Sukhoi Su-37 Terminator

mr.sukhoi

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
The Su-37 multirole, all-weather fighter aircraft demonstrator is derived from the family of aircraft based on the Su-27, which was developed in 1977 by the Sukhoi Experimental Design Bureau in Moscow and is in service with the Russian Air Force and a number of other countries. This family also includes the Su-27UB, Su-30, Su-33, Su-32FN and Su-35, and has the Nato codename Flanker. The Russian Air Force is currently operating two Su-37 aircraft.
The new feature of the super-manoeuvrable Su-37 fighter is the two-dimensional thrust vector control engines, which allow the aircraft to recover from spins and stalls at almost any altitude, while it is also equipped with full digital fly-by-wire controls.
The first flight of the Su-37 prototype was in April 1996, with a public appearance at the Mosaero show. This was followed by a demonstration flight at the Farnborough 1996 Airshow.
The aircraft demonstrated new manoeuvres, such as the ability to point the nose away from direction of flight for sustained periods, rotating the nose through 360° and recovering from tail slide by rolling into an entirely different plane. State funding for the aircraft was withdrawn for a time, but it was restored in 1999 and Su-37 is undergoing flight testing.
The cockpit is fitted with four liquid crystal displays for tactical and navigation data, onboard system monitors, and operating conditions control panel. The pilot has a side short-travel control stick instead of a central stick, an avionics control handle and strain-gauging (pressure-to-throttle) engine thrust controls. Avionics for the aircraft were produced by Kronstadt, St Petersburg.
The Su-37 can carry up to 14 air-to-air missiles and up to 8000kg of ordnance. The twelve external hardpoints can carry air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, bombs, rockets and an ECM (electronic countermeasures) pod. The aircraft is fitted with one GSh-301 30mm gun with a maximum rate of fire of 1,500 rounds a minute.

The aircraft can be equipped with Vympel R-73E short-range air-to-air missiles with infrared terminal homing and RVV-AE long-range air-to-air missiles with active radar guidance. R-73E (Nato codename AA-11 Archer) is an all-aspect, close-combat missile capable of engaging targets in tail-chase or head-on mode at altitudes between 0.02km and 20km, and target g-load to 12g. The Vympel RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder) air-to-air missile, also known as the RR-77, can intercept targets at speeds up to 3,600kph and altitudes from 0.02 to 25km.

The Su-37 can be fitted with air-to-surface missiles such as the Kh-25 (AS-12 Kegler) short-range missile and Kh-29 (AS-14 Kedge) with a 317kg penetrating warhead.
The aircraft is fitted with a multifunction, forward-looking, NO-11M pulse Doppler phased array radar, which can track up to 15 targets simultaneously and provide target designation and guidance to air-to-air missiles. NO-11M is manufactured by NIIP, the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design.
There is also a rear-looking NIIP NO-12 radar and optronic fire-control and surveillance system.

There are also systems for terrain-following and terrain-avoidance, mapping and multichannel employment of guided weapons.
The Su-37 is powered by two AL-31FU TVC (thrust vector control) turbofan engines. This engine was developed by the Lyulka Engine Design Bureau (NPO Saturn) and is a derivative of the AL-31F twin-shaft turbofan engine on the Su-27. The modular design includes a four-stage, low-pressure (LP) compressor; a nine-stage, high-pressure (HP) compressor; annular combustion chamber and single-stage LP and HP turbines, afterburner and mixer. Each engine provides 83.36kN thrust and 142kN with the afterburner and is steerable from -15° to +15° along the vertical plane.

The thrust vector control is fully integrated into the digital flight control system. The TVC nozzle can be deflected both synchronously and differentially, depending on manoeuvre. The nozzle is connected to the annular swivel and can be moved in the pitch plane by two pairs of hydraulic jacks. The thrust vector control allows manoeuvres at speeds nearing zero without angle-of-attack limitations. The vectoring controls can be operated manually by the pilot or automatically by the flight control system.
The Su-37 all-weather multirole fighter aircraft can fly at a maximum speed of 2,440km/h. The range and service ceiling of the aircraft are 3,700km and 18,000m respectively and the aircraft weighs around 18,500kg.

take from http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su37/

The Su-37 711 is crash in 19 december 2002 during a routine test flight near Zhukovskiy.
 

