reproduced or observed in fleet use. The jets were flying in extreme portions of the flight envelope, which aren't likely to be seen in normal use. The B/C jets have all been modified, to eliminate the deficiency. A models have never seen the issue, nor have they ever had the restrictions.

Honestly, very disappointed with the reporting by Valerie Insinna/Defense News over this past summer on the F-35. They lost a lot of credibility in my eyes....

[hornetfinn]

F-35 normally takes 18400 lbs fuel at stage show engine start. In terms of A/B duration, that is more than the full fuel load of Su-27/35.

The Su-27 carries 20,700 lbs, the Su-35 carries 25,400 lbs at full load. There are many claims that the Flanker carries far less than this at an airshow but I have never seen any official statement that this is the case.

Probably because Sukhoi itself has stated that 5,250kg is the fuel weight for normal take-off weight for Su-27SK and about the same for Su-30MK versions. Data is under "Flight performance"

http://www.sukhoi.org/products/earlier/251/
http://www.sukhoi.org/products/earlier/253/

AFAIK, Su-27 derivatives have pretty significantly lowered G-limits when loaded with full internal fuel. Basically it has large internal auxiliary fuel tank that is not used for normal flight operations but of course can be used when longer range is required. When there is fuel in that tank, the G limits are something like 5G. Naturally when it runs out, then the normal limits apply. So it's very likely that they take off with that normal fuel weight.