Page 4 of 4

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2019, 18:22
by charlielima223
disconnectedradical wrote:We should clarify to make sure we’re using same units. A short ton is only 2,000 lb while a metric ton that Russia uses is 1,000 kg or 2,205 lbs, so F-22 is actually about 19.7 metric tons.


I was using short tons...

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2019, 21:24
by XanderCrews
Flankers have always been amazing at winning airshows.

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2019, 06:19
by Patriot
XanderCrews wrote:Flankers have always been amazing at winning airshows.

Considering it has a wingspan of the F-16's length (actually more than that), length of F-111 or a business jet, inertia of an infantry armoured vehicle or medium tank and can change directions like a paper airplane model or a fly bouncing underneath a lamp - yes.

Although I always loved :inlove: F-16's energy conservation, acceleration, sustained turn rate and continuous 9g capabilities :P
...and the smart sexy fragile aggressive look it has 8)

Re: Su-35. How the hell it did that?

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2019, 16:42
by mixelflick
I think you really have to hand it to the Russians insofar as internal fuel goes, regardless of Flanker model. They carry a LOT of gas, and need only burn off a portion to get the kind of "supermaneuverability" seen in their flying displays. Tactical usefulness aside, it must be nice flying a sortie without checking your gas gauge every few minutes. Or being dependent on tankers all the time.