Attachments

  • Su-37 13.jpg
    Su-37 13.jpg
    81.1 KB · Views: 215
  • Famous Russian Aircraft - Sukhoi Su-27 (Malestrom).JPG
    Famous Russian Aircraft - Sukhoi Su-27 (Malestrom).JPG
    60.9 KB · Views: 185
  • Su-37 17 serial 711.JPG
    Su-37 17 serial 711.JPG
    147.3 KB · Views: 186
  • Su-37 21.JPG
    Su-37 21.JPG
    79.8 KB · Views: 178

lancer21

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
301
Reaction score
35
The Russian Air Force is currently operating two Su-37 aircraft.

TWO Su-37s? I think there was only one , the famous 711...still , most of the innovations from this demonstrator found their way into the Su-30MKI...TVC , Bars radar, etc ...
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,610
Reaction score
211
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
There probably still IS one. The famous 711 was in 2000 modified back to the Su-35 standard and crashed two years later. But some sources named as Su-37 also the last Su-35 (T-10M-12), but there is very little information about it, because as far as I know it was never displayed publicly. It was the testbed for the AL-31FP engines, improved N011M radar and some cockpit stuff.
 

mr.sukhoi

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
here some photos of Su-37
 

Attachments

  • F-16 & Su-37.jpg
    F-16 & Su-37.jpg
    56.8 KB · Views: 144
  • Su-37 35.jpg
    Su-37 35.jpg
    77.5 KB · Views: 91
  • Su-37 32.jpg
    Su-37 32.jpg
    91.5 KB · Views: 95
  • Su-37 28.JPG
    Su-37 28.JPG
    321.4 KB · Views: 85
  • Su-37 15.jpg
    Su-37 15.jpg
    29.2 KB · Views: 139

mr.sukhoi

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
here is cockpit of Su-35/37 712
 

Attachments

  • Su-35 serial 712 02.jpg
    Su-35 serial 712 02.jpg
    182.3 KB · Views: 110

mr.sukhoi

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
this is this aircraft today..
su-35/37 712 is delivered to Russian Knights
 

Attachments

  • Su-35 serial 712 05.jpg
    Su-35 serial 712 05.jpg
    374.3 KB · Views: 100

Scorpion82

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
43
Reaction score
3
The Su-37 was a single piece technology demonstrator. The T-10M-12 was a Su-27M/35 which was used for N-011M Bars testing. I think that most people refer to it as Su-37 as it was built after the famous Su-37 "711", which was in fact converted into the Su-37 afterwards. The designation Su-37 was dropped following another modification phase in 2000. Just one additional correction the AL-31FU engine used on the Su-37 demonstrated didn't offer the 8500 kg dry/14500 kg reheat thrust rating. This was the proposed thrust for the AL-37FU which never made it beyond paper state.
 

mr.sukhoi

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Su-37 photos
 

Attachments

  • Su-37 19.JPG
    Su-37 19.JPG
    273.6 KB · Views: 82
  • Su-37 51.jpg
    Su-37 51.jpg
    78.5 KB · Views: 81
  • Su-37 91.jpg
    Su-37 91.jpg
    736.3 KB · Views: 126

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
104
Reaction score
176
After it’s thrust vectoring engines were removed the Su-37 was given an updated Flight control system that included something called a differential impulse (you want to turn left your thrust in your left engine decreases and right increased). It was able to keep most of it impressive acrobatic ability. I’ve heard of a similar system being used by commercial aircraft in air emergencies were flight control systems are damaged though I don’t recall the name. The changes were made in October of 2000 here is a video of the Su-37 in South Korea in 2001.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEKIfulyac
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
84
Reaction score
124
After it’s thrust vectoring engines were removed the Su-37 was given an updated Flight control system that included something called a differential impulse (you want to turn left your thrust in your left engine decreases and right increased). It was able to keep most of it impressive acrobatic ability. I’ve heard of a similar system being used by commercial aircraft in air emergencies were flight control systems are damaged though I don’t recall the name. The changes were made in October of 2000 here is a video of the Su-37 in South Korea in 2001.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEKIfulyac
The current MiG-35 uses the same system, it uses lower fences on the LEX to control flow and assymetric thrust, and air brake to simmulate thrust vectoring too


You can see it when is going to refuel, see how it points its nose
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnRgLdKPkLc
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,815
Reaction score
2,856
I remember seeing the Russian display team doing the Pugachev Cobra manoeuvre at a Biggin Hill show in the 90s. It was a glorious Summer day and I even treated myself to a plastic desk model of the plane. Somewhere I also have a 1/100 plastic model of the original version Su27 in a perspex bubble.
Despite my comments in the US fighter thread the Sukois are easily the best looking modern fighter in service.
 

