I completely gave up on grinding it. I’ve dealt with that bullshit on the mig29s for a year, not planning to do it again
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
2 Likes
PGO appeared on the T-10M (Su-27M) to compensate for the increase in weight of the nose due to saturation with new equipment, and in particular the H-011 Bars radar (also with a Slit antenna), which was very heavy…
Then the PGO migrated to the T-10K (Su-33) and Su-30MKI…
On the Su-34, the PGO, in addition to the above functions, performs the role of “rocking calms” — thanks to a special control algorithm, it compensates for the turbulence during flights on the PMV, reducing balancing losses and the associated increase in fuel consumption.
The Su-35 has a new, almost twice as light N-035 Irbis radar and new equipment based on a modern element base (it was possible to return the alignment to the previous range of the Su-27). In addition, we have learned to compensate for all changes in alignment with the correct algorithms of the SDU (which has become a fully digital four-channel). In conjunction with the controlled thrust of the engines, the PGO was abandoned as a forced solution (having a bunch of disadvantages in the form of additional weight, increased EPR and additional resistance)…
P.S…The Su-33 Has An All-Rotating Front Horizontal Tail…
Spoiler
2 Likes
So, with improved technology, canards were more of a disadvantage and not advantage anymore? Did I understand this right?
Canards added to designs not meant for them make compromises. Unless it is integral to the basic design the canard generally isn’t very beneficial most of the time…
1 Like
So there are these fancy names/categories for plane shapes, do you know what kind of design SU-57 is?
So basically you must have canards in mind when designing from day 0? And design around that?
Actually canards solve meany problems with delta wing design relate to weight distribution in meany flight aspect. Also improving Delta behaviour at low speed letting giving the same if not better performance at subsonic speed.
Usually delta required more AoA at subsonic speed compare to “standard” wings design to performe the same turn. In result required more thrust in subsonic regime to keep up. Addition of canard who give additional vortex solve this issue
In principle, YES!.but there are also features of the layout of the aircraft and its balancing scheme…
In short…-tailless has, in principle, the worst maneuverability and
rate of climb at subsonic speeds. Why then did the Europeans amicably
choose a variant of this scheme for their fighters of the 90s …
The Europeans made single multi-purpose aircraft,
transport efficiency and versatility were at the forefront while maintaining
satisfactory maneuverability characteristics. That’s why they chose a tailless car with
an additional PGO and a “tandem biplane”…
For more information, see page 18… but only in Russian… Bulat_12.pdf - Яндекс Документы (yandex.ru)
2 Likes
@ZVO_12_INCH @MiG_23M @DracoMindC what would be the natural evolution/next step in terms of SU-27 to be added to the game?
Which model could be considered just 1-2 step higher version of it.
Like Mig-29 9.13 > Mig-29 SMT
F-14A>F-14B
F-16A>F-16C
Just another Su-27 like what we have but with R-77 integration
2 Likes
They solve problems compared to normal deltas. There are also lifting bodies with trapezoidal wings somewhat similar in design to deltas that improve on those areas without the use of canards as well.
Overall, tailed designs generally have better energy retention at subsonic conditions and canard designs are better for supersonic conditions as outlined both in research from Chengdu as well as Dassault not to mention Saab’s paper on the Gripen design selection.
This was properly solved through static instability, it was only mitigated with the vortex / canards as in on the Kfir series. Ideally, strake + instability is superior combination and that is what we see now with Mirage 2000 and the upcoming Delta Canard style fighters.
Blended wing body, trapezoidal delta with LEF, Flaperons, spoilers, LERX and LEVCONs.
Pretty much everything that isn’t a canard was used in the design of this fighter.
1 Like
I guess Russians do not like canards lol
Canards aren’t ideal for stealth and require other workarounds that compromise the performance in ways they didn’t wish to.
(That doesn’t mean canards can’t be, or are worse… only that they force other design changes and work arounds).
1 Like
Su-27SM or SM3 are the next logical steps both of which are what we have now but add R-77 integration (improved variants of the N001), L150 RWR, Better AL-31FM engines, glass cockpit, and improved IRST too iirc. The SM3 also has 12 hardpoints instead of only 10. But I wouldnt expect an improved Su-27 for a while. When more modern BVRAAMs are a thing, the plentiful supply of R-27ERs and their vastly superior kinematics will keep even the 1980s Su-27 we have right now competitive for a while. Meanwhile its likely the MIG-29SMT will receive more modern BVRAAMs like the RVV-AE
2 Likes
I never want to touch SMT again, i hope we get SU-27SM for R-77 AIM-120 patch. Or they simply add R-77 to SU-27. Even if they give SMT R-74, it is just too painful to fly compared to F-16s ,F14s, SU-27, F-16s especially
2 Likes
Probably the SU-27SM
1 Like
If they give the SMT modernized armament it’ll be a completely different experience IMO, these missiles that you mentioned are no joke
1 Like
Knowing gaijin they will give R-74 same IRCCM as R-73 first generation, and just give it more lock range + longer engine burn, until they “fix” it for balance 3 years later , just like Magic 2s right now
We are not getting R-74 for 3-4 years tho no need to talk about this , r-74 part was just a joke 🤣
Su-27SM…Su-27SM3(It has 12 suspension points…)
1 Like