Guys, even the F-22 can do a Kulbit more precisely than any Russian Fighter jet that does it. And the actual Kulbit was done by a pilot in an F-4 Phantom in the Coldwar against a Mig-17. So the Kulbit is only perfected by TVC planes.
@EvilxMerlin Yes, its a fact. But the Kulbit was actually originated, when an F-4 pilot performed a backflip in the coldwar against the Mig-17. It was then perfected into the Kulbit by TVC operating planes.
@Charlitification Excuse me Im an Indian. And the F-22 can actually do it more accurately than this cause it has 2D TVC, which achieves higher angle so kulbit is more easily carried out.
@F22raptor46 You dream ... The f22 can not possibly make Kulbit ... sueulement the Su37 and maybe the su47. Do not read stupid things on wikipedia ...
Holy shit, Americans have to use thrust vectoring to do a Pugachev's Cobra.... while Russians invented it, and can do supermanouvers such as this without it...
@jowwalienware Pugachev;s cobra is not a supermanouver, which is why the Su27 without is able to perform it without using thrust vectoring...although it is easier for thrust vectoring aircraft to perform the manouver using supermanouverability. Super manouvers such as the Kulbit require supermanouverability, which is why the Su27 has become redundant. Also the Su35BM DOES use thrust vectoring...do you even know what thrust vectoring is?? LOL
@tatewaki11 the SU-35BM doesnt have thrust vectoring, the sukhoi series became using thrust vectoring with the SU-37 as i've known, i never said im a super ultra pro on the subject, im just saying what i know about it,
@jowwalienware You need to do more research...the Russians have been using thrust vectoring LONG before the SU-37...please research more on the topic or else you will embarrass yourself further...
@tatewaki11 The only trust vectoring the Russians used prior to the Su-37 was for vertical take off purposes. The Su-37 was the first Russian aircraft to use TV for the purpose of EFM (Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability). The US had been experimenting with this since 1972. By the time the Su-37 first flew the US had already tested 9 different TV/EFM aircraft, including the F-16 VISTA which tested the world's first MATV (Multi Axis Thrust Vectoring). Think maybe YOU should do some research huh.
@AeroSharkTech are u both fucking retarded? the Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM which were first introduced in the year 2000 featured THRUST VECTORING and use the Saturn Al-31FP. after those followed the Su-27SM, Su-30, and Su-34 which were introduced in 2007, and use the Saturn Al-31FM1. the Su-35BM was introduced in 2007 and uses the Al-41F-1S (117S). also the earliest records on thrust-vectoring technology research within Sukhoi began in 1983. finally, whose talking about the USAF?? LEARN TO READ!!!!!
@tatewaki11 If anything you proved my point. Like you said, the earliest records of Sukhoi's TV research began in 1983. The US began testing TV on the HIMAT in 1972. So I fail to see your point. And you keep quoting events from 2000-2007. What does that have to do with anything? The F-16 VISTA flew in 1988. The YF-22 had TV in 1991. All you're doing is legitimizing my argument. Thanks? You should perhaps direct the "dickhead", and "learn to read" comments at yourself.
@AeroSharkTech you are an idiot. stop replying to my comments and read the entire conversation. i'll break it down for your simple mind. @jowwalienware argued that the Russians never used thrust vectoring before the Su-37. i proved him wrong. Then u proved my point by stating that the Russians used TV before the development of the Su-37. Then u went on about the USAF. But nobody was talking about the US. So stop acting retarded by jumping into conversations when u have no idea what's going on.
@tatewaki11 K, great. But what wikipedia obviously did not make clear to you is that the Su-27 that was outfitted with the 2DTV never flew. From 1983 to 1996, none of the aircraft (there were only 2) had flown and had only done wind tunnel testing at the most. They did not FLY with TV until 1996. So your point is just as mute as all your childish name calling. And I clearly stated that Russia used TV for VTOL purposes before the Su-37 my boy. Please read carefully next time.
@tatewaki11 My point is that you are wrong for saying there were more aircraft before the Su-37, unless you are including concept aircraft that never flew. Otherwise the Su-37 was indeed the first Russian EMF aircraft. I don't think that's too hard to grasp.
@AeroSharkTech First, the Su-27SM did fly, it was a demonstrator. Otherwise how could it crash?? Second, I didn't say "there were more aircraft before the Su-37". I said "the Russians used TV before the Su-37". Regardless of the fact that they used TV for VTOL purposes before 1983, which I knew of beforehand, they didn't stumble across TV for the first time in Russian history in 1996 and slap it on a "Su-37" and make it fly. I win :D
@tatewaki11 NO, you don't. The Su-27 that crashed was mounted with two engines that were designed to simulate the weight and balance of the actual engines they were going to utilize. These engines were exact "replicas", if you will, the engineers installed in order to reduce risk of W/B issues. However, they DID NOT have TV capabilities. Perhaps you should read Sukhoi's documents instead of second hand Wikipedia nonsense. And why would you argue for VTOL on a EFM video? C'mon.
@tatewaki11 Common sense would show that people watching a video about aircraft with EFM TV would be commenting on that subject. Why would you come in here to throw everything off subject and just to make an argument when its obvious the vast majority of posters are commenting on EFM and not VTOL? Nothing better to do? Or is that just what you do to make yourself feel intelligent, or even accomplished considering you're so concerned with "winning" youtube debates? Get a life.
WELL HERE ARE THE FACTS: SU-37 IS FASTER,CAN DO DOUBLE KULBIT,OR COBRA MANUEVAR AND IT'S FASTER THAN F-22. AND RUSSIAN PILOTS GET BEST TRAINING IN THE WORLD,SO EVERYONE NOT AGREEING,PLEASE STFU
@Duke0Forever Lol, here are the REAL facts - The Su-37 has actual statistics that aren't CLASSIFIED. The real speed of the F-22 is above Mach 3. The only pilots in America allowed to fly the F-22 are the roughly 200 best of the motherfuckin' best.
@jowwalienware Kid, if you want to start making outrageous, false claims with nothing to back them up, go talk on 4chan, not YouTube. Go hang out with the scum of the internet like yourself.
@jowwalienware also sorry by my wrong statemente on the comment u answered, i meant the SU-35BM and the SU-27, not ALL the sukhoi series, but these 2 do not have thrust vectoring and i didnt say the pugachev's cobra was a supermaneuver
@jowwalienware Really, how? A computer analysis? I hope you don't take such things seriously considering the majority of the F-22s capabilites are clasified. Also the Su-47 has a thrust adavantage over the F/A-18C...THAT'S IT. Same Sustained Alpha, same turn rate, and many other "Sames" which is why the aircraft never went into production. The Su-35 at Corner Airpseed is 4 DPS lower than the F-22 at half rate. You really need to check your info. Also, the F-15C ate the Su-30 alive in '10.
