In Nevada, demonstrated spectacular aerobatics on the F-35

Frames with a demo version of piloting an American fifth-generation fighter F-35 appeared on the network. The demonstration flight was carried out by the F-35 air wing stationed at Nellis Air Base (approximately 15 km from Las Vegas, Nevada).

The plane, breaking away from the runway, rose several meters above it, after which the pilot began to make a sharp climb with access to the "hill". Moving for several seconds at an angle of about 80 degrees, the F-35 fighter began to approach the complex of figures of the top pilot - with a fragment of the Nesterov loop controlled by a corkscrew and the subsequent exit to the dive.

Demonstrating the spectacular capabilities of the aircraft and its skills, the American pilot "twisted" several "barrels", made combat turns, and reached low altitudes.

Piloting F-35 at the American base Nellis pic.twitter.com/eQHpNcVyol

- Volodin-Topwar (@VolodinTopwar) November 21, 2019

This video allows you to objectively assess the capabilities of the American fighter. If we leave the capricious moods from the “ours is still better” series, then we can conclude that over the past few years, American manufacturers have worked in the right direction for themselves on the design of the aircraft and the development of the engine line, which, as you can see, allows the fighter to go into modes high maneuverability without any visible "tension" and concentration of imaginable and inconceivable resources.

Another issue is that the United States itself recognizes the following: only a third of the F-35 fleet is suitable for military operations due to numerous problems with maintenance and logistics of supplies. True, a third of the park is a very impressive arsenal, which would be foolish to try to write off.

Comments

[Aerodrome]

This video allows you to objectively assess the capabilities of the American fighter. If we leave the capricious moods from the “ours is still better” series, then we can conclude that over the past few years, American manufacturers have worked in the right direction for themselves on the design of the aircraft and the development of the engine line, which, as you can see, allows the fighter to go into modes high maneuverability without any visible "tension" and concentration of imaginable and inconceivable resources.

and yet not impressed.

[novel66]

bullshit, ours still flew on yak-3 and la-5

[Dmitry Donskoy]

Colleague, you forgot to mention "Ilya Muromets"

[novel66]

He would surely lay such a bend

[Shurik70]

Fast and furious takeoff, dead loop, barrels and bends. All at subsonic speeds.
And where is "spectacular aerobatics"?
This is the standard set for any aircraft, except for large passenger airliners.

[GibSoN]

Fast and furious takeoff, dead loop, barrels and bends. All at subsonic speeds.

Like shoulder straps should already be reaped)) And write such a game) Can a video like any plane, even though the Su-100500-57 does aerobatics at supersonic speeds? Well, it just became interesting ..

[Shurik70]

"Cobra", the ballet "Swan Lake", "Rhombus" - this is aerobatics.
And the SU-57 supersonic at the MAKS simply overcame the crowd - with this, special effects.

[GibSoN]

"Cobra", the ballet "Swan Lake", "Rhombus" - this is aerobatics.

We carefully read my comment! What does the subscription you mentioned have to do with these aerobatics? If you hinted about subsonic, definitely, there must be evidence that this is all, can be done on supersonic ?! Facts to the studio!

And the supersonic SU-57 on the MAX just overcame the crowd

If you are not at all aware of such opuses (switching to supersonic at a low altitude and, especially over a crowd, is NOT FORBIDDEN just like that). Well, yes ... For the sake of the show, many are ready to arrange anything .. By the way, MAKS and Su-57 are not the first and not the only example when they so spectacularly decided to stage a SHOW with super sound over the crowd ..

[NEXUS]

Quote: GibSoN

even though the Su-100500-57 does aerobatics at supersonic speeds? Well, it just became interesting ..

There is no supersonic ... here you are right. And tell me, dear REVERSE (inverted) corkscrew is able to produce at least some of the mattress or European fighter pilots?

[caiman]

litter and what? And ,,, T)))), what barrels what turns and dead loops on supersonic?)))), I could only write, excuse me for a complete BA ,,, N or just a victim of the exam)))) )))

[Scoun]

Quote: caiman

litter and what? And ,,, T)))), what barrels what turns and dead loops on supersonic?)))), I could only write, excuse me for a complete BA ,,, N or just a victim of the exam)))) )))

Um ... sorry to interrupt.
Whose sacrifice are you yourself?
Imha.
All these "bends" are possible in supersonic, only "radii" will be proportional to human capabilities.
What glass did you run into with such ambition?
A rhetorical question.

[novel66]

I don’t know how many, but judging by the quote from "scarlet sails" ... "Ginger, you know, hardens a person. When I need to fight, I drink ginger." GINGER !!!

[Vol4ara]

Quote: novel xnumx

bullshit, ours still flew on yak-3 and la-5

What biplanes can do

[Lone gunman]

for sure, but Leontiev as dissected on his hang glider ... finally fire

[figwam]

ours so still on yak-3 and la-5 flew

But the truth with such turning radii of it can only be compared with planes of the Second World War, there is no maneuverability, it is an iron with wings.

[Jack O'Neill]

But the truth with such turning radii of it can only be compared with planes of the Second World War, there is no maneuverability, it is an iron with wings.

Then A6M2 laughs at all monoplanes, including modern ones, that of the Su-35, that the F-22.
So, are we all getting on "Zero"?

[NEXUS]

Quote: figvam

But the truth with such turning radii of it can only be compared with planes of the Second World War, there is no maneuverability, it is an iron with wings.

Let it be repeated. Their pilots are the highest ...

[caiman]

the clown radius is not a turn but a bend, this is, firstly, and secondly, the bend radius of the fighters of the second world was much smaller, so it’s better to sit and don’t write anything to the clown)))))

[figwam]

Quote: caiman

the clown radius is not a turn but a bend, this is, firstly, and secondly, the bend radius of the fighters of the second world was much smaller, so it’s better to sit and don’t write what the clown is))))

The clown here is only YOU, remember this, though illiterate. Baby, you have to go to school and don’t write anything where adult people communicate.
Wikipedia:

A combat U-turn is one of the types of aircraft maneuvering. It is a quick 180 ° turn with climb. It is used if necessary to quickly change the direction of flight by 180 ° and at the same time gain altitude. Climbing during a combat turn is carried out mainly due to the stock of kinetic energy of movement (speed stock).

A pivot turn or full circle (eng. Pylon turn) is an aerobatics figure in which the aircraft lies on the wing and describes a 360 ° circle, while during the turn the left or right wing is turned in the direction of the earth, the end of the wing is directed to an imaginary point on earth, which is the geometric center of the circle, thus forming a kind of "pillar" (pylon). The figure was used during aviation competitions, as well as for non-stop address delivery of mail. Later, seeing its potential for shelling ground targets, the technique of performing a circular turn formed the basis of the concept of ganship [1].

[Vol4ara]

Quote: figvam

ours so still on yak-3 and la-5 flew

But the truth with such turning radii of it can only be compared with planes of the Second World War, there is no maneuverability, it is an iron with wings.

