Added: 4 years ago
From: strayjay
Views: 424,560
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (1,544)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • China declares war on USA, 32 J20s fly towards the USA, 132 F-22s intercept them.

    J20 pilots: AWW SHIT!!!!!! WTF?!?!

    JK I'm just joking with yal.

  • 20 seconds for 360dgr turn? That's 2 seconds better than I-16 in 1933.

    Would be nice to know the minimum turn radius of F-22 in meters. Does anyone know or is it possible to judge by this video? 100-200m?

  • @BitnikGr LOL it's interesting to note that the Su-35, 37 and 30 (the ones with thrust vectoring) can do a 360 in about......uhm......1-2 seconds :P

  • @RiccardoTheBeAst With a severe loss of speed and further agility.

  • @franknbeans4761 Of course ;)

  • @franknbeans4761 Loss of speed - yes. Loss of agility? No. With 3D TVC and thrust/ weight ratio higher than 1 aircraft's nose can be pointed anywhere virtually anytime. (within logical 6-10 seconds to perform change of direction).

    SU-30MKI can't raise its nose after performance of cobra maneuver for example. That's because it has not true 3D TVC and its engines thrust is lower than SU-35. SU-35 can pick up its nose vertically after cobra or after flat spin.

  • @BitnikGr Doesnt F-22 have only 2d thrust vectoring? and not 3D TVC?

  • @normison69 Yes it does. We were talking about SU-30/33/35.

  • @BitnikGr SU-35 and SU-37 can basicly turn almost around their own axis like a helicopter, its very cool looking manouver and do supercobras when they flip over many times the cobra in a row doing 360 degree cobras 2-3 in a row.

  • @normison69 This is what I was explaining to the other guy. People mistake a flat spin with a turn. 360degrees turn must have sustained bunk, speed and radius. Rotation around its own vertical axis is not a turn, but a flat spin.

  • @BitnikGr Yes and durign the vertical axis turn your air speed drops to very very low, but still in dogfight i think its can be a good manouver instead of turning normally given the right situation.

  • @normison69 "given the right situation" - Exactly.

    However, when Cobra maneuver was invented it was effective not only in close dogfight, but also in BVR. This was effective manouver in order to disappear from enemy's pulse-dopler radars. F.e. using this maneuver in 80s, SU-27 could launch 2 medium range AAMs against F-15 and then run away without leaving F-15 any chance to react.

    But this trick doesn't work against PESA and AESA radars.

  • @normison69 ...

    But there are plenty of fighters still equipped with pulse-dopler radar around the World. So, I bet Indian SU-30MKI can effectively use Cobra against pulse-dopler radars of all Pakistani fighters in BVR. Pakistan has F-16, JF-17, F-7, Mirage III, Mirage 5 - they all have pulse-dopler radars.

  • @normison69 I can't get what do you call as "vertical axis spin" exactly...

    If you have a video with example to show me...

    F-22 can do a flat spin, it can stand on its tail and then fall to one of its sides and it can do a kulbit (falling on back after standing on tail f.e.). But some of maneuvers can't be done so fast as on SUkhoi planes.

  • @RiccardoTheBeAst Maneuver you referring to is not a turn with sustained speed, but a flat spin and F-22 can do it too. /watch?v=VJM2NyN6pYw

    But indeed SU-35 does 360dgr flat spin in 6 seconds, (/watch?v=Iuqaig4-Fkc), while F-22 in 6 seconds does only 180dgrs.

    Generally speaking flat spin can be performed by many planes, even ones from WW II era.

  • @BitnikGr Uhm no i mean that fast changes of direction (dunno the name) /watch?v=4jVbb1sU49o

    and without 3D thrust vectoring the F-22 cannot turn so fast horizontally ;)

  • F-22 don't give a fuck

  • Vote for ron paul if you still want this jet

  • its just so pretty !!

  • Take that radar!

  • sonic boom!

  • @rocketman5011 Where?

  • I want to see more of these made. the f-35 is probably gonna fail.