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
145
Reaction score
173
After it’s thrust vectoring engines were removed the Su-37 was given an updated Flight control system that included something called a differential impulse (you want to turn left your thrust in your left engine decreases and right increased). It was able to keep most of it impressive acrobatic ability. I’ve heard of a similar system being used by commercial aircraft in air emergencies were flight control systems are damaged though I don’t recall the name. The changes were made in October of 2000 here is a video of the Su-37 in South Korea in 2001.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEKIfulyac
The current MiG-35 uses the same system, it uses lower fences on the LEX to control flow and assymetric thrust, and air brake to simmulate thrust vectoring too


You can see it when is going to refuel, see how it points its nose
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnRgLdKPkLc

Those small flaps attached on the LERX are called Kruger lifting devices if i am not mistaken.
You could say they control the airflow. But they have a more accurat purpose; Improve lift upon Landing.

They are an extension of the Mig-29K program, which the Mig-35 also have the same enlargen Ailrons and Flaps. As do the Mig-35 family come slightly larger airfoils and LE-flaps.
The Elevators are also slightly larger vs the older Legacy Mig-29 9.12 design.

But all this improved lift is an evolution, and a necessity due to increased weight.
 
Last edited:

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
84
Reaction score
124
After it’s thrust vectoring engines were removed the Su-37 was given an updated Flight control system that included something called a differential impulse (you want to turn left your thrust in your left engine decreases and right increased). It was able to keep most of it impressive acrobatic ability. I’ve heard of a similar system being used by commercial aircraft in air emergencies were flight control systems are damaged though I don’t recall the name. The changes were made in October of 2000 here is a video of the Su-37 in South Korea in 2001.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEKIfulyac
The current MiG-35 uses the same system, it uses lower fences on the LEX to control flow and assymetric thrust, and air brake to simmulate thrust vectoring too


You can see it when is going to refuel, see how it points its nose
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnRgLdKPkLc

Those small flaps attached on the LERX are called Kruger lifting devices if i am not mistaken.
You could say they control the airflow. But they have a more accurat purpose; Improve lift upon Landing.

They are an extension of the Mig-29K program, which the Mig-35 also have the same enlargen Ailrons and Flaps. As do the Mig-35 famely come slightly larger airfoils and LE-flaps.
The Elevators are also slightly larger vs the older Legacy Mig-29 9.12 design.

But all this improved lift is an evolution, and a necessity due to increased weight.
the small fences under the lex have the same function as the Su-57 wing weapons bays, Russia always builds impressive aircraft
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
84
Reaction score
124
1615285788542.png

The weapons bay on the Su-57 on the LEX of the aircraft basically act like winglets or more properly dropped wingtips, the patent calls them dogtooth

1615286083948.png

They act like the dropped wing tip on MiG-35, controlling the flow bellow the LEX, a really impressive solution and innovative way to control flow on the LEVCON on Su-57 and LEX on MiG-35, i think they surpassed the aerodynamics of Su-37

1615286326277.png
 

TR1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
144
Reaction score
528
Interesting take Mirage4000, thanks.

TBH when I saw the MiG-35 video first I was surprised at the difficulty the plane was having staying stable due to (what I thought) was disturbed airflow from the camera plane.
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
84
Reaction score
124
Interesting take Mirage4000, thanks.

TBH when I saw the MiG-35 video first I was surprised at the difficulty the plane was having staying stable due to (what I thought) was disturbed airflow from the camera plane.
The original video of MiG-35 they mention the use of the engines to replace thrust vectoring

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVVJdBj6-28


watch from 18 to 22 minute basicaly they say they can do things TVC nozzles do without them, the pilot says small adjustments allows the aircraft to point the nose to the left or right mantaining the flight direction straight so it can get close to the An-72, the air brake is used to keep lower speed and control the aircraft.

I think Su-35 is more impressive with TVC nozzles but the MiG-35 can simmulate TVC nozzles at lower costs.