Aircraft of the 2nd world turning radius are much smaller than modern jet

[Bar2]

it is not clear what such a delight is? That the Nesterov loop is already an achievement for an airplane? So Nesterov did the same on a plywood airplane of the beginning of the 20th century. But he tried this f35 controlled corkscrew, they don’t show something like that. And besides, you need interaction with other planes i.e. Group aerobatics is valuable.

[aszzz888]

Bar2 (Paul) Today, 08: 47
+1
it is not clear what such a delight is? That the Nesterov loop is already an achievement for an airplane?

Campaign, for merikatos, is a feat, and, they were already assigned extraordinary landed, and the orders were glued.

[Civil]

And what, it is not clear what a delight.

[SSR]

Quote: Aerodrome

and yet not impressed.

Personally, I did not like this passage most of all.

This video allows you to objectively assess the capabilities of the American fighter.

This is how this video allows you to evaluate
For example, does this video show with full banks or half empty ones?
And yes, the old Polish MiG-29 is cooler than the F-35 take-off with half-empty.

[loki565]

In the video, F 35 rather passes over the strip, and does not take off.

[askort154]

Airfield ..... This video allows you to objectively assess the capabilities of the American fighter. If we leave the shapkozakidatelny mood from the series "ours is still better", then we can come to the conclusion that over the past few years, American manufacturers have worked in the right direction on the design of the aircraft and the development of the engine range, which, as you can see, allows the fighter to switch to high maneuverability modes without any visible "stress" and concentration of imaginable and unthinkable resources.

and yet not impressed

Totally agree with you.
And the video clearly shows that after the lift-off, the pilot did not immediately transfer it to the set, but held it, making a "pad" for 10 seconds, thereby accelerating it over the runway, to an increased speed, and then, due to this, "left" in set with an angle of 70-80 degrees. Without such a "platform", he has a set
heights will be much smaller. And it doesn't smell like "cool" aerobatics.
There is also a video of the MiG-29 take-off, where the difference is clearly visible.
MiG-29 immediately after separation goes into the set, almost at 90 degrees.
So, the blurry word "shapkozakidatelstvo" here is completely out of pocket.
From the author, Volodin, I did not expect this. The article is a fat minus!

[Ural-4320]

The F-35 has one engine. And now we are looking for an analogue of the same aircraft from Russia. Well, for the purity of the experiment.
How many hats can you throw? Where is the analysis, instead of "Mozart is crap, Monya sang to me".

[Cryvedco]

But what for it is needed, this analogue? We need airplanes that meet our needs, meet our requirements, and not analogues of anything they have, and we have such airplanes.

[Ural-4320]

Then what is the point of comparing warm with soft and saying that ours is better?
We do not need a plane level B-777 and A-380? Ah, we have better!
The downed Su-24 showed that 2 motors may not save the crew, can then work out the protection of one motor? There are also many advantages from one motor. MiG-21 successfully fought with the F-4, which has 2 engines. MiG 23/27 were also single-engine. F-16 does not suffer from the lack of a second engine.

[Cryvedco]

Quote: Ural-4320

Then what is the point of comparing warm with soft and saying that ours is better?

And why not compare their fighter with our fighters?

Quote: Ural-4320

The downed Su-24 showed that 2 motors may not save the crew, can then work out the protection of one motor?

Protection is perfectly worked out on the Su-25, you can’t imagine any better, but this is a completely different machine.

Quote: Ural-4320

There are also many advantages from one motor. MiG-21 successfully fought with the F-4, which has 2 engines. MiG 23/27 were also single-engine. F-16 does not suffer from the lack of a second engine.

It is in matters of vitality that 2 engines are more reliable, in any way. I personally also feel sorry that the MiG-23/27 is running out, these are good cars that could still serve. But we have beautiful airplanes that will take their place and will be no worse, and the number of engines here is secondary.

[Ural-4320]

It was about reliability that I mentioned the Su-24. This is a front-line bomber with envelope relief function. He was imprisoned for work at low altitudes, but was shot down at a height and the second motor did not help him.
And the Su-25 is really another armored car.
In a modern fighter, the armor is the least, and it will chop both engines with fragments, because they are nearby, and not through the fuselage, as on the Su-25.

[YakimovSS]

Honestly, your attacks are not clear. Are you against duplication?
Can you imagine a warthog on one shaft?

I think that 1 engine on the F-35 is to hide the blades as much as possible from direct exposure. The Soviet / Russian school is focused on survivability. And in fairness, you can find quite a few examples when the second engine allowed to save, if not a car, then the crew for sure.
You can also note the reduced height of the aircraft profile on two engines. And how can you use the arising moments of rotary nozzles for spaced apart engines ... watch a video of the performances of dryers and how nozzles play at them.

Yes, and purely aesthetically, I categorically do not like the F-35, and here there is not a small fraction of the single-engine scheme that turned it into a barrel.

And what do we have in favor of one engine? Even when the stones take off from the ground, the widow will need less and a rarer flock of birds.

[Ural-4320]

"And what do we have in favor of one engine? Even on takeoff from the ground, the widow will need less stones and a rarer flock of birds."
MiG-15, MiG-21, MiG-23/27, F-16, Grippen - these are the aircraft that showed the failure of a single-engine scheme?

"Are you against duplication?"
I don’t need to attribute your findings. In general, I never wrote the word "duplication" anywhere. I wrote that 2 engines are not always synonymous with survivability, which was evident from the downed Su-24. And they tell me about the Su-25 and A-10, which are flying armored boxes (the weight of the Su-25's armor is 1100 kg,
https://topwar.ru/153590-zaschita-dlja-su-25-bronja-i-drugie-sredstva.html)

"Yes, and purely aesthetically, I absolutely do not like the F-35, and there is not a small fraction of the single-engine scheme that turned it into a barrel."
But with this you guessed it. This is a direct "objective expert" opinion, of which there are in bulk and bring a lot of pluses and satisfaction of the participants. But when people say "me", this is a subjective opinion.

[caiman]

Crank what are you trying to portray this?)))), why do we need a fighter with one dviglom? It has long been proven that a fighter with two engines is more reliable, more powerful and more efficient, because it takes more payload, and most importantly it is thrust-weight ratio, if you are a victim of the USE, then better not to write anything, do not tell people the clown))))))

[Gerneton]

Quote: caiman

USE is better not to write anything, do not make people laugh clown)))))

Well, let's compare instant29 and the same f35, and we'll see. How unsuccessful the engine is on the phantom.

Quote: caiman

It has long been proven that a fighter with two engines is more reliable

proven sacrifice ehe? since the developers of instant 29 themselves said that they stuck two for the lack of something close to the f16 engine.

[Ural-4320]

Hammer it, Gerneton. Here, in each branch, "the cuckoo praises the rooster, because he praises the cuckoo." Analytical bias is zero. A wagon of words, and not a single comparison. At least IMHO added to their comments.
It is not surprising that many fans of technology as a technique left here, and not a way to change a member, and not their own.

[Ural-4320]

You didn’t fit with your own words, victim? Have you only been given the brain to write to strangers?

