Talk:Sukhoi Su-35BM

Supercruise
Should not be mentioned that with the 88kN dry-thrust of the 117S can reach supersonic without the use of the afterburner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned and it should also be mentioned on any article about super-cruise. But with a notation that this is not a final design / aircraft in service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 12:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Physical differences: add more
there are more physical differences. sorry, i don't remember them all, but one important is: no airbrake! the airbrake is "emulated" by adjusting TVC and usual aerodynamic controls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.225.76.224 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The following sentence is opinion: The Su-35 is even able to withstand the world's only fifth-generation fighter now in production, the F-22 Raptor.

As a sentence it adds nothing, comparable to saying "The hornet can take on a Falcon in a fight." It's a rather silly statement, and Wikipidia should be concentrating on the facts only, i.e. comparing engine thrust, turn rate, etc. Also, what does "able to withstand mean"? That it can pick it up on radar, or it can beat it in a fight? Also, at what speeds? The Falcon, for example, turns tightly at high speeds but turns poorly below 200 mph. I'd like the above sentence to be removed by someone. -- gamma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.95.43 (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I second that notion. --70.162.242.245 (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture
I have a high resolution picture of the Su-35bm uncertain about the copyright of picture should i post???. if so please include a short description as how to post pictures. thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.66 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We do need a different picture than the one currently on the article. I don't believe that the current photo is that of a Su-35BM. Differences include the lack of a 90x bort number on the nose, (would have to be 903 or 904), paint job is unlike currently known prototypes (Currents are a bright yellow, brown, and green for 901, and a variation gray on 902), wingtip jammers don't match the Khibiny-M's on 901 and 902. Refueling probe and lack of canards suggests that current photo is that of a standard Su-27SM. Darkpr0 (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rate of Climb
On this site is stated( http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/su-35.wbp ) that the rate of climb is 280m/s not 325m/s.

ok,i change it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.196.174 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. Try to provide an edit summary and sign your post with 4 tildas ( ~ ) in the future. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thrust Vectoring
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about types of thrust vectoring and what each is called, probably because sources usually gloss over the feature with a phrase like "with thrust vectoring capability" and move on.

2D vectored thrust is when the nozzle can move along one axis. This is called 2d because it allows the possible vectors of the thrust to trace out a 2-d shape. If the nozzle were rotated all the way around on one axis, it would trace out a plane; therefore it's called 2D.

Asymmetric vectored thrust points each nozzle slightly to the side, as opposed to along the roll axis of the plane. Used with thrust differential in a 2-engine plane, it achieves a 3D effect.

Newer su-35BM's are being built with 3D, or orbital, vectored thrust. The nozzles move along two axes - but that enables the vector to be moved in a 3D region. Thus it's called 3D.

The vectored thrust and the maneuverability it enables is one of the most unique features of su-35's, yet the article doesn't mention anything about cobra rolls, double backflips, cobra turns, accelerated half-loops, or other maneuvers that only OVT or 2D-asymmetric VT planes can perform. 67.171.193.143 (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)