@dormytorry you're totally right,I mean,what's the point in stealth when missiles fired from long range miss the plane doing this manuevars...Than it would come to a dogfight.... Well,SU-37 would own every jet ever built in a dog fight
its a really good plane but only bad thing about planes with canards is that they aren't so good in supersonic manuevers, they can be but id imagine how that would cause damage to the plane
@TH7596 What do you mean by damage? If you mean structural stress, it's designed to handle it. It has a 20g+ capability, so the pilot would sooner pass out than the plane would break appart. As a matter of fact, canards make aircraft very maneuvrable because they have relatively more moment of force than all-moving tailplanes.
The single su37 prototype was here on an airshow, intended for aircraft sale advertisement since the bid for new fighters was going on then. It was rejected just like the Rafale-it was simply not good enough. The F-15E has standoff strike capabilities and this is what really counts.
@xxwzaebd No the SU-37 was an experimental aircraft,never intended to go into servic.They just wondered how far changes on the SU-35 can go(but NATO was paranoid and named it the SU-37,presuming its a new jet).Its too expensive,and just rooted out the good aspects of the plane and implemented them unto the newer SU-35's.
Well I dunno.. I guess thats a good characteristic if you want to have a great turn and burn fighter like the SU-37... I'm thinking that the way they do it that the plane would stall so rapidly and would generate so much form drag that it wouldn't even have a chance to enter the incipient stage. Not to sound pretentious I'm just practicing me theory here. Would this mean that they would have to take steep, fast landing approaches as well? I wonder why its stall angle is so low.
I hate how every one brags about how the SU-37 can do a Kulbit when not only can the F-22 do the same thing but this manuver is pretty much useless in combat.
@beroth1 F-22n all the way! The SU-37 can't even get a missle lock ont the F-22 and good luck getting a gun kill on that plane when your radar sight for your guns is out and you pretty much have to eye ball it because the computer can't compensate for the speed.
@Vyppaaa11 you sir are very retarted, the russians got an AWACS plane too, and missiles with longer range to take that awacs out, plus the f22 is still visible on radar, just not as significant, and plus when the weapon bays open up, it gives its position away, so it can get a lock, plus you wont be going against poorly trained muslims either
@ScorpionSrokk Well the F-22 is invisible on radar. And the bay doors open and close very quickly. And the Meteors are very unreliable. Con't even bother replying because I'm not going to argue with someone as ignorant as you.
@scanmaster80 I'm sorry, I misunderstood yu earlier. It has beeen proven that when the F-22 is "stealthed" it has the radar cross section of a metalick marble. This means that all modern radars would simply delete that signature thinking it was an error.
@Vyppaaa11 This is not true, surely russian pilots could get the raptor locked at closer range with their IR tracking system (OLS) and fire an IR missile at it or get gunshot parameters with laser rangefinder... at close range even the raptor's engines must have a significant IR signature. getting a long range radar lock might be tough though. Kulbit and Cobra are just examples of supermaneuverability, which is certainly VERY useful for pointing IR missiles at a target in close range dogfight.
@Stugerman The F-22's engines only have enough of an IR signatur for a lock when the F-22 is at full afterburner and remains that way for a minute or so. This has been tested and proven with the EFA-2000. And the range and speed compensator for the gun is actually a radar based system so the gun sight still would'nt work. And take it from a pilot, the kulbit and the cobra are both useless in a dogfight.
@Vyppaaa11 Ok, even if that would be the case, a supermaneuverable fighter still has a better chance against F22 than a non-supermaneuverable one. That was really the point, not the usefulness of the cobra or kulbit maneuvers specifically, but that you can pull as much AoA as you desire, and maintain some kind of control.
@Stugerman hahahahha! I really think you are trying to argue with someone above you level of knowledge. First off, you think super manuverability is an actuall term used in aeronatics. Second, you thought the range, angle and speed compensating gun sight used a laser system. Third, you think that the SUs can be controlled while ion a cobra or kulbit. And last but certainly not least... (cont)
@Vyppaaa11 You are completly unaware of the dangurousely low CAOA that the SU has. HAHAHAHAHA! Have fun argueing here on the internent, I'm going to go fly real planes. Oh, did I mentiojn I'm a pilot?
@Vyppaaa11 Your arrogance balances your claimed higher level of knowledge and piloting prowess nicely :) But flying real planes is fun, I do it too, so.. respect!
@Vyppaaa11 Oh CAOS, that must be an American term, in my ground school text its simply referred to as the stall angle. I'm not a pilot but I am taking ground school. But anyways how low is this planes stall angle? I can't find reference to what specific type of airfoil (NACA) this aircraft uses or anything on its coefficient of lift... obviously its of a Laminar Flow design.. where did you get your info? The P-51 had dangers stall AOA due to its Laminar airfoil.. but it was still great.
@MagnesiumAlloy It is a fact than in order for an aircraft to be able to performe an manuver as extreme as kulbit or cobra without using thrust vectoring that the aircrafts CAOA must be INCREDIBLY low. Seeing as the SU-27 (the aircraft the SU-37 was designed from) can perform the cobra that the basic desigen already has an incredibly low CAOA. Meaning that the aircraft is extremly easy to force into an accelerated stall and very likely to enter a spin.
@MagnesiumAlloy Cont: This was such a problem during thee testing phase of the airdcraft that the designers added the continuations of the vertical stabilizers to the underside of the fusealge to help combat this problem. But the effect was miniscule when compared to the problem.
The Su-37 was a highly upgraded version of the Su-27/33 with canards, 3D TVC and high tech avionics and stuff. Nobody bought it though and development ceased after 2 prototypes I think. The Su-35 is a similar Su-27/33 derivative that actually went further, it utilizes a bunch of technologies developer for and tested by the Su-37. The so called Su-35BM is the most modern version and lacks airbrake, canards and so on (stealth measures), and is being fielded by the RusAF.
Su-37: 3D TVC, canards, lots of new avionics and what not. Never produced in any numbers and not accepted into service.
Su-35: Uses lots of technology developed for and tested by the Su-37.
Su-35BM: Same here, but omitted the canards and airbrake as stealth measures. Also incorporates a bunch of newer systems and is being introduced into Russian service right now.
@ITmage Well its the same airframe except I think the SU-37 has a greater pitch rate or w/e you wanna call it because the SU-37 has canards where as the SU-35 does not.