[tomket]

Quote: Ural-4320

The F-35 has one engine. And now we are looking for an analogue of the same aircraft from Russia. Well, for the purity of the experiment.

It is important not how many engines, what kind of thrust it gives out. One or two.

[Alexander Petrov1]

A little bell or cob Pugachev poorly performed?

[novel66]

once - yes!

[bouncyhunter]

It seems to have been said more than once that American planes are imprisoned for invisibility and range? About their over-maneuverability and there was no question.

Quote: Alexander Petrov1

A little bell or cob Pugachev poorly performed?

Quote: novel xnumx

once - yes!

Farewell tour?

[Cryvedco]

For invisibility, the Serbs forgot to explain something

[bouncyhunter]

Quote: Creedco

For invisibility, the Serbs forgot to explain something

That's for sure !

[Alexander Petrov1]

If, for them, over-maneuverability is not the main and most important invisibility, then why did they even create it and spend tens of billions of dollars and make the F-35 supersonic? and the finished and invisible F-117 was removed from service?

[novel66]

She, darling !!

[Tusv]

Quote: bouncyhunter

Farewell tour?

This is their main design flaw. I didn’t respond to the request - expense two

About their super maneuverability and there was no question

We will carefully wait from the American aircraft industry for at least a similar Orelik (F-15) with its 2500

[aszzz888]

Alexander Petrov1 (Alexander) Today, 08: 20
+2
A little bell or cob Pugachev poorly performed?

What are you about?!!! This piece of iron will crumble when performing such "figures"!

[Zhelezyakin]

It can already be called a piece of iron with a big stretch ...

[aszzz888]

Zhelezyakin (Alexey) Today, 10: 04 NEW
+1
It can already be called a piece of iron with a big stretch ...

Sorry, my post is without intent.

[Yngvar]

Sorry, it turned out even funnier! +++

[Tusv]

Quote: Alexander Petrov1

A little bell or cob Pugachev poorly performed?

A bell without going into a flat corkscrew can all, even piston. At MAX, even a woman showed it once. Type at maximum traction, which is not enough to hang. Cobra also will not surprise. But the long Cobra hit me with the Su-57. He slowly flew like this for a minute, and hovered in front of the cloud. Here He is handsome and answers the request, unlike Western counterparts

[Timx]

"At MAKS, even a woman showed it off" - something painfully dismissive of the seven-time absolute world champion Svetlana Kapanina))) Or what complexes, personal, teenage?

[Fedorov]

And can this be considered aerobatics? Look at ours at the "old" poor MiG-29, Su-27. Do anyone.

[2 Level Advisor]

Well, about the wretched you are in vain! Old, maybe .. but not miserable ...

[Fedorov]

You may not have noticed the quotes - "" "in my comment. It says something.

[GibSoN]

Look at ours at the "old" poor MiG-29, Su-27. Do anyone.

Yeah, so old and wretched that the Minister of Defense, in particular, was escorted not on super-lacking analogs in the world of Su-35 or Su-57, but on wretched Su-27. This is so, by the way.

[YakimovSS]

Firstly, you are lying about "Su-35 are not escorted."
Secondly, you, apparently, are not aware of the difference in one pilot and two.

[GibSoN]

Firstly, you are lying about "Su-35 are not escorted."

Yah?

Secondly, you, apparently, are not aware of the difference in one pilot and two.

Um .. Can I go from this place in more detail? Well, that is, I do not really understand now, did you lower the Su-35, or did you raise the Su-27?

[The leader of the Redskins]

And they said Penguin - Penguin ... Vaughn, flutters no matter how ...

[aszzz888]

Chief of the Redskins (Nazarius) Today, 08: 31
0
And they said Penguin - Penguin ... Vaughn, flutters no matter howto...

And on this "flutter" all fairy tales about fi are over.

[hydrox]

Indeed, rather "in no way" :: and "grace of movement" against the background of "elegance of outlines" - well, just like a pregnant cow on a village street in the frost of March ...

[Mountain shooter]

I assume the combat load is "0"? And fuel for half an hour? Why not show off?
Although in this scenario is not impressed.

[Spambox]

Yeah, and our pilots are doing aerobatic maneuvers with tanks to the eyeballs and full bomb loading.

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: Spambox

full bomb load.

No. But without it, our pilots show much more serious and useful things in battle. Flat U-turns 180 degrees, for example. What did this show? A standard set, another Mig-17 is such we have twisted over the airfield

[Spambox]

So instant 17 and weighed 4 tons 3 times almost lighter, and by the way possessed very good maneuverable qualities. But seriously, this is an example of how you can make a plane with very mediocre aerodynamics using modern computer technologies fly quite well.

[mvmptzna]

Quote: Spambox

But seriously, this is an example of how you can make a plane with very mediocre aerodynamics using modern computer technology fly quite well.

- But seriously, this is an example of how propaganda can convince 140 millions that something flies badly, so that later, seeing that it is not, they try to convince themselves of some kind of computer miracles that help this.

[Spambox]

Dear, the f35 has aerodynamics like an iron, the rejection of the classical forms for the sake of stealth has an extremely negative effect on flying qualities. Without a high-performance computerized flight control system, I think it would be extremely difficult to operate this aircraft. No one is trying to convince anyone, these are your fantasies)

[GibSoN]

Dear, the f35 has aerodynamics like an iron, the rejection of the classical forms for the sake of stealth has an extremely negative effect on flying qualities.

What, even the video shows that he generally can not fly? Respected! F-35, doesn’t even have anything to do with the Fighter-Interceptor or the plane gaining air superiority! In fact, this is a universal system designed primarily for delivering missile and bomb attacks on ground targets! Counteraction to aviation, it is implemented according to the residual principle. What, in general, is not surprising for a long time! Modern explosive rockets and guidance systems, in fact, exclude the possibility of dodging any aircraft! Let me remind you! In combat conditions, no one flies at speeds that allow aerobatics! It's just not really physically for the pilot! In addition, modern near-field explosives have such a degree of maneuverability that no super cobra will help to drop it .. Not to mention that this will be a case of 1 in a million!

[Spambox]

You carefully read my post? Did I write somewhere about a fighter for gaining superiority in the air? Or disputed that this is a modern system for striking with precision weapons? Or did I dispute that he could carry aim 120 d missiles with a launch range of 180 km? I wrote about the limitations associated with the design of the aircraft and the presence of a computerized system of electro-remote control. By the way, about the maneuverability of the aim 9x rocket, I also don’t remember to mention it. Do not confuse soft with sour. If you need an interlocutor to argue on an arbitrary topic, then this is not for me. If there is anything on the topic of my post, I’m ready to listen. And my answer was originally not addressed to you.

[GibSoN]

You carefully read my post? Did I write somewhere about a fighter for gaining superiority in the air?

