News:



  • March 28, 2024, 03:35:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: SU-37 ???  (Read 1303 times)

Offline Paul Taylor

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 6042
  • If God is your Co-pilot - swap seats!
    • Our Local CL Web Page
SU-37 ???
« on: February 12, 2007, 06:48:05 PM »
I was talking to by Cheezehead buddy Chris about the video of the SU-37. We got to talking about the plane and how well it turned.
It got us to thinking.

What if you put Canard winglets on a C/L stunt plane?

Could you guys do those hard corners and low bottoms better?

I know folks have built carnards, but anybody thought about doing a setup like the SU-37?

I bet it could be done. Somethings that come to mind that would be road blocks are controls around the the tank. But problems could be solved.
Paul
AMA 842917

Tight Lines = Fun Times

Offline rustler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
Re: SU-37 ???
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2007, 01:42:04 AM »
I believe the Adamisins tried it, in fact that gorgeous model Gemini was so named because it was intended to have rear and canard control surfaces. For some reason it didn't work out?
Ian Russell.
[I can remember the schedule o.k., the problem is remembering what was the last manoeuvre I just flew!].

Offline minnesotamodeler

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2335
  • Me and my Chief Engineer
    • Minnesotamodeler
Re: SU-37 ???
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2007, 02:00:55 AM »
I tried it once...wildly unstable.  I kept cutting down the canard size; finally fixed it in place. That flew best of all.  About as well as without altogether. 

--Ray
--Ray 
Roseville MN (St. Paul suburb, Arctic Circle)
AMA902472

Offline Paul Taylor

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 6042
  • If God is your Co-pilot - swap seats!
    • Our Local CL Web Page
Re: SU-37 ???
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2007, 11:45:16 AM »
Well that answered that. n~
Paul
AMA 842917

Tight Lines = Fun Times

Offline Russell Shaffer

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
Re: SU-37 ???
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2007, 07:54:11 PM »
The canard winglets would probably work extremely well if you had the same onboard computer that the jet uses. 
Russell Shaffer
Klamath Falls, Oregon
Just North of the California border

Offline Jim Pollock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 948
Re: SU-37 ???
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2007, 10:05:47 PM »
Hmmmm,

I've thought about doing a forward canard and conventional rear stab/elevator.  I think it would work O.K., but would take considerable experimentation getting the size and throw of the canard right in relation to the aerodynamics of the rest of the airplane.  I just don't have that much experimentation time to figure it out.

Jim Pollock   HB~>

Offline Steve Fitton

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2272
Re: SU-37 ???
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2007, 07:36:27 PM »
The canards on the SU-37 supply additional pitch control when operating at extreme angles of attack.  In much of the maneuvers on the tape the wing is fully stalled in a normal sense, and the jet is deriving lift from the flat "plate" of the bottom of the aircraft and wings against the relative wind.  That, and riding on 50,000 pounds of thrust from the engines.  I don't think a stunt plane would look very impressive if maneuvered with the wing fully stalled, and the power required would be *way* beyond what we get with stunt motors.

Our present wings give us plenty of lift without outrageous pitch excursions.

The gyrations of the SU look cool but would be near suicidal in a dogfight.  You *might* dodge one missile, you might be able to get your nose on the other guy for a quick guns shot or let loose an IR missile of your own, but you'd have killed your energy (airspeed) and be essentially frozen in space while the other guys would maneuver on you and blast you from the sky.  Thats assuming you lived long enough in your non-stealthy fighter to get into a visual turning fight anyway.  Most likely an AMRAAM would glide in on you unawares and disintegrate you before you knew the fight was on.....

Steve
Steve

Offline Jim Pollock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 948
Re: SU-37 ???
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2007, 08:59:14 PM »
Hi Steve,

All I would care about with the canard would be getting around a square corner with maybe 15" less radius, and still be able to track well.  Getting everything where it would need to be would take a lot of work experimenting, and then it could be that it wouldn't help at all, just adding unnecessary weight and complexity to the airplane.  I don't have enough time for all that required experimentation.  If I were say, in the 18-22 age bracket, I would probably do it, but I'm not, so I won't!

Jim Pollock, time just keeps slip, slip, slipping away - - - - %^@


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here