@MagnesiumAlloy you are right, main difference is that SU37 has canards but SU35 does not. And SU35 has alot more powerful avionics...SU37 used pretty relic avionics compared to Mig29OVT and SU35BM....
@ITmage Avionics is a pretty generalised term to what exactly are you referring to when you state that the SU-37's avions are relic? The SU-37 was designed as a test bed for the SU-35.. they wanted to see how they should best upgrade the SU-35 into a 4.5 gen fighter.. until the ver PAK AV T-50 is ready.. so the new SU-35 is a result of the SU-37 program. The SU-37 had the first russian HOTAS controls and MFD's and can be equipted with, like the SU-35, PESA radar. Those are far from relics..
@MagnesiumAlloy hehe "pretty relic" compared to....electronic in SU30MKI or SU35BM are far superior than one used in SU37. It was top in "his time" but new radars came, SPO, new HUD etc. SU35 will probably get AESA radar in near future, same that will be used by PAK FA. Not to mention computing power, SU37 used older computer (mid 90s) SU35 got new multi core CPUs as heart of his electronic. (and its interesting that its Russian build CPU)
@Daniyoyo Well, they did technically build the Su-47. It may have never been armed or actually had more than one produced, but it was technically better.
not necessarily the f-22 only does similar maneuvers, it may seem more controlled but it is the flopping kind of motion the su-37 has that will save the pilot in a close in dog fight. this thing will dodge bullets by flipping the main body of the plane out of the targeted area while the f22's similar moves will leave the main body of the plane relatively stationary. the moves are better controlled but thus rendering them useless even in a real dogfight
haha...you're full of shit. What kind of experience do you have to prove this? Are you a fighter pilot? You seen real combat? No real fighter pilot would perform any of these "maneuvers". You know why? Because no one flies that slow in the first place. If you fly slow, your plane turns slowly. Turn rate is what keeps you alive in a dogfight--max instantaneous turn rate and max sustained turn rate (F-16 Falcon manages 26 and 18 degrees respectively)
@rpenri that is true and thats exactly what the advantage of doing these maneuvers is, a sudden drop of speed and angle means you can instantly change direction instead of doing a large circular turn. in turn you can throttle down, flip your plane to point downward, throttle up and be out a there almost instantly. alot of Frank Immhelman's moves would have been useless too since some of them made the plane almost completely stationary for a few seconds, but he made them work to his advantage.
Yes, but why would the plane be going so slowly in the first place? In order for this maneuver to work, your opponent must be close behind you. How are you going to achieve this without getting shot down first? Second, what about your opponent's wingman? How are you going to deal with him when you are suspended in air for those few precious seconds? You may get the shooter to pass you, but you will not get his wingman since he is further back watching the action.
Further more, who is Frank Immhelman? Are you referring to the German ace during WW1? His name was Max Immelmann...
In any case, an Immelmann turn is actually quite useful as it does not require the plane to fly so slowly. An immelmann or the reverse of an immelmann, a split-S can be used to disengage from the fight to live another day.
@rpenri actually i have no idea where i got frank from...awkward. and i just remembered i was thinking immelman, any who forgetting the name its the guy who drops throttle, hard rudders right and then throttles up while spraying everyone behind him with the machinegun. bleh thanks for the correction
i take it you've no actual piloting experience, have you? you say "flip your plane to point downward, throttle up and be out a there almost instantly"...unless that plane has the mass, thrust to weight ratio and turn rate of an air-to-air missile, he's not going anywhere "instantly"...he's a goose in mid-air waiting for someone to shoot him down. you say you're not saying it's useful in ACM, but your words suggest otherwise.
It's ok, only dumb Russian civilians think its useful.
If you understand the dynamics of BFM and ACM, you would understand that the cobra and kulbit are practically useless. Most fighter pilots with a bandit on their 6 typically never have a chance to perform Pugachev's cobra. They are usually shot down before that happens. A better maneuver is to use a defensive spiral dive (if altitude is sufficient) to A). disrupt enemy's aiming process and B). escape and if possible to turn the tables on your opponent.
@rpenri well i never did say this particularly was useful for air to air combat. but remember jets are also used for CAS. with this ability they now have the capability to slow the aircraft and provide almost continuous support. unlike more currently available models which require wide turns making it necessary for the pilot to leave the air space and make another approach. These crafts can now stay in the immediate airspace and keep the guns pointed on target almost the entire time.
lol...you realize that every single video of a plane doing Pugachev's cobra is doing it without any bombs or fuel tanks attached to it, right? let me explain: Lebron James can dunk a basketball. but can he dunk a basketball with four people sitting on his shoulders? no. not even king james can manage that. most of these maneuvers occur when the plane has less than half fuel and no bombs/pods stowed underneath. lol...you've never been in the cockpit of a fighter, have you?
In order to perform one of these maneuvers, the plane must fly somewhere around 250-350 knots -- too fast and the pilot will encounter too much positive Gs and either g-lock or the plane's computer will ease up on the stick to prevent the pilot from going unconscious.
Any fighter pilot is taught to counter braking maneuvers such as this with one that gives him an advantage. A chandelle for instance is capable of giving an opposing pilot an advantage against the cobra maneuver.
lol one thing america learned from using the f-15 active canards and 3d vectors dont go together you can have one but not two two is just superfluous it dosent have any benefits
The Kulbit is an airshow maneuver anyway, it has never been used in recorded combat. Its ACM value is not even close to the P-chev's Cobra, which is why the Raptor doesn't need to be able to do this as well anyway.
Besides, the F22 would blow one of these out of there from 10 miles away without the SU-37 ever even picking it up on radar with its lesser signature.
It has better maneuverability because it has canards. That's why I like the SU 37, because canards look cool. The F22 should have it, it will look good and preform better.
Only prototype Su-37's had the canards - they've removed them and put thrust vector control engines into the final version which makes the aircraft just as agile without the additional weight and radar cross section of canards.
F-22 also has TVC engines - though only 2-dimensional.
It's not bullshit, 2d is much easier to maintain and allows for lower IR sig. They've tested F-22's against 3D tvc equipped F-15's and found little advantage.
yes it can,, but not like su37, su 37 do the kulprit easily.. and can fly backwards and then flip over(@0:04).. not like f22, it stops in midair and then flip over,,
the f22 can just flip, just in most of the airshow videos they do pugachev cobras first, i'm pretty sure stopping vertically in midair then flipping is harder to do anyway
also f-22's do those tricks with their afterburners on if you have noticed no russian fighters ever does tricks with their afterburners on you know why. Cause its harder to maneuver when you are at a higher speed thus proving the f-22 has a much better turn and burn capability which equals =instant kill
Guys, even the F-22 can do a Kulbit more precisely than any Russian Fighter jet that does it. And the actual Kulbit was done by a pilot in an F-4 Phantom in the Coldwar against a Mig-17. So the Kulbit is only perfected by TVC planes.
