Read the forum code of contact
By: - 24th May 2008 at 04:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As far as I know it still flys, probably now in support of the PAK-FA program. Crash? Nope, it never crashed, and its made well over 100 flights. The only problem I know of was rectified by increasing the surface area of the horizontal tailplanes.
By: - 24th May 2008 at 05:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And the air intakes were also modified i heard....is it true? can someone tell me.
By: - 24th May 2008 at 10:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was in a discussion with a friend of mine about the Su-47. He is saying that the plane suffered a wing twist and an engine failure on its 5th flight and subsequently crashed. I haven't heard about this and I even remember the Paralay website posting pictures of what looks like an internal weapons bay test section ON the Su-47.Now I don't know when those pictures were taken, but they were released recently. And with the development of internal bays for the PAK FA, I would assume that the Su-47 tests would have to be fairly recent...
So here's my question:
Has the Su-47 suffered a crash? Furthermore, what are they doing with it now? Is it a test airframe or is it collecting dust in a hangar at Zhukovski?
Impossible. The aircraft was featured on several airshows, how could it have crashed on its 5th flight?
By: - 24th May 2008 at 16:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Impossible. The aircraft was featured on several airshows, how could it have crashed on its 5th flight?
That's what I thought. I knew it had more flights than that under its belt, but didn't know if there was a crash recently or not.
Long story short, this is another case of wikipedia abuse.
By: - 24th May 2008 at 19:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Something i often wondered is how come its painted black? Is it a normal thing to do or is it some kind of radar wave absorbing paint? Also any ideas on why the radome is bright white in contrast to the rest or almost the rest of the plane?
By: - 24th May 2008 at 19:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the past by a year celebrated 300 flight Su-47... ;)
Foto 2007
By: - 24th May 2008 at 20:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've always wondered if they ever got around to replacing either of the D30's with a tvc-modified Lyulka yet.
By: - 24th May 2008 at 21:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Something i often wondered is how come its painted black? Is it a normal thing to do or is it some kind of radar wave absorbing paint? Also any ideas on why the radome is bright white in contrast to the rest or almost the rest of the plane?
According to Garry it's painted black to make it stealthy. ;)
By: - 25th May 2008 at 03:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not me... it is Mericans that claim black paint makes a plane stealthy...
Funny how you're the only one ever to talk about it.
I mean the U-2, the SR-71... all they had was black paint and they are now considered stealthy.
Who said the U-2 was a stealth aircraft? :rolleyes: As for the Blackbird one only needs to open any book on the aircraft to read about the features it incorporated to reduce it's RCS. Oh, that's right, unless it's invisible 30 feet from the radar an aircraft doesn't have any features to reduce it's cross section in Garry's book. Of course this is the same Garry who is so "bored" with non-Russian equipment that he's admited in the past he doesn't know anything about it. (As aptly demonstrated in his "B-1B uses the same engines as the F-15" in the PAK-FA thread.) Classic Garry.
By: - 25th May 2008 at 05:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The B-1's engines share the same core as the F-15's engines, so he couldn't of been that far off.
And the U-2 wasn't that visible. It had ram coatings and infrared suppression for good measure. You sort of needed that stuff when you operated within 40km slant range of their well-guarded telescopic focal points.
By: - 25th May 2008 at 05:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've always wondered if they ever got around to replacing either of the D30's with a tvc-modified Lyulka yet.
I know a few articles claim that the Su-47 has thrust vectoring engines (Wikitarded included). When we're they planning to put TVC on it?
By: - 25th May 2008 at 06:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
thats simple.
ever since the Su-47 has stopped flying in Airshows in Russia. Sukhoi has leased some of the prototypes to Namco where its being used for flight testing against some odd forces that like to throw waves of waves of Flankers for no apparent reason. Its also been painted with cute little anime girls on the upper fuesalage.
By: - 25th May 2008 at 06:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The B-1's engines share the same core as the F-15's engines, so he couldn't of been that far off.
That'd be an interesting trick seeing how the F100 is made by P&W and the F101 is GE. ;)
By: - 25th May 2008 at 06:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
\"I\'d pick the Su-34 over F-15E because it has a microwave. Thus I can microwave some Chinese, after dropping nukes and microwaving Chinese.\"
there\'s so many things wrong with this quote. I dunno where to start. but most importantly does this microwave really exist...if so I would like a picture and a sample
By: - 25th May 2008 at 06:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
thats simple.ever since the Su-47 has stopped flying in Airshows in Russia. Sukhoi has leased some of the prototypes to Namco where its being used for flight testing against some odd forces that like to throw waves of waves of Flankers for no apparent reason. Its also been painted with cute little anime girls on the upper fuesalage.
I hear they also tested the plane using giant flying fortresses, aerial cruise missiles, and women hunting for underage girls. They should make USAF Red Flag like that. :dev2:
By: - 25th May 2008 at 06:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
there\'s so many things wrong with this quote. I dunno where to start. but most importantly does this microwave really exist...if so I would like a picture and a sample
Don't know if it's got a microwave but it DOES have a toilet. :D
By: - 25th May 2008 at 06:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don\'t know if it\'s got a microwave but it DOES have a toilet. :D
if thats the case a more accurate quote would be..
dropping bombs while dropping a bomb
By: - 25th May 2008 at 06:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
there\'s so many things wrong with this quote. I dunno where to start. but most importantly does this microwave really exist...if so I would like a picture and a sample?? Judging by the size of available space in the electronic compartment, I would actually be very surpised if it didn't have any. It does not have to be any $75,000 Raytheon-designed MilSpec type with RAM-coating and capability to sustain 35g, any cheap trash by Homefriend would do.
Posts: 202
By: CayceG - 23rd May 2008 at 21:57
I was in a discussion with a friend of mine about the Su-47. He is saying that the plane suffered a wing twist and an engine failure on its 5th flight and subsequently crashed. I haven't heard about this and I even remember the Paralay website posting pictures of what looks like an internal weapons bay test section ON the Su-47.
Now I don't know when those pictures were taken, but they were released recently. And with the development of internal bays for the PAK FA, I would assume that the Su-47 tests would have to be fairly recent...
So here's my question:
Has the Su-47 suffered a crash? Furthermore, what are they doing with it now? Is it a test airframe or is it collecting dust in a hangar at Zhukovski?