Respected! No need to think out for me what I read and wrote there! I didn’t just highlight the moment that I commented on! We re-read it again ... and do not write more of this nonsense, which you yourself thought up and unsubscribed. The whole essence of what I answered you is set out in a highlighted quote. Namely! F-35 is an iron that cannot fly at all .. Now in fact! An iron that is capable of performing 98% of all aerobatics currently in use! And this is provided that the remaining aerobatics are available only to extremely lightweight, super manoeuvrable fighter-interceptors or airplanes gaining air superiority! I’ll answer right away. 1. An attack aircraft, even with a minimally adequate bomb load, will not be able to move at all. 2. Attack aircraft, generally nafig no need to conduct air battles with fighters. Throw away your fantasies. In fact, you probably know the maximum on airplanes by air show such as MAX .. And even then, do not fumble much even in what you saw.

[Ka-52]

In addition, modern near-field explosives have such a degree of maneuverability that no super cobra will help to drop it .. Not to mention that this will be a case of 1 in a million!

please do not write what you have no idea

[GibSoN]

please do not write what you have no idea

I am very grateful for such a convincing jerking .. I really hope that you will be able to fully substantiate my blindness .. and enlighten me (well, I think of many others) that are not fumbling. Thanks in advance.

[mvmptzna]

Quote: Spambox

the f35 has aerodynamics like an iron, the rejection of the classical forms for the sake of stealth is extremely negative for flight performance. Without a high-performance computerized flight control system, I think it would be extremely difficult to operate this aircraft.

Ага.

ABSU - an integrated system, consists of SAU-145M, DUI-2M, "Bort-45" and works with a number of paired radio engineering and navigation systems. It has electrical connections with almost all aircraft equipment.

Purely manual control on this type of aircraft is not provided, and turn off the power of the ABSU in flight is strictly prohibited.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ту-22М

- TU-22M3
Now let's hear about the classic forms and irons

[Spambox]

Well, it's generally beyond. A missile carrier to compare with a fighter is even too much for you) I don’t want to tell you about the size of the Tu 22m3 planes, the stabilization of the aircraft and the limitation of control after reaching supersonic for a long and tedious way to prevent overload and destruction. You yourself read if it will be interesting)

[mvmptzna]

Quote: Spambox

Well, it's generally beyond. A missile carrier to compare with a fighter is even too much for you) I don’t want to tell you about the size of the Tu 22m3 planes, the stabilization of the aircraft and the limitation of control after reaching supersonic for a long and tedious way to prevent overload and destruction. You yourself read if it will be interesting)

Nevertheless, they do not call him an iron (without even stuttering about his aerodynamics), he doesn’t write that he cannot fly (although, by the way, he just cannot fly without a computer, absolutely), and all patriots are everywhere where they can write boiling water repeating what a beautiful airplane (of classical form). So ... either a cross or underpants - something must be chosen.

[mvmptzna]

Quote: Spambox

A comparison with the iron refers exclusively to the aerodynamic qualities of the aircraft

And his allegedly inability to fly without a computer for these reasons. So I brought the pride of the Russian aviation industry, the aerodynamic qualities of which, like other qualities, are never doubted by anyone. Although the Tu22-M3 reliably, unlike the F35, is not able to fly without a computer, not only in a straight line, but fly in general. So it turns out that what is iron and what is not is a subjective concept; depends on the biases of the critics.

Before discussing (allegedly) the shortcomings of others, it is worth paying attention to yourself. Do not throw stones while living in a glass house.

[Spambox]

Once again, I tell you the station control electrode for that 22 m3 is due to its size, it is very difficult to control such a large aircraft with its planes on hand, and do not confuse computer control and remote system control. When they did that, 22 computers were in short supply, to say the least, and he flew. Restrictions on shutting down the remote control system are associated with the prevention of access to exorbitant angles of attack and glider destruction. But you do not understand this campaign.

[mvmptzna]

Quote: Spambox

do not confuse computer control and remote system control.

- Don't confuse "control of the computer by the pilot" and "control of the aircraft by the computer".
What is A in ABSU? That's right - a computer. Automatic remote control on that 22 m3 is his computer. The computer also controls the airplane that 22 m3; and the crew controls the computer.

Quote: Spambox

it’s very difficult to fly such a large plane with its planes on hand

- That's it. Only, for some reason, when they talk about Tu22m3, they abstrusely talk about its complexity, and not that it is an iron. But when it comes to F35, it is clear to every patriot that the computer controls it because it is an iron. Double standards as they are.

I believe that the F35 is also controlled by a computer not because it is an aerodynamic iron, but precisely because it is complex, much more complex than the Tu22m3 (and it looks much smoother and more aerodynamic than the Tu22m3), and, unlike the latter, only one person controls it.

I believe the F35 is computer controlled precisely becausethat one of the main directions of modern aviation and one of the requirements for fifth generation combat aircraft is to transfer the maximum possible number of piloting functions to a computer. In order to minimize the pilot workload and maximize the pilot’s attention in a combat situation, thereby maximizing the effectiveness of the combat mission.

All here are such specialists in aerodynamics and irons, and such an obvious thing sort of unable to understand. In my opinion, this is an obvious bias. I have nothing more to add to the writing.

[Lozovik]

Quote: mvmptzna

What is A in ABSU? That's right - a computer. Automatic remote control on that 22 m3 is his computer. The computer also controls the airplane that 22 m3; and the crew controls the computer.

Before making such statements, take an interest in the design of the control wiring in the longitudinal and track channels, as well as the purpose and principle of operation of the ABSU-145M.

[Leaning]

By the way, they don’t control any modern fighter without automation. he is not a glider, he does not fly ...

[tomket]

Quote: mvmptzna

- But seriously, this is an example of how propaganda can convince 140 millions that something flies badly, so that later, seeing that it is not, they try to convince themselves of some kind of computer miracles that help this.

Well, you can show you in a YouTube video how the plane flies in a straight line, add koment that this is very cool aerobatics, say that the plane is super-technological like an iPhone, and voila, you will prove with foam at the mouth that propaganda handled us. By the way, do not tell me, where does the propaganda?

[Ka-52]

Flat U-turns 180 degrees, for example. What did this show? A standard set, another Mig-17 is such we have twisted over the airfield

a flat U-turn is not an aerobatics figure or a complex element at all. If you have not confused it with a flat corkscrew. Which in itself is a prerequisite for a flight accident

[letinant]

Quote: Spambox

Yeah, and our pilots are doing aerobatic maneuvers with tanks to the eyeballs and full bomb loading.

Wait, but at MAX I saw the SU-34 aerobatics with missiles, albeit an incomplete suspension of 2x X-31, 2x R-77, 2x R-73. And he twisted aerobatics more actively than the F-35. Despite the fact that this is a front-line bomber!

[Avior]

Layouts.
Even out of simple safety, combat men will not suspend.

[letinant]

Quote: Avior

Layouts.
Even out of simple safety, combat men will not suspend.

But what's the difference, it's mass-dimensional layouts. Designed to develop experience in piloting an aircraft with a load. The mass and airflow are the same.

[Avior]

Overall yes, but is it mass?
Need to clarify

[hydrox]

Such mock-ups are used to create an AERODYNAMIC LOAD for pilot training in terms of CONTROLLABILITY of an aircraft, and not its record-breaking indicators such as rate of climb and thrown mass ..