F22raptor46 4 days ago
Saying an Su-37 can defeat an F-22 is like saying that a Prius can win the Daytona 500
LUFlyers15 1 week ago
Thanks for educating me on this EMerlin ^__^
I'll see for myself.
imajinnthatt 2 weeks ago
Note for F-22 pilots of the future. NEVER, and I do mean NEVER, challenge Flankers to close combat Dogfights. Just like F-4's and MiG-17's :P
WriggiluofVO 2 weeks ago
@WriggiluofVO
Um, why not? The F-22 can outmanuver any Flanker with ease.
EvilxMerlin 2 weeks ago
@EvilxMerlin Yes, its a fact. But the Kulbit was actually originated, when an F-4 pilot performed a backflip in the coldwar against the Mig-17. It was then perfected into the Kulbit by TVC operating planes.
F22raptor46 4 days ago
@WriggiluofVO F-22 has no problem with them, and the F22 can maneuver just as good as the Su-37.
F22raptor46 4 days ago
@AeroSharkTech You should stop spamming on youtube...really...just accept the fact that Russia designs amazing aircraft, and has been for decades.
tatewaki11 1 month ago
My favorite plane used to be the F-22, until i saw this.
Redtrainer113 1 month ago
@Redtrainer113
The F-22 can do this, at slower speeds too.
EvilxMerlin 2 weeks ago
@Redtrainer113 The F-22 is better than this. Cause it can maneuver just as good as this+ its stealth+ its got supercruise.
F22raptor46 4 days ago
@F22raptor46 F22 Kulbit ? loooool poor american boy...
Charlitification 1 day ago
@Charlitification Excuse me Im an Indian. And the F-22 can actually do it more accurately than this cause it has 2D TVC, which achieves higher angle so kulbit is more easily carried out.
F22raptor46 23 hours ago
@F22raptor46 You dream ... The f22 can not possibly make Kulbit ... sueulement the Su37 and maybe the su47. Do not read stupid things on wikipedia ...
Charlitification 21 hours ago
@Charlitification There's a video of a Raptor doing a kulbit on here. Look it up.
beroth1 17 hours ago
@Charlitification This isnt wiki stuff, its real, Ive seen it in documentries and books also.
F22raptor46 8 hours ago
@F22raptor46 Kulbit would require loop diameter in class of < 30 m. The f22 can not do that looping..
Charlitification 7 hours ago
imagine while it was upside down it shot the plane behind it then just carried on going forwards when back upright
raedenjay 1 month ago
I've always wondered how can they just stay in there while they don't shit their pants...
gtamodman122 1 month ago
Holy shit, Americans have to use thrust vectoring to do a Pugachev's Cobra.... while Russians invented it, and can do supermanouvers such as this without it...
TheAribom 2 months ago
@TheAribom It is impossible to do a super manouver without thrust vectoring, your aircraft will stall and the center or pressure will move back xD
tatewaki11 1 month ago
@tatewaki11 the SU-35BM and the SU-27 dont have thrust vectoring and all of them can do super manouvers
jowwalienware 1 month ago
@jowwalienware Pugachev;s cobra is not a supermanouver, which is why the Su27 without is able to perform it without using thrust vectoring...although it is easier for thrust vectoring aircraft to perform the manouver using supermanouverability. Super manouvers such as the Kulbit require supermanouverability, which is why the Su27 has become redundant. Also the Su35BM DOES use thrust vectoring...do you even know what thrust vectoring is?? LOL
tatewaki11 1 month ago
@tatewaki11 the SU-35BM doesnt have thrust vectoring, the sukhoi series became using thrust vectoring with the SU-37 as i've known, i never said im a super ultra pro on the subject, im just saying what i know about it,
jowwalienware 1 month ago
@jowwalienware You need to do more research...the Russians have been using thrust vectoring LONG before the SU-37...please research more on the topic or else you will embarrass yourself further...
tatewaki11 1 month ago
@tatewaki11 The only trust vectoring the Russians used prior to the Su-37 was for vertical take off purposes. The Su-37 was the first Russian aircraft to use TV for the purpose of EFM (Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability). The US had been experimenting with this since 1972. By the time the Su-37 first flew the US had already tested 9 different TV/EFM aircraft, including the F-16 VISTA which tested the world's first MATV (Multi Axis Thrust Vectoring). Think maybe YOU should do some research huh.
AeroSharkTech 1 month ago
@AeroSharkTech are u both fucking retarded? the Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM which were first introduced in the year 2000 featured THRUST VECTORING and use the Saturn Al-31FP. after those followed the Su-27SM, Su-30, and Su-34 which were introduced in 2007, and use the Saturn Al-31FM1. the Su-35BM was introduced in 2007 and uses the Al-41F-1S (117S). also the earliest records on thrust-vectoring technology research within Sukhoi began in 1983. finally, whose talking about the USAF?? LEARN TO READ!!!!!
tatewaki11 1 month ago
@tatewaki11 If anything you proved my point. Like you said, the earliest records of Sukhoi's TV research began in 1983. The US began testing TV on the HIMAT in 1972. So I fail to see your point. And you keep quoting events from 2000-2007. What does that have to do with anything? The F-16 VISTA flew in 1988. The YF-22 had TV in 1991. All you're doing is legitimizing my argument. Thanks? You should perhaps direct the "dickhead", and "learn to read" comments at yourself.
AeroSharkTech 1 month ago
@AeroSharkTech you are an idiot. stop replying to my comments and read the entire conversation. i'll break it down for your simple mind. @jowwalienware argued that the Russians never used thrust vectoring before the Su-37. i proved him wrong. Then u proved my point by stating that the Russians used TV before the development of the Su-37. Then u went on about the USAF. But nobody was talking about the US. So stop acting retarded by jumping into conversations when u have no idea what's going on.
tatewaki11 1 month ago
@tatewaki11 K, great. But what wikipedia obviously did not make clear to you is that the Su-27 that was outfitted with the 2DTV never flew. From 1983 to 1996, none of the aircraft (there were only 2) had flown and had only done wind tunnel testing at the most. They did not FLY with TV until 1996. So your point is just as mute as all your childish name calling. And I clearly stated that Russia used TV for VTOL purposes before the Su-37 my boy. Please read carefully next time.