The patent describes in more depth the operation and role of all aerodynamic surfaces. The fuselage is described as having ‘dogtooth extensions’ which are similar in shape and role with the leading root extensions (LERX) of many modern jet fighters and popular with Sukhoi



The MiG-35 and and Su-57 have something in common the weapons bays under the LEX on Su-57 and the dropped plates on the MiG-35 LEX work the same
 
Last edited:

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
145
Reaction score
173
Upon looking at that video. I'm not sure here, but i think this is connected with the FSC, when the airspeed drop below a certain treshold, then it drops the large flaps, airbrake and the Kruger lifting devices(to increase lift). If this happen automatically or on the pilots command i don't know.

Agree TR1. It has slightly difficulties following the An at that low airspeed.
 

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
104
Reaction score
176
So on the topic of the Mythical second Su-37, the truth is it’s kinda true but not exactly. The term Su-37 and Su-35 were never used by the Russian Air Force in an official capacity, it was always Su-27m. For Export Sukhoi called it the Su-35 (Yefim Gordon called this the “root of all evil” with the flanker families designations) the Su-27m and Su-35 refer to the same aircraft Sukhoi wanted to sell to the Russian Air Force. Fast forward the UAE is in the market for a new fighter (The Mirage 2000-9 would eventually win). The UAE had always used French kit and wanted the cockpit and as many of the systems as possible to be French (go figure). That picture of the Cockpit reflects the Su-37 for the UAE tender, the hud is from one of the Mirage 2000s and Sexton made the MFD, replacing the Russian CRT ones. The analog flight control system was replaced with a digital one with a HOTAS based on the Su-27 Ace. The planter array had already been replaced with the Phased array Bars. Thinking this was an Evolution over the Su-35 Sukhoi called it the Su-37mr (it’s unclear if MR meant Multi role or if it was a phantom designation). Importantly the term Su-37 predates TVC on the aircraft. After losing the bid Bort 711 became a test bed aircraft with TVC and then an advanced flight and engine control system. As time went on more and more French equipment was replaced with domestic Russian gear.
You can see the configuration as it was as a TVC test bed and then as an advanced engine control test bed, it’s notably similar to bort 712. And that’s kinda it, 712 never had TVC but it had a digital flight control system with HOTAS, glass cockpit, and N011M radar just like it’s more famous sibling, it was never called an Su-37, but it was as much of one as 711 was when it first got the name.


btw these export tenders seem like a great way to get info on obscure aircraft if you know how to navigate their archives, if anyone has ever given it a shot.
 

Attachments

  • 1C458503-061F-4B11-AA91-F5EF2172E50B.jpeg
    1C458503-061F-4B11-AA91-F5EF2172E50B.jpeg
    1.8 MB · Views: 58
  • F2AD402A-20EC-462B-A8C4-542BDC28BC7B.jpeg
    F2AD402A-20EC-462B-A8C4-542BDC28BC7B.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 54

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
104
Reaction score
176
Why did the Russians abandon the side stick?
That’s a great question, the sole reference I saw stated for commonality, if you have a large fleet of Su-27S Su-27sm and Su-35, pilots preferred them to be similar. It was in one of my flanker books I’ll have to hunt it down.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
941
Reaction score
1,631
Why did the Russians abandon the side stick?
oh good point. was wondering about that too

in terms of purely aesthetics.. I do prefer the look of the KNAAPO Su-35/37s
with their square tipped fins, single seat, and tri-canard layout. The best looking of all the Flankers.
there was also the forgotten KNAAPO Su-35UB too
su35.jpg

su_37.jpg
 

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
104
Reaction score
176
Why did the Russians abandon the side stick?
oh good point. was wondering about that too

in terms of purely aesthetics.. I do prefer the look of the KNAAPO Su-35/37s
with their square tipped fins, single seat, and tri-canard layout. The best looking of all the Flankers.
there was also the forgotten KNAAPO Su-35UB too
su35.jpg

su_37.jpg
I was have a conversation about the Su-35UB just today actually. I think the Su-30MKK is the closest living relative to the Su-27m line with its structural upgrades and vertical fins.

Some Tsagi wind tunnel models and sub scale flight test remote controlled aircraft, SLMT-10m. I wonder if you can search Tsagi’s archives for aerodynamic and flight test information like NASA. My gut says no.