  • @nayte1

    Yeah, F-35 multirole is very much weaker. F-22 is a freak plane, almost too good for the real world. It's overpriced due to the rampant corruption at Pentagon/contractors, a never-ending corruption since large procurements in 1980es. F-22 would be indispensable only against Russia, and it's hardly the case. Russia/India PAK/FA is good, but not as good. It comes at something like 30% the price (including their own corruption). China is testing something, I am a bit skeptical about them.

  • WOW! Just...WOW! lol I felt a sinking feeling into my chair just now.

  • After playing Battlefield 3 I realize the importance of a minimum radius turn. LOL

  • @yost28 I always forget to turn off my afterburners.

  • @yost28 BF3 can only teach you so much about dog- fighting.

  • @yost28

    Battlefied 3 is complete nonsense.

    Aircaft these days engage eachother at about 50km with BVR missiles, not at 500m with cannons.

  • @Heaney5551

    Not saying its like real-life, just saying that having a tighter turning radius than the other guy is a definite plus.

  • @Heaney5551 Well I agree with the first statement, there is a reason why they continue to put guns on fighters, and why they still teach ACM.

  • Holy. Fucking. Shit....

  • ..a tight run followed by a vertical climb.....i feel bad for the pilot lolol...those Gs

  • over G's

  • maybe the f15 eagle active?

  • US Air Force has 187 F-22s. If you want to invade any country in the world, including China, this is enough.

  • @49fiori

    actually with 187 we can invade 3 or 4 countries at the same time and easily achieve air superiority.

    Nothing can touch the F-22 right now!!

  • @49fiori until air defence missiles are upgraded (most likely this decade). Remember this plane is not "invisable to radar its just harder to detect (without me going all geeky here) but no doubt if they wanted to invade today it would be enough"

  • @alskinso nah not really, the EU alone would be enough to completely destroy them if they even considered an invasion in any country without a damn good reason to do so....

  • @49fiori when China builds 300 J-20 then you have no chance.

  • @obsidianstatue By the time those are pushed into service amerika will have 6th gen ready.

  • @TheBlackIdentety no J-20 is set to come in service in 2018 by then only a handful of f-35 will be operational, so called 6th generation is atleast 20 years away.

  • @obsidianstatue O.K. I know I exaggerated a bit,6th gen is do between 2020-25.Also by that time the entire 2400 plane fleet should be operational of the f-35's.Some are already in service so in this respect you're greatly underestamating amerika.

    Don't get me wrong,I'm no fan of amerika playing the cherif of the world but they are always a gen.ahead of anyone and that's just the publicly known tech.Black projects are up to 50 years ahead of anything we know of.

  • Its not the minimum radius turn duh, its turns even faster!!!

  • is it under pressure thats make the "cloud" or what to call it, when he turns?

  • @Nikki92ful it is the air that cannot get away fast enough, so it gets compressed over the wings and therefore visible - very short explanation but that is basically what happens

  • @hassanoish -"it is the air that cannot get away fast enough, so it gets compressed over the wings and therefore visible - very short explanation"

    And a very wrong one.

    Compressed air heats up, dilating air cools down. Air above wings dilates and cools down below the air's dew point causing condensation to appear (i.e. making the air's moisture visible), hence the "clouds."

  • @em745aa exactly what i wrote.. mine was just shorter and more precise than yours mr. air professor ;D

  • @hassanoish -"exactly what i wrote.. mine was just shorter and more precise than yours mr. air professor"

    Typical asinine retort from a YouTube twit who can't admit when he's wrong.

    You CLEARLY said that it was "compression" that made the air "visible," which is bullshit. You made no mention AT ALL of air moisture, low pressure and dew point (all KEY points as to what actually causes the "cloud" to appear).

    Take a course in basic gas physics. You might learn a thing or two.

  • @em745aa now your just repeating what i just explained to perfection, short and simple. I was way more precise than you

  • @em745aa Plus, I would think that if the air above the wings had higher pressure, the plane would fall out of the sky.

  • Holy G-zus!

  • Turn on a dime? That thing turned on a freaking atom!