AeroSharkTech 1 month ago
@AeroSharkTech I've already succeeded in making my point. which is why I won the previous argument. now what is your point my backwards fellow?
tatewaki11 1 month ago
@tatewaki11 My point is that you are wrong for saying there were more aircraft before the Su-37, unless you are including concept aircraft that never flew. Otherwise the Su-37 was indeed the first Russian EMF aircraft. I don't think that's too hard to grasp.
AeroSharkTech 1 month ago
@AeroSharkTech First, the Su-27SM did fly, it was a demonstrator. Otherwise how could it crash?? Second, I didn't say "there were more aircraft before the Su-37". I said "the Russians used TV before the Su-37". Regardless of the fact that they used TV for VTOL purposes before 1983, which I knew of beforehand, they didn't stumble across TV for the first time in Russian history in 1996 and slap it on a "Su-37" and make it fly. I win :D
tatewaki11 1 month ago
Comment removed
AeroSharkTech 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tatewaki11 NO, you don't. The Su-27 that crashed was mounted with two engines that were designed to simulate the weight and balance of the actual engines they were going to utilize. These engines were exact "replicas", if you will, the engineers installed in order to reduce risk of W/B issues. However, they DID NOT have TV capabilities. Perhaps you should read Sukhoi's documents instead of second hand Wikipedia nonsense. And why would you argue for VTOL on a EFM video? C'mon.
AeroSharkTech 1 month ago
Comment removed
AeroSharkTech 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tatewaki11 Common sense would show that people watching a video about aircraft with EFM TV would be commenting on that subject. Why would you come in here to throw everything off subject and just to make an argument when its obvious the vast majority of posters are commenting on EFM and not VTOL? Nothing better to do? Or is that just what you do to make yourself feel intelligent, or even accomplished considering you're so concerned with "winning" youtube debates? Get a life.
AeroSharkTech 1 month ago
@AeroSharkTech Also, thanks for proving my point about the Russians using thrust vectoring long before the Su-37...Dickhead...
tatewaki11 1 month ago
Omgz
TheVictornegrete 2 months ago
Sweet Jesus...
edpjunior 2 months ago
those Russians can build some kickass aircraft..but I prefer thier Helicopters
eagle8341 2 months ago
I can do a Kulbit using a mig-29k in YSflight!
Yes, I know the mig-29k can't do them in real life, but it could if they put vector nozzles on it.
kozmon0t 3 months ago
that is impossible
wehhabi 4 months ago
@wehhabi its not the plane has thrust vectoring = steering with the engines
lacucaracha111111 3 months ago
daaaaaaaaaaaaaang!
Thesixthgoon 4 months ago
the Su-37 is the best-looking fighter and by far the most Manoeuvrable.
Good work Sukhoï !!
matLFRC 6 months ago
so it flies in and kinder drops the thrust and the back end is heavy it drops down and then thrust back up again
MAD MAD MAD stunt daring but MAD!
EmpireLS56KW 6 months ago
hehe two words: crazy russians!
STeNeNSTeN96 6 months ago 11
You are only looking at the worlds best jet!
BusinessKi11ER 6 months ago
why dosent its compressor stall?
leangle1988 7 months ago
what's the music please ?
253JONNYSTUART 8 months ago
PEOPLE ALWAYS COMPARE SU-37 AND SU-35 WITH F-22
WELL HERE ARE THE FACTS: SU-37 IS FASTER,CAN DO DOUBLE KULBIT,OR COBRA MANUEVAR AND IT'S FASTER THAN F-22. AND RUSSIAN PILOTS GET BEST TRAINING IN THE WORLD,SO EVERYONE NOT AGREEING,PLEASE STFU
Duke0Forever 9 months ago
@Duke0Forever Lol, here are the REAL facts - The Su-37 has actual statistics that aren't CLASSIFIED. The real speed of the F-22 is above Mach 3. The only pilots in America allowed to fly the F-22 are the roughly 200 best of the motherfuckin' best.
karinosai 8 months ago
@karinosai cool story bro
Duke0Forever 8 months ago
@Duke0Forever Incorrect use of meme.
karinosai 8 months ago
@karinosai cool story bro
Duke0Forever 8 months ago
@Duke0Forever You mad, bro?
karinosai 8 months ago
@karinosai speakin like a troll,I won't bother you again,on this video bro...
Duke0Forever 8 months ago
@karinosai Don't be a bitch...
MegaBooogy 2 months ago
@MegaBooogy I should say the same to you. Randomly insulting me without anything to back you up.
karinosai 2 months ago
@karinosai You know the truth.
f-22 is expensive crap...
MegaBooogy 2 months ago
@MegaBooogy The F-22 is expensive, but it most certainly not "crap".
Conceived over 20 years ago, and is still the most technologically advanced fighter to date.
Where is your god now?
karinosai 2 months ago
@karinosai we dont need a god, the SU-47, SU-35BM and the SU-37 were proven to be capable of destroying a F-22 in combat
jowwalienware 1 month ago
@jowwalienware Kid, if you want to start making outrageous, false claims with nothing to back them up, go talk on 4chan, not YouTube. Go hang out with the scum of the internet like yourself.
karinosai 1 month ago
@karinosai i dont remember insulting you, so the only kid here is you, go to your 4chan because im not here to insult anyone, goodbye
jowwalienware 1 month ago
@jowwalienware I notice you're still not backing up any of your claims, son.
karinosai 1 month ago
@jowwalienware also sorry by my wrong statemente on the comment u answered, i meant the SU-35BM and the SU-27, not ALL the sukhoi series, but these 2 do not have thrust vectoring and i didnt say the pugachev's cobra was a supermaneuver
jowwalienware 1 month ago
@jowwalienware Really, how? A computer analysis? I hope you don't take such things seriously considering the majority of the F-22s capabilites are clasified. Also the Su-47 has a thrust adavantage over the F/A-18C...THAT'S IT. Same Sustained Alpha, same turn rate, and many other "Sames" which is why the aircraft never went into production. The Su-35 at Corner Airpseed is 4 DPS lower than the F-22 at half rate. You really need to check your info. Also, the F-15C ate the Su-30 alive in '10.
AeroSharkTech 1 month ago
SHIT THAT IS FUCKIN INSANE. THE SU-37 WOULD OWN THE F-22 IN A DOGFIGHT HANDS DOWN.
dormytorry 9 months ago 3
@dormytorry you're totally right,I mean,what's the point in stealth when missiles fired from long range miss the plane doing this manuevars...Than it would come to a dogfight.... Well,SU-37 would own every jet ever built in a dog fight
Duke0Forever 9 months ago
Now thats a bad ass maneuver.... very practical in a dogfight..
