Is The S-37 Fighter Up There With The F-22 ?!?!

Sorry about that. But it seems that i have a problem . I tried to insert a picture in my post and the result is obvious. I would be glad if someone help in this field.

The link seems to be incomplete, I tried to follow it and it takes you ro a web page rather than a specific imaqe. Maybe you could save the picture on your own PC and host it on tinypic or similar?

Originally posted by Russian Boy
Sorry about that. But it seems that i have a problem . I tried to insert a picture in my post and the result is obvious. I would be glad if someone help in this field.

does the link you are trying to [img_] [_/img] around end with a .jpg or something similar?


* _ are in img boxes to stop occuring

[edit on 7-12-2005 by kilcoo316]

well let me check it .

Thanks for your time

Originally posted by kilcoo316

does the link you are trying to [img_] [_/img] around end with a .jpg or something similar?

[edit on 7-12-2005 by kilcoo316]

Yes it is a jpg at the end.

hmmm, it should link ok then... all I get is: www-public.tu-bs.de...

right click on the image (on the website you found it), and try to view the image in a seperate screen.

for firefox/mozilla its simply view image, dunno about internet explorer.

(картинка может быть защищена авторским правом)
This is what i found next to the picture .

Transletion: This image is probably protected by authors rigths.

This may be the reason

can you right click it and save it yourself?

If not maybe you have paint Shop Pro or some other programme with 'screen capture' with which you can lift protected images (or so other people tell me )

Well i already have saved the picture on my computer. But i cant put it my post . If i press the icon _javascript:image() (insert an image) all it does is asking me to insert an URL address of the picture but i already been from this procedure at the beginning

you don't need to use the 'insert image' tag

first gohere and save your picture. Then when it gives you all the URL options after the page has reloaded simply copy the one with [img] tags already in place and paste it into your message.

example;

(click as if to quote my message and you will see the URL of the picture)

[edit on 7-12-2005 by waynos]

Alot of good points here, but one I have not seen is the fuel efficiency of the engines.

Its a fact that Russian engines burn fuel much, much faster than their American counter-parts. Im no expert, but I beleave a dog-fight is at the final phase of an aerial battle.

At this point, the S-37 would most likely be running low on fuel, while the F-22 with its super-cruise ability would have more fuel to finnish the fight.


Maximu§

Well at the end this might be the result.

Yay! you got it! Funny thing is, after all that, I knew it would be THAT picture

THANK you waynos .
Appreciate that.
You have my vote

"My Aunt, Mary Dudley is President of Diemas Dream, an Orphanage in Moscow for disabled children. Yes my Uncle Robert is CEO of BP Russia. I have nothining against Russia. I do know what aircraft ability is though. That is a fact."

Hi just_a_pilot,

TNK, etc. Indeed there is an orphanage, kids are being helped, it's a good thing, yet there is as always other agendas, like taxes, Alfa Group, ukos, and always a trail to a ton of dirt, so please let’s keep an orphanage (and the kids) as a symbol of good faith out of it. Russia is not Turkey, Thailand or Texas.

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Alot of good points here, but one I have not seen is the fuel efficiency of the engines.

Its a fact that Russian engines burn fuel much, much faster than their American counter-parts. Im no expert, but I beleave a dog-fight is at the final phase of an aerial battle.

At this point, the S-37 would most likely be running low on fuel, while the F-22 with its super-cruise ability would have more fuel to finnish the fight.

Well... if the S-37 is anything like the standard RSW flankers, I seriously doubt that would be the case, however, as sure as night follows day, the structures needed for the FSWs will seriously reduce the internal volume of the wing for carrying fuel. How much? I've no idea.

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Alot of good points here, but one I have not seen is the fuel efficiency of the engines.

Its a fact that Russian engines burn fuel much, much faster than their American counter-parts. Im no expert, but I beleave a dog-fight is at the final phase of an aerial battle.

At this point, the S-37 would most likely be running low on fuel, while the F-22 with its super-cruise ability would have more fuel to finnish the fight.

Well... if the S-37 is anything like the standard RSW flankers, I seriously doubt that would be the case, however, as sure as night follows day, the structures needed for the FSWs will seriously reduce the internal volume of the wing for carrying fuel. How much? I've no idea.

Of more importance, as LA said, is the SUPERCRUISE ability of the raptor.

While the Russian plane would be guzzling fuel in after burner any time it needed to sprint, the Raptor would not. That means the Raptor can play the spiriling game longer.

Of course this makes no mention of the fact that any short range missles the Su-37 would have would be at least partially compromised by the stealth of the Raptor.

I mean, with the heat reduction systems and RCS of the Raptor, plus a flare and/or some chaff, the missle would have a high chance of being defeated.

Not so for the Raptor firing on the Su-37.

i guess that the comparation of the f22 with the berkut is senseless, i mean the pakfa wont have the FSW so i just dont understand the meaning of this thread

FSW was a bad concept for a supersonic plane, it have some good features at subsonic, but the induced drag is higher due the vortex in the trailing edge, the increase of pressure in the wing, the shockwave interaction of the fsw and the very high unstable plane, due that the pressure center is very forwared from the CG center (by the shape of the wing), so it must need more controlls to keep it stable in conventional flight

more unstable dont mean better

the f22 is cleary better, because, welll....................isnt only a xperimental piece



[edit on 8-12-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by kilcoo316

as sure as night follows day, the structures needed for the FSWs will seriously reduce the internal volume of the wing for carrying fuel. How much? I've no idea.

Yeah yer right, the forward swept wings can't handle much weight and fuel=weight. I would think our X-29 had the same problem. Since no missles are on the wings...than fuel tanks, landing gear and missiles have to share the same space in the forward fuselage.

I bet that space is packed tight. In fact I bet maintenance is a nightmare!!!
My big brother was a crew chief at Mountain Home AFB for F-111's for 6 years...he told me plenty of "Hanger-Queen" stories.

A Hanger-Queen is a jet that spends more time in the hanger getting fixed than on the tarmac ready to fight.

Maximu§

1.Well as far as range goes raptors range is 3700km and berkuts 3300km. I dont consider this as significant. Mig29 had originally 2500 now THAT was a short range.
2.FSW concept was originally droped due to lack of usable materials. FSW have to hold a much heavier force. But today there are materials capable of this.
The US didnt manage to create a serios FSW aircraft so they just told pple it was a bad concept anyway.
3.Stealth: All new russian combat planes use stealth technology aswell so raptor rockets will have to deal AT LEAST with heat outlet reduction, radar absorbing surface, jammers AND super agility.

Hey zdarov iskander ne wrubilsa che ti skazal ^^ povtori ka latinskimi bukvami.
Vot eti americanzi ne hotat verit che im pizdez^^

[edit on 11-12-2005 by naXaH]