D5B561B1-90D9-465B-96CE-9FE0497C62AE.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 592DA850-FCB8-4069-B536-2FA9E17F5B6B.jpeg
    592DA850-FCB8-4069-B536-2FA9E17F5B6B.jpeg
    1.9 MB · Views: 43
  • D8F97350-BDB9-43C5-87D5-4DA65E0260AF.jpeg
    D8F97350-BDB9-43C5-87D5-4DA65E0260AF.jpeg
    2.3 MB · Views: 36
  • 8B376CB3-6C24-4025-BF28-01D76A0771E6.jpeg
    8B376CB3-6C24-4025-BF28-01D76A0771E6.jpeg
    2 MB · Views: 39
  • 788F02A0-398A-40EF-BC77-54519885C79F.jpeg
    788F02A0-398A-40EF-BC77-54519885C79F.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 42

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
84
Reaction score
124
Why did the Russians abandon the side stick?
oh good point. was wondering about that too

in terms of purely aesthetics.. I do prefer the look of the KNAAPO Su-35/37s
with their square tipped fins, single seat, and tri-canard layout. The best looking of all the Flankers.
there was also the forgotten KNAAPO Su-35UB too
no doubt one of the best looking Flankers, in reality i like them all, but if I am absolutly honest my favorite one is the Su-35MS

1615557319854.png

I find the Su-37 too excesive in terms of aerodynamic surfaces

If i really like one Flanker prototype is the KUB
1615557491077.png

compared to Su-37. its twin seat side by side arrangement reminds me F-111, and its ogival radome makes it look more fighter like than Su-34, its bigger wing and tailplanes make it look more powerful, definitively these are my two favorite Flankers, but still the regular Su-27 is my third favorite.

Among the camuflage the green radome is my favorite one
1615557899871.png
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
941
Reaction score
1,631
Why did the Russians abandon the side stick?
oh good point. was wondering about that too

in terms of purely aesthetics.. I do prefer the look of the KNAAPO Su-35/37s
with their square tipped fins, single seat, and tri-canard layout. The best looking of all the Flankers.
there was also the forgotten KNAAPO Su-35UB too
I was have a conversation about the Su-35UB just today actually. I think the Su-30MKK is the closest living relative to the Su-27m line with its structural upgrades and vertical fins.

Some Tsagi wind tunnel models and sub scale flight test remote controlled aircraft, SLMT-10m. I wonder if you can search Tsagi’s archives for aerodynamic and flight test information like NASA. My gut says no.

Would you say KNAAPO's MKK were structually built better than IAPO's MKI/MKAs?

on a related note, why do some aircraft have clipped tails and others straight ones?
I remember in the old days people would say the straight tails (like on MKK and the old 35/37) had more fuel. but it seems KNAAPO went back to the clipped one for the new 35s

Screen Shot 2021-03-16 at 13.20.19.png
 

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
104
Reaction score
176
The MKKs are structurally similar very similar to the SU-27m, you can say it’s the Su-27m’s closest living relative, lots of composites and titanium. The MKI/MKM/MKA etc are as far as I know all growths of the Su-30 which is a specialized Su-27ub. They don’t have major changes and are the same material. I can’t say anything about actual quality control between the two plants. The Su-35ub was an attempt to give all the bells and whistles of the MKI to the MKK for China, Brazil, and South Korea.

That’s a good question about the new flanker, I’m not really all that knowledgeable about the new guy to be honest. I do know it has the most internal changes of any flanker so I assume they found room someplace else for the fuel.
 

AGS-1787

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
79
Reaction score
93
I think they said the longer horizontal tails had fuel in them. Didn't the su-37/35 crash because one broke? There is a video of a su-30mk at an airshow and it shows how much those tails move while doing tvc moves, I wonder if the Russians had the same issue the hornets had with the horizontal tails.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
941
Reaction score
1,631
I think they said the longer horizontal tails had fuel in them. Didn't the su-37/35 crash because one broke? There is a video of a su-30mk at an airshow and it shows how much those tails move while doing tvc moves, I wonder if the Russians had the same issue the hornets had with the horizontal tails.
not 100% sure
but I believe none of the old Su-35/37 crashed. Also none of the tall tail Su-35s or Su-30MKKs have TVC, only the Su-37 does, which I believe is basicallly the old Su-35 with tvc engines