Zerojquan 10 months ago
<3 :D
Maki9651 1 year ago
its a really good plane but only bad thing about planes with canards is that they aren't so good in supersonic manuevers, they can be but id imagine how that would cause damage to the plane
TH7596 1 year ago
@TH7596 What do you mean by damage? If you mean structural stress, it's designed to handle it. It has a 20g+ capability, so the pilot would sooner pass out than the plane would break appart. As a matter of fact, canards make aircraft very maneuvrable because they have relatively more moment of force than all-moving tailplanes.
GabberJunkieZ 9 months ago
the F22s i've seen can not do it so tight like this
StraussBR 1 year ago
The single su37 prototype was here on an airshow, intended for aircraft sale advertisement since the bid for new fighters was going on then. It was rejected just like the Rafale-it was simply not good enough. The F-15E has standoff strike capabilities and this is what really counts.
xxwzaebd 1 year ago
Our air force rejected the su37 because it was not good enough. Instead,an F-15E version was selected and this was a VERY VERY VERY VERY good thing.
xxwzaebd 1 year ago
@xxwzaebd No the SU-37 was an experimental aircraft,never intended to go into servic.They just wondered how far changes on the SU-35 can go(but NATO was paranoid and named it the SU-37,presuming its a new jet).Its too expensive,and just rooted out the good aspects of the plane and implemented them unto the newer SU-35's.
999cheetos999 1 year ago
Well I dunno.. I guess thats a good characteristic if you want to have a great turn and burn fighter like the SU-37... I'm thinking that the way they do it that the plane would stall so rapidly and would generate so much form drag that it wouldn't even have a chance to enter the incipient stage. Not to sound pretentious I'm just practicing me theory here. Would this mean that they would have to take steep, fast landing approaches as well? I wonder why its stall angle is so low.
MagnesiumAlloy 1 year ago
su37 is an airshow masterpiece. However, i have no idea how it would preform in an actual dog fight. Regardless, its quite a spectacle to look at.
TheEgoFanBoy1 1 year ago
хохлы пидоры
zaidenshnire 1 year ago
I hate how every one brags about how the SU-37 can do a Kulbit when not only can the F-22 do the same thing but this manuver is pretty much useless in combat.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
F-22 CLOSE AIR COMBAT w/ SU-37... Who takes it?
beroth1 1 year ago
@beroth1 F-22n all the way! The SU-37 can't even get a missle lock ont the F-22 and good luck getting a gun kill on that plane when your radar sight for your guns is out and you pretty much have to eye ball it because the computer can't compensate for the speed.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 you sir are very retarted, the russians got an AWACS plane too, and missiles with longer range to take that awacs out, plus the f22 is still visible on radar, just not as significant, and plus when the weapon bays open up, it gives its position away, so it can get a lock, plus you wont be going against poorly trained muslims either
ScorpionSrokk 1 year ago
@ScorpionSrokk Well the F-22 is invisible on radar. And the bay doors open and close very quickly. And the Meteors are very unreliable. Con't even bother replying because I'm not going to argue with someone as ignorant as you.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 F22 is visible on the radar of Ukrainian production entitled "Kalchuga-M.
scanmaster80 1 year ago
@scanmaster80 tell that to scrorpionsrokk, I was trying to tell him that.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vyppaaa11 @Vyppaaa11 @Vyppaaa11 From wikipedia:
en.wiki pedia .org/ wiki/ Kolchuga_passive_sensor
scanmaster80 1 year ago
@scanmaster80 I'm sorry, I misunderstood yu earlier. It has beeen proven that when the F-22 is "stealthed" it has the radar cross section of a metalick marble. This means that all modern radars would simply delete that signature thinking it was an error.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 This is not true, surely russian pilots could get the raptor locked at closer range with their IR tracking system (OLS) and fire an IR missile at it or get gunshot parameters with laser rangefinder... at close range even the raptor's engines must have a significant IR signature. getting a long range radar lock might be tough though. Kulbit and Cobra are just examples of supermaneuverability, which is certainly VERY useful for pointing IR missiles at a target in close range dogfight.
Stugerman 1 year ago
@Stugerman The F-22's engines only have enough of an IR signatur for a lock when the F-22 is at full afterburner and remains that way for a minute or so. This has been tested and proven with the EFA-2000. And the range and speed compensator for the gun is actually a radar based system so the gun sight still would'nt work. And take it from a pilot, the kulbit and the cobra are both useless in a dogfight.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 Ok, even if that would be the case, a supermaneuverable fighter still has a better chance against F22 than a non-supermaneuverable one. That was really the point, not the usefulness of the cobra or kulbit maneuvers specifically, but that you can pull as much AoA as you desire, and maintain some kind of control.
Stugerman 1 year ago
@Stugerman hahahahha! I really think you are trying to argue with someone above you level of knowledge. First off, you think super manuverability is an actuall term used in aeronatics. Second, you thought the range, angle and speed compensating gun sight used a laser system. Third, you think that the SUs can be controlled while ion a cobra or kulbit. And last but certainly not least... (cont)
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 You are completly unaware of the dangurousely low CAOA that the SU has. HAHAHAHAHA! Have fun argueing here on the internent, I'm going to go fly real planes. Oh, did I mentiojn I'm a pilot?
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
Comment removed
Stugerman 1 year ago
Comment removed
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 It was same comment as the one after it, but without the @Vyppaaa11, so I removed it and posted again correctly.
Stugerman 1 year ago
@Stugerman Okay, I just removed mine now that I know that.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vyppaaa11 Your arrogance balances your claimed higher level of knowledge and piloting prowess nicely :) But flying real planes is fun, I do it too, so.. respect!
Stugerman 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 What is CAOA? I've never heard that abreviation bfore
MagnesiumAlloy 1 year ago
@MagnesiumAlloy CAOA stands for Critical Angle Of Attack.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@Vyppaaa11 Oh CAOS, that must be an American term, in my ground school text its simply referred to as the stall angle. I'm not a pilot but I am taking ground school. But anyways how low is this planes stall angle? I can't find reference to what specific type of airfoil (NACA) this aircraft uses or anything on its coefficient of lift... obviously its of a Laminar Flow design.. where did you get your info? The P-51 had dangers stall AOA due to its Laminar airfoil.. but it was still great.
MagnesiumAlloy 1 year ago
@MagnesiumAlloy It is a fact than in order for an aircraft to be able to performe an manuver as extreme as kulbit or cobra without using thrust vectoring that the aircrafts CAOA must be INCREDIBLY low. Seeing as the SU-27 (the aircraft the SU-37 was designed from) can perform the cobra that the basic desigen already has an incredibly low CAOA. Meaning that the aircraft is extremly easy to force into an accelerated stall and very likely to enter a spin.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@MagnesiumAlloy Cont: This was such a problem during thee testing phase of the airdcraft that the designers added the continuations of the vertical stabilizers to the underside of the fusealge to help combat this problem. But the effect was miniscule when compared to the problem.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@MagnesiumAlloy Btw, i realize I made several spelling mistakes in those comments...I just did'nt notice until I had already posted them.