[Chit]

Why in this way remind about our planes that took off from Kuzi in Syria?

[Earthshaker]

Thanks for the pill of objectivity.

[Ka-52]

This video allows you to objectively assess the capabilities of the American fighter. If we leave the capricious moods from the “ours is still better” series, then we can conclude that over the past few years, American manufacturers have worked in the right direction for themselves on the design of the aircraft and the development of the engine line, which, as you can see, allows the fighter to go into modes high maneuverability without any visible "tension" and concentration of imaginable and inconceivable resources.

it does not say anything and does not allow anything. The author would rather stop making amateurish conclusions from nothing. To assess the maneuverability of a combat vehicle in aerial combat, other criteria are used. This is not an opportunity to perform some kind of FEP, but for example the speed of a steady turn. The modes that allow the aircraft to be the first to reach a convenient position for launching missiles (and accordingly not to allow the enemy to do this) speak about the potential of the machine. And not a stupid reference to a video with acrobatics

[Avior]

. Modes that allow the aircraft to go first in a comfortable position for launching missiles

For the f-35 with its fully spherical review and launch, this is, as it were, not very relevant

[Ka-52]

For the f-35 with its fully spherical review and launch, this is, as it were, not very relevant

for pilots, for some reason, it was always relevant, but for Internet experts, for some reason, this is always considered unnecessary

[Avior]

Yes, actually, f-35, the first such, albeit crude.
Therefore, the experience of other pilots can not be judged.
In a car, too, once it was important for the driver to be able to brake jerkily on a slippery road, until the car and ABS appeared in the car

[cosmonaut]

and ours is still better))

[Ross xnumx]

In Nevada, demonstrated spectacular aerobatics on the F-35

Do not tell my horseshoes ... And then what?

[Shooter22]

Good morning everyone! The F-35 is a combat fighter and what is shown in the video should be done by any combat fighter today, since this is one of the conditions for its survival on the battlefield. "Showiness" there can "hook" only a simple layman, for a specialist there is nothing worthy of attention. A very careful pilotage without going into any super modes. Sounds like a simple PR attempt aimed at a wide audience.

[Amateur]

And you noticed the engine from a rear angle. He is either on the fast and the furious, or just shines in IR like a Christmas tree.

[aszzz888]

Shooter22 (Alexander) Today, 08: 42
+1
Good morning everyone! The F-35 is a combat fighter and what is shown in the video should be done by any combat fighter today, since this is one of the conditions for its survival on the battlefield. "Showiness" there can "hook" only a simple layman, for a specialist there is nothing worthy of attention. Very cautious practiced aerobatics without going into any kind of over modes. It seems like a simple public relations attempt aimed at a wide audience.
Reply

And you do not get sick.
Here I am about the same thing - nothing supernatural fi did. CLEAR PR water !!!

[mvmptzna]

Quote: Shooter22

what is shown in the video today should be done by any combat fighter, since this is one of the conditions for its survival on the battlefield.

- There are whole articles about that he doesn’t know how went out. Some Chinese, Russian experts quoted. Here is the video, on it - it can. Rt

[aszzz888]

And what kind of piece of iron fi35 did ?! Flew and sat down? Students in flight do the same.

[Boris55]

In Nevada?
In the desert, of course it is possible. If it crashes, then there will be no victims.

[aszzz888]

Boris55 (Boris) Today, 08: 50
+1
In Nevada? laughing
In the desert, of course it is possible. If it crashes, then there will be no victims. laughing

If only someone on a camel does not slip!

[rocket757]

It doesn’t matter, they will refine, modernize ... what has been achieved in the end, see the boom.
But in general, the main idea of ​​this development is to create an effective element for waging "network" wars.
Here is the interaction with drones, electronic warfare systems, reconnaissance and automation of the combat process, this is really interesting.
And aerobatics, the highest ... what is a glider, engine, pilot, aircraft control system, so it will fly.
Worse, better, it can only be seen in battle.

[Slon1978]

I always try to be objective and I don’t think of myself as a patriot. But what actually showed the F-35 in terms of maneuverability on the roller? The ability to get out of a corkscrew, twist a barrel, make a Nesterov loop (dead loop). This can be done by the Su-27 early releases.

[Gerneton]

Quote: Slon1978

I always try to be objective and I don’t think of myself as a patriot. But what actually showed the F-35 in terms of maneuverability on the roller? The ability to get out of a corkscrew, twist a barrel, make a loop of Nesterov

so urashki are trying to prove that he only flies in a straight line, but here there are more and more "sensations" on the video.

[Winnie76]

Quote: Gerneton

so urashki are trying to prove that he only flies in a straight line, but here there are more and more "sensations" on the video.

What is the sensation? F35 IMHO a flying Swiss knife, which is universal, but bad in everything. Mediocre fighter, slop bomber, worthless deck (like all others)

[Tusv]

Quote: Gerneton

so urashki are trying to prove that he only flies in a straight line, but here there are more and more "sensations" on the video.

Go to the MAX at least once. You will immediately feel the difference. Who is the iron, and who is the Su-57. This is not a fool. It's pride

[GibSoN]

This can be done by the Su-27 early releases.

It seems that they started not badly. But why is this here ?! Su-27s of early releases cannot do this. Dot.

[g1washntwn]

F-35A.
Try again also on the F-35B
(because of which they called him a penguin and which no one wants to take already).

[Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)]

On a turn a turn.

[abc_alex]

In Nevada, demonstrated spectacular aerobatics on the F-35

The only effective thing in this video is the work of the operator. When ours shoots, they almost always make the same mistake - they remove static landmarks from the frame. They want to show the car large. As a result, sometimes it’s completely not clear what and how the plane does.
And then it feels like the operator knows how to. And the shooting point was chosen correctly and almost the entire distance was shot so that it’s clear what the pilot is doing.

[Kamchatsky]

You are right, Comrade! Hollywood hasn’t yet taught it.

[Chit]

Quote: Bar2

it is not clear what such a delight is? That the Nesterov loop is already an achievement for an airplane? So Nesterov did the same on a plywood airplane of the beginning of the 20th century. But he tried this f35 controlled corkscrew, they don’t show something like that. And besides, you need interaction with other planes i.e. Group aerobatics is valuable.

I heard right? Valuable, it turns out, group aerobatics? Where, let me ask? In the parades over Red Square? In demonstration group flights giving back to the circus?
Or in a combat situation?
"Swifts" fly beautifully and harmoniously, but what does this have to do with real combat? Who needs it in a war?
As for the article, the author draws the correct conclusion.
You can pour dirt on the 35th as much as you like and throw caps on the ceiling, but the facts are a stubborn thing.
The 35th is the only fifth-generation fighter exported.
It really meets all the requirements of the "five" in contrast to the Su-57 (for which, by the way, there are no modern engines either) or the J-20, which, whatever one may say, are only 4 +++.
And if, according to our estimates, the 35th is really so bad and suffers from a lot of shortcomings, then why has Lockheed Martin already received an order from the US Department of Defense for 478 fighters worth $ 34 billion?
Of which, by the way, 291 aircraft are intended for US law enforcement agencies, 127 for international partners and 60 for F-35 foreign military customers?
This, however, is not surprising, because the developers are really constantly working on the aircraft and only recently they have reduced its price by about 12,2%.