  • F-22: Ignoring Newtons first law of motion since 1997.

  • I can't wait until more f-22 cockpit videos surface

  • govno!!!

  • Comment removed

  • An su-35bm in a flat spin turns in a radius of 1/2 a su-35bm. It may lose a little altitude in the process, but so did that f-22.

  • @kozmon0t bear in mind how fast this F-22 is traveling. If it were going slower and with use of thrust vectoring, could turn sharper, however this would result in altitude loss.

  • @lrusak It's well below corner speed, or the turn would have been complete in the claimed 13 seconds. I doubt it can turn any sharper with full control.

    And it did lose altitude. Unless the cameraman somehow zoomed in imperceptibly.

  • @kozmon0t Even though they say they're showing maximum performance, demos often modify maneuvers to look "right" for the audience. As the jets go into the turn, they reduce bank in order to generate a slight climb, this way on the ground at show center, the turn looks level. As they come out of the turn, you'll notice the bank varying and hence the altitude loss.

  • Yes. Very nice... how much?

  • Wow that's pretty rapid.

  • Is that white cloudy looking stuff just it being too awesome and shedding the extra awesomeness off?

  • i want one

  • 15g I bet

  • its starscream!

  • @LP640Murcielago TERRORIZE!

  • @LP640Murcielago Its more like Sarcasm,calling such a big turn a minimum radius lol.

  • TAKE THAT MOTHER NAUTURE IT'LL TAKE YOU 50 YEARS TO BEAT THAT!

  • That must have felt nice for the pilot

  • @Folgrin That's what she said.

  • Gravity my ASS!

  • supposedly the F-22 had a 144 to zero kill/death ratio at a red flag in 2006, there is a video here somewhere. who cares how much it cost when 2 of them can take down an entire countries air defense.

  • xOOOO  = Pilots face

  • did you see him turn on the chemtrails sprayjets?!

  • some thing called you waear a g force suit to be able to take up to 9 g

  • Comment removed

  • how many G's you think that was?

  • that's why f-22 very very expensive

  • F-22 Raptor. Game over man! Game over!

  • @torque2802

    Sure, sure buddy.  Bug off!

  • @torque2802

    I've done extensive research on both aircraft. Yes, they are overpriced and chosen out of political corruption and yes both have, will have and had plenty of problems. Problems as any other aircraft programs would run into, nothing out of the ordinary. The world is not perfect, but as long as the US mantains air supremacy I'm alright with it. On a side note, I wouldn't mind paying some extra taxes out of every paycheck just for national security/armed forces purposes. Okay, cyas.

  • That man

    Has cajones

    The size of TEXAS.

  • too slow ;)

  • Lol. The pilot musta been screaming. It a wonder he didn't blackout.

  • That is just ridiculous!

  • Can the Pak-FA or the aJ-20 do that? Nooo :3

  • ouch. that guy must have been really trying to hold his blood in position.

  • @ElectronHexagon In THIS war. There are still some things you simply need a pilot for.

  • @ElectronHexagon In an air-to-air conflict, no remote system (in the foreseen future) can replace a pilot's instinct and level of situational awareness. Also, when fighting a more advanced enemy with enough electronic warfare infrastructure to jam signals, remote piloted aircraft simply cannot be counted on. In a surgical ground strike role, UAVs are king, but in an air superiority, interceptor role or escort role, nothing in existence can quite replace manned fighters. Period.

  • @EricsTechTalk Well said.

  • @EricsTechTalk your wrong,remotely piloted aircraft and AI are the future...G forces have ,have much less effect on machines...9 G is at human limit,and that's for seconds...

  • @ClarksonsinUSA -"your wrong"

    watch?v=KRxod7diTkU

    -"remotely piloted aircraft and AI are the future...G forces have ,have much less effect on machines...9 G is at human limit,and that's for seconds.."

    What do we have here? Another geek with "Skynet" fantasies?

  • @em745aa the pattern is clear,whats skynet???

  • @ClarksonsinUSA -"whats skynet???"