However
There was a crash of a prototype of the new Su-35(S?). #904, which had issues with taxing. The new 35S has TVC
 

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
104
Reaction score
176
I think they said the longer horizontal tails had fuel in them. Didn't the su-37/35 crash because one broke? There is a video of a su-30mk at an airshow and it shows how much those tails move while doing tvc moves, I wonder if the Russians had the same issue the hornets had with the horizontal tails.
not 100% sure
but I believe none of the old Su-35/37 crashed. Also none of the tall tail Su-35s or Su-30MKKs have TVC, only the Su-37 does, which I believe is basicallly the old Su-35 with tvc engines

However
There was a crash of a prototype of the new Su-35(S?). #904, which had issues with taxing. The new 35S has TVC
Su-37 bort 711 crashed in 2002. It did lose its vertical stabilizer, however that was from years of flying the aircraft as a super maneuverability test platform it wasn’t designed for. The F-15 active for example had a drastically strengthened airframe from the MTD program that made ideal as a TVC test platform, F-16 Vista was also extensively modified. The new Su-35 was heavily redesigned internally to carry a heavy payload making it stronger. Interestingly the MKI is as far as I know mostly a fully loaded SU-30, I assume they must have made some steps to deal with the stressed.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
941
Reaction score
1,631
^ thanks for the clarification!
on the subject of TVC and the transition from 35 -> 37 -> 35S..

the 37 had a ton of methods to achieve agility. a variety of moving surfaces plus TVC

35S got rid of some of the moving surfaces (the canards) and said the TVC was enough
I think in some other cases, like China, they opted for more surfaces (J-20) over TVC.

I'm wondering which is actually (overall) less complex (or cheaper to maintain in the long term) if one had to choose between more control surfaces or TVC
 

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
104
Reaction score
176
^ thanks for the clarification!
on the subject of TVC and the transition from 35 -> 37 -> 35S..

the 37 had a ton of methods to achieve agility. a variety of moving surfaces plus TVC

35S got rid of some of the moving surfaces (the canards) and said the TVC was enough
I think in some other cases, like China, they opted for more surfaces (J-20) over TVC.

I'm wondering which is actually (overall) less complex (or cheaper to maintain in the long term) if one had to choose between more control surfaces or TVC
This is a great question and unfortunately I can only give the less the stellar answer it depends. For the most part, extra control surfaces like canards are typically cheaper and easier, the Eurocanards have them with really no issue. Oh the other hand in the case of the Su-27m they were added to deal with the weight change from the heavy Bars radar that made the flanker stable in flight. This gave the Su-27m a crazy pitch rate, it could do 120 AoA in under two seconds and if you ever see video of it in action I think it’s truly spectacular.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0MvPW6xXtAo


Unfortunately at these high alpha maneuvers the Su-27m wasn’t controllable thus leading to the use of TVC and that differential thrust. With TVC the canards became redundant because tvc did it better. so it made sense to eliminate them, I don’t know if idris is lighter the Bars either.

the eurofighter interestingly went in the opposite direction, they developed tvc nozzles for the Ej200 that would improve supersonic maneuverability but apparently no one thought it was worth it because the canards all ready did that, inspite of the fact they only weighed 88 lbs each and unlike the flankers were true 3d (think Vista, Active, and Mig-29OVT).

The F-22 on the other hand would not stand To gain from a moving control surface on its face so tvc was used. Northrop on the other hand used a massive V Tail larger then an F-5s wings.

so the point is what do you need your aircraft to do will determine the answer to that question.
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
84
Reaction score
124
I think they said the longer horizontal tails had fuel in them. Didn't the su-37/35 crash because one broke? There is a video of a su-30mk at an airshow and it shows how much those tails move while doing tvc moves, I wonder if the Russians had the same issue the hornets had with the horizontal tails.
not 100% sure
but I believe none of the old Su-35/37 crashed. Also none of the tall tail Su-35s or Su-30MKKs have TVC, only the Su-37 does, which I believe is basicallly the old Su-35 with tvc engines

However
There was a crash of a prototype of the new Su-35(S?). #904, which had issues with taxing. The new 35S has TVC
I think they lost a Su-35S, but not sure it was reported the Chinese lost one.

basically Su-27 has evolved and will continue evolving due to technological break throughs.