[Pavel57]

Remember the history of the sale of raw F-104?

[Something]

Chit not tired of lying dirty every time in VO and write nonsense, spitting on Russian military equipment?

Quote: Chit

35th - the only one exported fifth generation fighter.
It really meets all the requirements of the "five" in contrast to the Su-57 (for which, by the way, there are still no modern engines) or J-20, which, whatever one may say, are just 4 +++.

F-35 does not meet the criteria of the 5th generation aircraft and is not, since it cannot fly at supersonic cruising speed without afterburner throughout the flight, it also has a low thrust ratio of about 0,8 and has mediocre maneuverability. Learn materiel, a liberal strategist!

[Chit]

I don’t need to learn anything.
But I’m ready to remember something. And remind the cheers patriot.
To begin with, advise him to go to the Russian Wiki, moderated by Russian military experts as well.
From this Wiki, the Russian cheer patriot can learn a lot of things surprising for him.
For example, the fact that a fifth-generation aircraft according to the accepted international classification, it turns out, does not need to fly at supersonic cruising speed without afterburner throughout the flight. This demand is sucked out of the finger.
Literally, the requirements say: "flight at supersonic speeds without using afterburner." Dot. What kind of "the entire flight are we talking about"? If we are talking about short duration, then, according to the manufacturer, the 35th is capable of flying at a speed corresponding to M = 1,2 for about 240 km without turning on the afterburner.
Move on. Craving, then a little ... Well, well ...
Let's see what's on the 35th?
Maximum traction: 1 x 13000 kgf.
On the afterburner: 1 x 19500 kgf (engine operation was demonstrated with a thrust of up to 22700 kgf).
Let me remind you - this is a serial, mass-produced aircraft.
And what about the Su-57? More precisely, his prototypes, for before the series yet, as before Mars.
On the AL-41F1 engine, the thrust is 9500 kgf. On the fast and the furious - 15000. Not thick.
Engines of the second generation, which are not yet available, because they have yet to be created, can produce an estimated 10500 kgf and 17500 afterburner.
Maybe we omit the traction issue? It’s awkward.
As for super-maneuverability, this requirement for a fifth-generation fighter exists for some reason only in the RUSSIAN classification. Nowhere else is he.
Learn the materiel. It will be better this way.

[Something]

Chit, an illiterate cheer is not a patriot, it turns out you are buying rating points the administration of VO for their illiterate opuses ?! Just that you were awarded 700 rating points, and no one gave you likes! So administrators IN pay you for srach, or are you one of them? In short, a corrupt troll!

[Chit]

Sir, I won’t really surprise you if I say that I don’t give a damn about the rating? Absolutely and from the bell tower of Ivan the Great?
Do you personally pursue a rating? Are you interested in it? Do you need gaps on uniform? Stars? The master's business.
So, I have all these children’s games to the bulb.
I do not care about extra stars on uniform.
I am worried about the state of the Russian army. Real, not cheers-patriotic. I care about the financing of the Russian army.
I am shocked by tossing caps up to the ceiling, underestimating the potential enemy’s potential.
Happinessful feelings and underestimation of the military potential of a possible enemy are sometimes too expensive.
My two grandfathers, who died during WWII, probably understood this better than others.
And therefore, I do not understand the reaction in some comments. The article dealt with the piloting of an American fifth-generation aircraft. What are the comparisons with the MiGs? Some modification of the Mig is already listed in the 5th generation? Did I miss something?
Comparison with the Su-57 is all the more incorrect. For it makes no sense to compare a production aircraft with a prototype.

[Something]

Quote: Chit

Sir, I won’t really surprise you if I say that I don’t give a damn about the rating?

Judging by what you did, replenishing your rating, repeatedly according to my observations, you don’t give a damn. After all, with a negative rating, even like to put a problem, though there is a way how to get around this!

Quote: Chit

I am worried about the state of the Russian army. Real, not cheers-patriotic. I care about the financing of the Russian army.
I am shocked by tossing caps up to the ceiling, underestimating the potential enemy’s potential.
Happinessful feelings and underestimation of the military potential of a possible enemy are sometimes too expensive.
My two grandfathers, who died during WWII, probably understood this better than others.
And therefore, I do not understand the reaction in some comments. The article dealt with the piloting of an American fifth-generation aircraft. What are the comparisons with the MiGs?

Chit! Do not consider us Russians as fools! When people like you spit on Russia, its army is only for one thing, so that the Russians all the time "sprinkle ashes on their heads" and all the time make excuses for what neither they nor their fathers and grandfathers did. And so that they are everywhere spread rot, imposed sanctions, taking away all their achievements and conquests, history and truth, so that the name of the Russian becomes a household name. This is what people like you are trying to do - to slander and spit on: our past, our history, and so on, in order to then try to destroy the country of Russia. This is how Ukrainians and Russophobes of all stripes behave now, including admins on mail.ru and such as you, admins on VO. Therefore, do not engage in verbiage here. And you all started with spitting on the history of Russia in VO, spitting on I.V. Stalin. Don't play the fool - a wolf in sheep's clothing!

[Ka-52]

For example, the fact that a fifth-generation aircraft according to the accepted international classification, it turns out, does not need to fly at supersonic cruising speed without afterburner throughout the flight. This demand is sucked out of the finger.

Monsieur "expert", please write which organization (association, union) adopted the "international classification of 5th generation aircraft". Send a link to the minutes of this interesting organization, where this classification is accepted.

according to the manufacturer’s statement, the 35th is capable of flying at a speed corresponding to M = 1,2 for ≈240 km without turning on the afterburner.

statement. Only. In fact, in the claimed technical specifications, this feature is not indicated. This suggests that such a test flight could be carried out, but no RLE (or rather its American counterpart) does not allow this. So there is no need to sculpt sandpipers here

As for super-maneuverability, this requirement for a fifth-generation fighter exists for some reason only in the RUSSIAN classification.

amateurish delirium. Firstly, the requirement for a combat aircraft is determined not by your "concept" that has been sucked out of your finger, but by MO on the basis of the tactics of use that it lays down. Secondly, high maneuverability characteristics were in the technical assignment for the creation of the F-22. That was then expressed in its capabilities. Therefore, here you got your nose wet. Thirdly, history already knows examples when some newfangled concept (for example, the abandonment of cannon armament) turned out to be sideways to the customer-operators

[Chit]

Monsieur, I did not have time to ask, on the basis of the conclusions of which organization, the RUSSIAN Wiki site classifies fifth-generation aircraft. A site whose information is filtered by Russian military experts and ILV. I used to trust the Russian media. Do you have a different approach? Do you trust only foreign media? This, you know, smacks of the presence of a foreign agent here.
About the speed. Yes, it was stated. And why should I not believe this, even if the patriots do not always use the Russian media? And, as can be seen from the paragraph above, prefer some other sources?
There is only one tip about super-maneuverability: go back to Wiki. Into a Russian resource with Russian analytics. And if you find over-maneuverability in the list of requirements for fifth-generation aircraft, let me know.