Vyppaaa11 1 year ago
@beroth1 F-22 anyday
F22raptor46 23 hours ago
chandelle
onojmai 1 year ago
I never get, what´s the difference between Su-35&37 they both have canards, trust vector, same Su27 look.
I like Russian fighters, also Americans, but this new age of stealthy ones will end those good looking ones
Mad69sur 2 years ago
The Su-37 was a highly upgraded version of the Su-27/33 with canards, 3D TVC and high tech avionics and stuff. Nobody bought it though and development ceased after 2 prototypes I think. The Su-35 is a similar Su-27/33 derivative that actually went further, it utilizes a bunch of technologies developer for and tested by the Su-37. The so called Su-35BM is the most modern version and lacks airbrake, canards and so on (stealth measures), and is being fielded by the RusAF.
joeceph 1 year ago
Su-37: 3D TVC, canards, lots of new avionics and what not. Never produced in any numbers and not accepted into service.
Su-35: Uses lots of technology developed for and tested by the Su-37.
Su-35BM: Same here, but omitted the canards and airbrake as stealth measures. Also incorporates a bunch of newer systems and is being introduced into Russian service right now.
joeceph 1 year ago
too bad they scraped su-37 and decide to continue the su-35. although su-35BM have a thrust-vectoring, su-37 still the best !!!
ImronJakhaev 2 years ago 12
@ImronJakhaev SU35 and SU37 are the same plane....SU35 is SU37 with updated avionics....SU35 is in fact kinda serial version of SU37....
ITmage 1 year ago
@ITmage Well its the same airframe except I think the SU-37 has a greater pitch rate or w/e you wanna call it because the SU-37 has canards where as the SU-35 does not.
MagnesiumAlloy 1 year ago
@MagnesiumAlloy you are right, main difference is that SU37 has canards but SU35 does not. And SU35 has alot more powerful avionics...SU37 used pretty relic avionics compared to Mig29OVT and SU35BM....
ITmage 1 year ago
@ITmage Avionics is a pretty generalised term to what exactly are you referring to when you state that the SU-37's avions are relic? The SU-37 was designed as a test bed for the SU-35.. they wanted to see how they should best upgrade the SU-35 into a 4.5 gen fighter.. until the ver PAK AV T-50 is ready.. so the new SU-35 is a result of the SU-37 program. The SU-37 had the first russian HOTAS controls and MFD's and can be equipted with, like the SU-35, PESA radar. Those are far from relics..
MagnesiumAlloy 1 year ago
@MagnesiumAlloy hehe "pretty relic" compared to....electronic in SU30MKI or SU35BM are far superior than one used in SU37. It was top in "his time" but new radars came, SPO, new HUD etc. SU35 will probably get AESA radar in near future, same that will be used by PAK FA. Not to mention computing power, SU37 used older computer (mid 90s) SU35 got new multi core CPUs as heart of his electronic. (and its interesting that its Russian build CPU)
ITmage 1 year ago
@ITmage i thought Su-35BM is the improvement of Su-30MK series, & Su-35BM also updated stealth system lol
ImronJakhaev 1 year ago
@ImronJakhaev SU35BM is only covered with Ram materials on his nose and frontal side of wings...RCS from the front side "assault RCS".
ITmage 1 year ago
@ImronJakhaev The SU-37 was the test bed for the latest thrust vectoring.
TheMilitaryTactics 1 year ago
@TheMilitaryTactics lol i know, but its a shame that its failed, its already 3D thrust-vectoring lol
ImronJakhaev 1 year ago
@ImronJakhaev well it paved the path to the T-50's engines
TheMilitaryTactics 1 year ago
@ImronJakhaev
su 35 is just more useful. and the canards do look uggly but style is not an issue, I know.
PewPewPlasmagun 6 months ago
yes, i agree... this craft is the best right now russia has instore. but sad its only a tech demonstrator.
the real SU-37 crashed in dec 2002 and russian airforce scrapped the SU-37 program.
ganarzon 2 years ago 4
Incredible.Beware Pakis
001united 2 years ago
my opinion of course, but the Su-37 terminator is simply the BEST plane russia has ever Built
Daniyoyo 2 years ago 25
Agreed!
IntegralAnomaly 2 years ago 2
@Daniyoyo Well, they did technically build the Su-47. It may have never been armed or actually had more than one produced, but it was technically better.
karinosai 8 months ago
WOW ! I know the kulbit from the gam "HAWX" but I didn't knew that it realy works
Gliderfan95 2 years ago
i figured it was but now i see it is possible. probably using thrust vectoring that only some aircraft have
sev00177 2 years ago
Nicks76pilot,
Correct the SU-37 no longer exists. It was converted back into an SU-35 and crashed on 19th December 2002. The pilot ejected successfully.
TEEEEEEEEJ 2 years ago
kulbit or in other word, sommersault
kingnek 2 years ago
Now that is what I call kulbit!!! Awsome video. I've seen F-22's TRYING to do the kulbit but it never works.
Haispan3 2 years ago
a f-22 can do a kulbit bette than this, it can spin on its tail instead making its tale go up like the su-37.. but su-37 is also a great plane!
HawxSmokedTempo 2 years ago
The Kulbit is completely different from that power loop. The Kulbit looks like a back flip but a power loop just is a mini radius somersault.
emile1211 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You dumbshit, the F-22 is the most maneuverable aircraft today. It can perform same tricks as the SU-37 due to its thrust vectoring technology.
usafpilot29 2 years ago
not necessarily the f-22 only does similar maneuvers, it may seem more controlled but it is the flopping kind of motion the su-37 has that will save the pilot in a close in dog fight. this thing will dodge bullets by flipping the main body of the plane out of the targeted area while the f22's similar moves will leave the main body of the plane relatively stationary. the moves are better controlled but thus rendering them useless even in a real dogfight
BringerOfD 2 years ago
@BringerOfD
haha...you're full of shit. What kind of experience do you have to prove this? Are you a fighter pilot? You seen real combat? No real fighter pilot would perform any of these "maneuvers". You know why? Because no one flies that slow in the first place. If you fly slow, your plane turns slowly. Turn rate is what keeps you alive in a dogfight--max instantaneous turn rate and max sustained turn rate (F-16 Falcon manages 26 and 18 degrees respectively)
rpenri 1 year ago 2
@rpenri that is true and thats exactly what the advantage of doing these maneuvers is, a sudden drop of speed and angle means you can instantly change direction instead of doing a large circular turn. in turn you can throttle down, flip your plane to point downward, throttle up and be out a there almost instantly. alot of Frank Immhelman's moves would have been useless too since some of them made the plane almost completely stationary for a few seconds, but he made them work to his advantage.