T-10-24 was basically the original aircraft where we can say Su-27M and Su-33 were developed

1615959345180.png


T-10K7 basically was the basic model where Sukhoi developed all the future advanced versions

1615959531060.png

If I am honest the canards are only good for Su-34 due to is heavier nose head radome structure, but Su-35S deleted them due to TVC nozzles and newer construction technologies and flight controls.

I mean in terms of structure I think Su-30MS and Su-33 are interim types, as fighter the Su-35S represents the zenith of Flanker and as a striker Su-34 developed the canard LEX wing configuration into the best solution.

Su-30MS in my opinion only kept the canards because of the heavier nose and higher drag canopy..
1615960493198.png

In my opinion Su-34 and Su-35S are in my opinion the best paths from the original evolution of the flanker family one kept the canards due to a heavy head with side by side cockpit, while the other went the opposite way less drag configuration without air brake, canards and a thiner fairing spine sting.

1615960741785.png
 
Last edited:

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
926
^ thanks for the clarification!
on the subject of TVC and the transition from 35 -> 37 -> 35S..

the 37 had a ton of methods to achieve agility. a variety of moving surfaces plus TVC

35S got rid of some of the moving surfaces (the canards) and said the TVC was enough
I think in some other cases, like China, they opted for more surfaces (J-20) over TVC.

I'm wondering which is actually (overall) less complex (or cheaper to maintain in the long term) if one had to choose between more control surfaces or TVC
This is a great question and unfortunately I can only give the less the stellar answer it depends. For the most part, extra control surfaces like canards are typically cheaper and easier, the Eurocanards have them with really no issue. Oh the other hand in the case of the Su-27m they were added to deal with the weight change from the heavy Bars radar that made the flanker stable in flight. This gave the Su-27m a crazy pitch rate, it could do 120 AoA in under two seconds and if you ever see video of it in action I think it’s truly spectacular.

Is there any source for this ?

Like, Su-27M originally started with Conventional planar array N011 and it's already have Canard. While 650 Kg N011M Bars was much later.
 

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
104
Reaction score
176
^ thanks for the clarification!
on the subject of TVC and the transition from 35 -> 37 -> 35S..

the 37 had a ton of methods to achieve agility. a variety of moving surfaces plus TVC

35S got rid of some of the moving surfaces (the canards) and said the TVC was enough
I think in some other cases, like China, they opted for more surfaces (J-20) over TVC.

I'm wondering which is actually (overall) less complex (or cheaper to maintain in the long term) if one had to choose between more control surfaces or TVC
This is a great question and unfortunately I can only give the less the stellar answer it depends. For the most part, extra control surfaces like canards are typically cheaper and easier, the Eurocanards have them with really no issue. Oh the other hand in the case of the Su-27m they were added to deal with the weight change from the heavy Bars radar that made the flanker stable in flight. This gave the Su-27m a crazy pitch rate, it could do 120 AoA in under two seconds and if you ever see video of it in action I think it’s truly spectacular.

Is there any source for this ?

Like, Su-27M originally started with Conventional planar array N011 and it's already have Canard. While 650 Kg N011M Bars was much later.
I know I read it and it was SU-27m but for the life of me I can’t find it. I’m starting to wonder if it’s actually a confusion with the MKI. Going back it does seem that the canards came from T-10-24 which inspired the SU-33. Thrust vectoring on the SU-37 seems to have been investigated due to the SU-27m not being controlled at high AoA. It seems the canards were simply redundant and added extra weight And drag which was not needed with TVC. On the MKI the weight of the radar probably makes them useful. Sorry For the error.
 

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
145
Reaction score
173
I think they lost a Su-35S, but not sure it was reported the Chinese lost one.
^ thanks for the clarification!
on the subject of TVC and the transition from 35 -> 37 -> 35S..

the 37 had a ton of methods to achieve agility. a variety of moving surfaces plus TVC

35S got rid of some of the moving surfaces (the canards) and said the TVC was enough
I think in some other cases, like China, they opted for more surfaces (J-20) over TVC.

I'm wondering which is actually (overall) less complex (or cheaper to maintain in the long term) if one had to choose between more control surfaces or TVC
I have not read about VKS Su-35S going down? But there has been several Su-30SM losses.
One came down over Syria due to engine problems, crashed into the sea west of Khem Airbase.
A few others inside Russia, and perhaps in some other Flanker Airforces as well.
 

Similar threads

Top