[Ka-52]

Monsieur, I did not have time to ask, on the basis of the conclusions of which organization, the RUSSIAN Wiki site classifies fifth-generation aircraft. A site whose information is filtered by Russian military experts and ILV. I used to trust the Russian media. Do you have a different approach?

That is, there is no link and is not expected? Expected. Attempts to get out cunningly at the expense of Wiki are not counted, because even a baby knows that Wiki is a freely editable portal and is not an absolutely reliable source.

There is only one tip about super-maneuverability: go back to Wiki. Into a Russian resource with Russian analytics. And if you find over-maneuverability in the list of requirements for fifth-generation aircraft, let me know.

I don’t need to go to the wiki about requirements. I myself am a retired military pilot, and now I am involved in the design bureau. And I do not rush (unlike you) with sofa-expert statements.

[Something]

Quote: Chit

For example, the fact that a fifth-generation aircraft according to the accepted international classification, it turns out, does not need to fly at supersonic cruising speed without afterburner throughout the flight. This demand is sucked out of the finger.

What is such an international classification? No need to lie, storyteller!

Quote: Chit

Literally, the requirements say: "flight at supersonic speeds without using afterburner." Dot. What kind of "the entire flight are we talking about"? If we are talking about short duration, then, according to the manufacturer, the 35th is capable of flying at a speed corresponding to M = 1,2 per ≈240 km without turning on the afterburner.

Therefore, F-35 and not a 5th generation airplanecan't fly throughout the flight with cruising supersonic speed without afterburner!

Quote: Chit

Let's see what's on the 35th?
Maximum traction: 1 x 13000 kgf.
On the afterburner: 1 x 19500 kgf (engine operation was demonstrated with a thrust of up to 22700 kgf).
Let me remind you - this is a serial, mass-produced aircraft.

Keep your lie about the operation of the engine with a thrust of 22700 kgf!

Quote: Chit

And what about the Su-57? More precisely, his prototypes, for before the series yet, as before Mars.
On the AL-41F1 engine, the thrust is 9500 kgf. On the fast and the furious - 15000. Not thick.
Engines of the second generation, which are not yet available, because they have yet to be created, can produce an estimated 10500 kgf and 17500 afterburner.
Maybe we omit the traction issue? It’s awkward.

On the prototype Su-57, as well as on the first production samples, which were supposed to go into service with the Russian Air Force in 2015, the engines of the first stage - AL-41F1 (product 117) were installed. This is an aircraft turbojet dual-circuit engine with an afterburner and a controlled thrust vector, created by NPO Saturn by order of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, it allows you to develop supersonic speed without the use of afterburnerand also has a fully digital control system and a plasma ignition system. Unlike the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines for the F-22 Raptor, it has a round rather than a rectangular nozzle.
Chit, you are also a dirty, illiterate liar. The Su-57 uses not one, but 2 engines. Multiply by 2 ...

Quote: Chit

As for super-maneuverability, this requirement for a fifth-generation fighter exists for some reason only in the RUSSIAN classification. Nowhere else is he.

In your training manual not. This is for you not only to learn the materiel, but first of all not to lie or write about what you do not know, without being an expert in these areas.

[Tusv]

Quote: Chit

To begin with, advise him to go to the Russian Wiki, moderated by Russian military experts as well.

On Wiki, the S-400 hits a ballistic missile at a distance of only 50 km. The Chinese in the export version shot down an imitation of RBU at a distance of 210 km.
Attention question! Who is lying? Wiki or Chinese ?.
I am responsible for you. Whose target is it? American or Chinese?
So with demonstrations. For those who were at the MAKS, this is not aerobatics for the Russian, but aerobatics for the American. Alas deprived of MAX

[Leaning]

the whole history of Russian aviation is a pain from engines ... from the time of the Second World War, after, and still we can’t catch up with the West in any way ... therefore, we take it to others.

[den3080]

And if, according to our estimates, the 35th is really so bad and suffers from a lot of shortcomings, then why has Lockheed Martin already received an order from the US Department of Defense for 478 fighters worth $ 34 billion?
Of which, by the way, 291 aircraft are intended for US law enforcement agencies, 127 for international partners and 60 for F-35 foreign military customers?

there are several reasons:
1. “Honor of the uniform”, not only military, but also civilian.
2. Squeezing money out of vassals by any means.
3. Corruption, as a pleasant addition to specific individuals participating in the "scheme".
Items 2 and 3 work on item 1 and harmoniously complement it. System.

[dvina71]

Quote: Chit

Or in a combat situation?

Exactly ... when you send a pair of your F-35s to intercept a single target, and there 4 Su-35s ..., .. it will be fun ...

Quote: Chit

You can pour dirt on the 35th as much as you like and throw caps on the ceiling, but the facts are a stubborn thing.
The 35th is the only fifth-generation fighter exported.

Eeee .., and beet sound without afterburner? And the maximum speed of 1900?

Quote: Chit

And if, according to our estimates, the 35th is really so bad and suffers from a lot of shortcomings, then why has Lockheed Martin already received an order from the US Department of Defense for 478 fighters worth $ 34 billion?

Tell a story with the M-16? With Zamvolot?

[Tusv]

Quote: dvina71

Exactly ... when you send a couple of your F-35s to intercept a single target, and there 4 Su-35s ..., .. it will be fun ..

.
Last year, a pair of Su-35 Japanese F-15 drove. One against the pair, the second just .photo did. Well, or in an ambush. Whoever you like. And in the year before last, the Russian whatnots 2 American AUGs scared that the Iponians had thrown toilet paper over our Foreign Ministry

[Strag]

A fan of US technology wrote this article for the campaign, as if about nothing. it's something like two friends met - how are you? - Yes, the son goes to college already - and ours already goes.
after what the SU35 and SU57 do well, it’s up to say something like that, I would say nothing))

[Pavel57]

From aerobatics paint does not peel off?

[mvmptzna]

So much for the "second stage engines"

[Milmaker]

If we compare the ease with which the F-35 on one (!) Engine lifts off the ground and loops, then the device is worthy. I agree with the author, F makes it easier than SU. This year at MAKS, of course, they showed the MiG-35, but it is clear that they were sorry .. In general, like "Hurray!" don't shout, the Americans made a good glider and engine. And reliability is a matter of time. We are, over there, poseidonyms and status since the 90s and continue to this day. They are worse)

[Jack O'Neill]

The F-135 is generally the best in its class! Pratt & Whitney made a wonderful engine.

[NikolaiN]

Quote: Chit

"Swifts" fly beautifully and harmoniously, but what does this have to do with real combat? Who needs it in a war?

Aircraft operating in tight formation can be classified as a single target on the radar. The same can affect the course of the battle, when subsequently it turns out that the goals are not one but, for example, the 4th.
Or can’t modern radars be deceived by such a maneuver? I'm not special in this area, who can explain?