BringerOfD 1 year ago
@BringerOfD
Yes, but why would the plane be going so slowly in the first place? In order for this maneuver to work, your opponent must be close behind you. How are you going to achieve this without getting shot down first? Second, what about your opponent's wingman? How are you going to deal with him when you are suspended in air for those few precious seconds? You may get the shooter to pass you, but you will not get his wingman since he is further back watching the action.
rpenri 1 year ago 3
@BringerOfD
Further more, who is Frank Immhelman? Are you referring to the German ace during WW1? His name was Max Immelmann...
In any case, an Immelmann turn is actually quite useful as it does not require the plane to fly so slowly. An immelmann or the reverse of an immelmann, a split-S can be used to disengage from the fight to live another day.
rpenri 1 year ago
@rpenri actually i have no idea where i got frank from...awkward. and i just remembered i was thinking immelman, any who forgetting the name its the guy who drops throttle, hard rudders right and then throttles up while spraying everyone behind him with the machinegun. bleh thanks for the correction
BringerOfD 1 year ago
@BringerOfD
i take it you've no actual piloting experience, have you? you say "flip your plane to point downward, throttle up and be out a there almost instantly"...unless that plane has the mass, thrust to weight ratio and turn rate of an air-to-air missile, he's not going anywhere "instantly"...he's a goose in mid-air waiting for someone to shoot him down. you say you're not saying it's useful in ACM, but your words suggest otherwise.
It's ok, only dumb Russian civilians think its useful.
rpenri 1 year ago
@BringerOfD
If you understand the dynamics of BFM and ACM, you would understand that the cobra and kulbit are practically useless. Most fighter pilots with a bandit on their 6 typically never have a chance to perform Pugachev's cobra. They are usually shot down before that happens. A better maneuver is to use a defensive spiral dive (if altitude is sufficient) to A). disrupt enemy's aiming process and B). escape and if possible to turn the tables on your opponent.
rpenri 1 year ago
@rpenri well i never did say this particularly was useful for air to air combat. but remember jets are also used for CAS. with this ability they now have the capability to slow the aircraft and provide almost continuous support. unlike more currently available models which require wide turns making it necessary for the pilot to leave the air space and make another approach. These crafts can now stay in the immediate airspace and keep the guns pointed on target almost the entire time.
BringerOfD 1 year ago
@BringerOfD
lol...you realize that every single video of a plane doing Pugachev's cobra is doing it without any bombs or fuel tanks attached to it, right? let me explain: Lebron James can dunk a basketball. but can he dunk a basketball with four people sitting on his shoulders? no. not even king james can manage that. most of these maneuvers occur when the plane has less than half fuel and no bombs/pods stowed underneath. lol...you've never been in the cockpit of a fighter, have you?
rpenri 1 year ago
@BringerOfD
In order to perform one of these maneuvers, the plane must fly somewhere around 250-350 knots -- too fast and the pilot will encounter too much positive Gs and either g-lock or the plane's computer will ease up on the stick to prevent the pilot from going unconscious.
Any fighter pilot is taught to counter braking maneuvers such as this with one that gives him an advantage. A chandelle for instance is capable of giving an opposing pilot an advantage against the cobra maneuver.
rpenri 1 year ago 2
Cool >:)
DanielDeSmurf 2 years ago
F-15 active should be able to do this also it also has canards and 3d vectors
awesome video!!!!!
PanicAtTheDiscoBerry 2 years ago
lol one thing america learned from using the f-15 active canards and 3d vectors dont go together you can have one but not two two is just superfluous it dosent have any benefits
monimstarfox 2 years ago
The Kulbit is an airshow maneuver anyway, it has never been used in recorded combat. Its ACM value is not even close to the P-chev's Cobra, which is why the Raptor doesn't need to be able to do this as well anyway.
Besides, the F22 would blow one of these out of there from 10 miles away without the SU-37 ever even picking it up on radar with its lesser signature.
StegmanTriangle 2 years ago
F-22 will waste that sukhoi any day
packgen 2 years ago
It has better maneuverability because it has canards. That's why I like the SU 37, because canards look cool. The F22 should have it, it will look good and preform better.
ferrariguy1000 2 years ago
Yeah but probably screw up its stealth ability
coltsfreak1856 2 years ago
Only prototype Su-37's had the canards - they've removed them and put thrust vector control engines into the final version which makes the aircraft just as agile without the additional weight and radar cross section of canards.
F-22 also has TVC engines - though only 2-dimensional.
Suyamu 2 years ago
It also has axisymmetric thrust vectoring which rapes the F-22's 2d bullshit.
kaisa226 2 years ago
It's not bullshit, 2d is much easier to maintain and allows for lower IR sig. They've tested F-22's against 3D tvc equipped F-15's and found little advantage.
EarlMcCrackin 2 years ago
Yeah that's true.
kaisa226 2 years ago
So true but yet so many people ignore ur fact u just said
jtlovett27 2 years ago
Sure F-22 can't do that!! russian aircraft like SU-37 is more maneuverable than NATO aircrafts..
cyther39 2 years ago
watch?v=GrBx6G2O6A4
@1.15
So that'll be an F22 doing that then?
staggabob 2 years ago
yes it can,, but not like su37, su 37 do the kulprit easily.. and can fly backwards and then flip over(@0:04).. not like f22, it stops in midair and then flip over,,
sorry for my english..=)
cyther39 2 years ago 2
the f22 can just flip, just in most of the airshow videos they do pugachev cobras first, i'm pretty sure stopping vertically in midair then flipping is harder to do anyway
OriginalRubberJesus 2 years ago
also f-22's do those tricks with their afterburners on if you have noticed no russian fighters ever does tricks with their afterburners on you know why. Cause its harder to maneuver when you are at a higher speed thus proving the f-22 has a much better turn and burn capability which equals =instant kill
monimstarfox 2 years ago
sukoi can get beaten by f22 anyday! but their maneuvrability exceeds that of the raptor.
got a problem with my comment?reply to me on my channel! ;}
alvinhdavenport 2 years ago
would be great if you shoot someone in the face while doing that ! :P
flamingNL 3 years ago
Unbelieveable, Sukhois can do anything...
except get beaten
sukhoisown 3 years ago
aww man, thats amazing!
ColeHimself 3 years ago