    Ever hear of Google?

    EricsTechTalk's comments are spot on, and YOU live in a dream world.

    Flesh-and-blood pilots will be performing air superiority missions from MANNED fighters for a long, LOOOOONG time to come.

  • @em745aa your 12,lol..

  • @ClarksonsinUSA -"your 12,lol.."

    Again...

    watch?v=KRxod7diTkU

    -"You know Moore's law...FACT..."

    The laws of physics will bottleneck Moore's law soon enough (if they haven't already).

    Regardless, IPS rates does not translate to intelligence, abstract reasoning, on-the-fly creativity or 3D visual field "processing" (all of which are needed for AtA/SEAD/OCA missions).

  • @em745aa The laws of physics will bottleneck Moore's law soon enough (if they haven't already).

    Reply...... Capitalism always finds away...And Moore's law will continue for at least 20 years using silicon, quantum computing will replace it...

  • @ClarksonsinUSA -"Capitalism always finds away...And Moore's law will continue for at least 20 years using silicon, quantum computing will replace it..."

    Well then, it's like I said, you're just another geek living the Skynet fantasy.

    I'm pretty sure we'll have light sabers, matter-energy transporters and cloaking devices too within the next 20 years. I mean, since the laws of physics apparently aren't worth a damn anymore.

  • @em745aa I'm pretty sure we'll have light sabers, matter-energy transporters and cloaking devices too within the next 20 years. I mean, since the laws of physics apparently aren't worth a damn anymore.

    Reply...Transporters will take a level of computing that far exceeds our computing levels,even with Moore's law uninterrupted for the next 100 years..Light sabers has no practicably app...

  • @em745aa  Why is your YouTube page not open to the public,nothing to show???

  • @em745aa letsupdate genius,cpu's double the amount of calculations they can do every 18 months....You know Moore's law...FACT...

  • @ClarksonsinUSA I never said anything about G forces. This has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. Also, I'm reading some of your other comments here. You're either a kid or an idiot.

  • @EricsTechTalk why so bitter????? :)

  • @ClarksonsinUSA Oh, it's just fun to troll a bit sometimes.

  • fuck schools...this is why I pay taxes!

  • This damn plane has no respect for the laws of Physics!

  • R-EAL

    A-SS KICKING

    P-LANE

    T-HAT

    O-FFERS

    R-ESISTANCE

  • middle finger to gravity!

  • FUCK GRAVITY!

  • @StapledFish LOL, i saw your comment on the other video

  • @JasonXS12 :P

  • @StapledFish

    Yeah. It truly sucks you down, doesn't it?

  • @luciduspostremo How so? I thought the comment I had made was quite comical...

  • @StapledFish

    Yeah. Me too

  • love the shockwave cloud

  • Wow man! this plane doesnt respect gravity! FUCK GRAVITY!

  • holy shit, look at that washout, that pilots off his rocker

  • This is only 70% of the Raptor's capability; they tone it down for airshows.

  • The F22 does not deserve so many trolling comments.

  • And how many G's is that?

    

  • 9g or more ?

  • Ahhhhh.... such a beautiful plane.

  • @Snagabott jet*

  • I'll take 5!

  • condensation on the wings

  • @fsxflyer253 Its actually water vapor being compressed into a denser form by the wing.

  • @907AlphaKilo -"Its actually water vapor being compressed into a denser form by the wing."

    No. It's actually water vapor condensing in LOW PRESSURE AREAS above the wing. When you dilate air (i.e. lower its pressure), it cools down, lowering its ability to "hold" water vapor in a gas state. That's when the condensation appears.

    When you compress air you heat it up and therefore make it LESS likely for visible vapor to form.

  • @em745aa Well my bad. I mixed up compressed and condensed. SUE ME!

  • @907AlphaKilo You're welcome...

    And I will be filing suit this coming week.

  • What's the smoky stuff that comes out while decelerating ?

  • @Triplewave4 Bad catalytic converter.

  • @smithraymond09029 ok, thnx! I'm still a noobie in aeronautics so I'm trying to learn