[Avior]

And the EPR in their tight formation is more at times, it turns out

[Something]

Quote: NikolaiN

Aircraft operating in tight formation can be classified as a single target on the radar. The same can affect the course of the battle, when subsequently it turns out that the goals are not one but, for example, the 4th.
Or can’t modern radars be deceived by such a maneuver? I'm not special in this area, who can explain?

Quote: Avior

And the EPR in their tight formation is more at times, it turns out

Avior, you are asked about one thing, and you write about the warm! Weak to show radar knowledge?

[Berkut24]

I must note that the Su-35 makes a candlestick practically 3-4 seconds after it leaves the GDP, and the "penguin" has been gaining acceleration over the GDP for quite a long time. And the video itself begins not from the moment of takeoff, but from the moment it passes over the GDP. So there is a difference, and it is not in favor of the American.
In general, the American did not impress me either. At MAX, he would be a pale shadow of competitors.

[Tusv]

Quote: Berkut24

In general, the American did not impress me either. At MAX, he would be a pale shadow of competitors.

By the way, at the last MAX. The four Su-35s and Su-30s were not piloted twice by Vityaz, who had arrived with the highlight of the program by evening. It's a fucking how happy

[letinant]

Quote: Chit

Why in this way remind about our planes that took off from Kuzi in Syria?

And what does it have to do with it?

[Chit]

Despite the fact that we are talking about combat loading and fuel loading during take-off.

[letinant]

So what? What is wrong with loading our planes?
SU-33, 3,4 tons with a fuel supply of 9,5 tons (full tanks and 12 air-to-air missiles).
MIG-29K 4,5 tons with a fuel supply of 5,7 tons (full tanks and 8 missiles).

[Good_Anonymous]

Amazing how many topwar aerobatics are

[Cheerock]

Demonstrating the spectacular capabilities of the aircraft and their skills,

No spectacular features on the video have been demonstrated. The usual show for local residents, the Yankees are often satisfied with this. No over-maneuverability, everything is primitive and flat, but with rock music. Impressions have something to compare. I remember watching the F-15 demonstration flight, that's about the same thing, only 2 times slower.

[voyaka uh]

, "that over the past few years, American manufacturers have worked on the design of the aircraft in the right direction for themselves" ////
----
The design of the aircraft has not changed at all. And the engines have not changed.
Just removed the restrictions on overloads.
The aircraft software until December 2018 did not allow pilots to perform such figures.
Now, please.

[Jack O'Neill]

The moment when the Su-27 has a maximum critical angle of attack = 24 degrees, and the "Penguin", like a "log" and that's all = 50 degrees!

And then all of a sudden.)

Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley has stated that in an air-to-air configuration the F-35 has almost as much thrust as weight and a flight control system that allows it to be fully maneuverable even at a 50-degree angle of attack.

[voyaka uh]

Important for close combat is the ability of the F-35 to describe a full circle in the horizontal plane at a speed of 28 degrees per second, without reducing the linear speed below 0.85-0.9 MAX.

[Jack O'Neill]

Hi, high angles of attack, which the plane may not go to for an air show.

[V. shooter]

At a speed of 0,85 MAX and a turn of 28 degrees per second, the overload will be 14 g. Not much will be, both for the pilot and for the aircraft ?! At such angular speeds and an overload of 9 g, the speed will be 0,55 MAX.

[Lozovik]

Quote: Jack O'Neill

when the Su-27 has a maximum critical angle of attack = 24 degrees

Where is it written? RLE? Practical aerodynamics?

Quote: Jack O'Neill

and the "Penguin", like "log" and that's all = 50 degrees!

Where can I see horizontal flight with an angle of attack of 50 °?

[Topgun]

and what can pros do on piston sport planes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaM9aryUGUs
and now what? to transfer military aircraft to biplanes because they can do this? :))))))))
we live in rockets !!!!!!! saw - pressed a button
and if we are talking about aerial combat, then even the terrain features will not help because everything is visible from above, even if someone is trying to fly up to you unnoticed in the gorges (unless in the Himalayas you can get some advantage but they do not cover the entire planet .. .)
Well, and also, in order to perform "figures" you need to have a plaque corresponding, I have great doubts about the possibility of performing, for example, a "cobra" by a combat pilot

[Good_Anonymous]

Quote: Topgun

I have great doubts about the possibility of performing, for example, a "cobra" by a combat pilot

I heard that combat pilots were simply forbidden to make "cobra".

[Jack O'Neill]

The “bell” figure is made mainly on all combatant aircraft, but at the same time it is done only by specially trained pilots and at zero speeds.

Alexander Gostev, Colonel, Pilot-Sniper, Leader of the Falcons of Russia Air Group


To perform the “cobra” and “somersault”, a special alignment of the aircraft is needed, and often the technique is refined for these figures.

Alexander Gostev, Colonel, Pilot-Sniper, Leader of the Falcons of Russia Air Group

[Jack O'Neill]

SW the author, why didn’t you put a more informative video?
For F-35, an angle of 55 degrees is the target TK. F-35 has stable control at such angles of attack.

[loki565]

Yeah, he manages so well that they even develop an anti-stop parachute for him)))

[Good_Anonymous]

Quote: loki565

it is so well controlled, for him they even develop an anti-stop parachute)))

What's this. He flies so well that he even developed an ejection seat for him. They do not trust their technology, do not trust.

[loki565]

It’s bad, it flies, since it doesn’t have enough angles to exit the corkscrew without a parachute)))

[Good_Anonymous]

Quote: loki565

Bad he flies

So I agree. I say - they do not risk releasing him on a flight without an ejection seat.

[Romanenko]

Something no extreme in this video did not see, in principle, colorless ordinary aerobatics, nothing special, by the way, where was the corkscrew, which was written about in the article?
Most of all, it just reminded of some attempts to perform aerobatics, but so carefully - and suddenly it doesn’t work out ...

[GibSoN]

I watched the video .. Hmm .. Valuable in this video, except that the work of the operator! There are enough videos of the F-35 flying much better.

[letinant]

Quote: Avior

Overall yes, but is it mass?
Need to clarify

So go check out.

[Timx]

They use (dispose of) rejected hulls (airframes), which were just a shaft during the restoration of mass production after the devastation of the 90s and the commissioning of CNC machining centers (for example, up to 31% of rejection happened on the Kh-80 rocket). There are three types of such products: for control firing and weapons testing on aircraft (fully equipped with electronics and warheads); weight and size models (with replacement of filling for equivalent in weight `` blanks ''), dimensional models - for display at air shows (both on the ground and in the air) and other events - the most distinguished samples go there. And there are also educational layouts (including those with a demonstration of `` vnutryanka '') - those, in general, are made from other (cheaper) materials and using other technologies. Something like this)))

[eklmn]

You can look here, no worse than ...
https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/12/instagram-videos-of-usaf-f-35-demo-team-practice-leaks-some-new-maneuvers/

[23exe23]

flies like an ax)))