UFO gatecrashes Airshow, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 08:16 PM by ShatteredSkies

It could have been a multitude of pilot-errors.

Shattered OUT...

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 08:18 PM by Shugo

Guys, that was a UFO, but it wasn't from outer space, some flies built a ship and disabled the fighter by running across the screen hundreds of times.

Honestly! Look at it! It's tiny! Explain how it interfered with the flight if it's so tiny! Su-33's are huge you know, maybe the aliens are midgets.

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 08:43 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

reply to post by internos

This is the much balleyhoo'd "Russian Fighter Jet Of The Future"???

The Russians are in deep doo doo if they bring that tuna can into battle.

It seems as though its engines cut out, the tail struck the ground slightly and touched off a fire in the engine. The pilot obviously thought it had the juice to try it, right? Regardless, this jet seems to be on par with most other Gen IV fighters in the world...and lightyears behind our F-22.

I have seen a high powered single engine prop handle more than this jet was capable of. Near vertical take off and all. We have a crappy little airfield out here that supports a few crop dusters and local enthusiasts. One of them has a pretty amazing little plane. He flies it in the CAF Airsho.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 08:52 PM by ShatteredSkies

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

If you're talking about something along the lines of the Redbull racing airplanes, then yes it will generally demonstrate better maneuverability than a heavy naval fighter such as the Su-33. However, the Su-33 will forever out pace those aircraft in every other area.

This was just a stupid mistake done by a pilot who probably got a little too cocky, we don't really know the video doesn't show all too much. But do not place the restrictions of the human operator on the machine itself. The Su-33 is a very formidable aircraft maybe not much competition for an F-22, but everything else is in trouble or at least will break a sweat.

Shattered OUT...

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 08:55 PM by ZindoDoone

That pilot is the one that invented and proved the'Cobra maneuver' He did it twice at the Paris airshow in '99 and it caused a compressor stall and total failure in the engines caused by bird ingestion. He lost power and could not control the thrust to pull out of the high angle dive. He was supposed to do a touch and go but had no thrust to save the aircraft. It was a Mig 29. One of the first times this aircraft was seen outside the Soviet Block.
Zindo

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 09:04 PM by Shugo

reply to post by ZindoDoone

'cuse me?
The aircraft in question is not a MiG-29. It is an Su-33, as has already been stated. I've never seen a craft outside of 4th gen able to successfully perform a copra maneuver either. Do elaborate.

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 09:06 PM by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
That pilot is the one that invented and proved the'Cobra maneuver' He did it twice at the Paris airshow in '99 and it caused a compressor stall and total failure in the engines caused by bird ingestion. He lost power and could not control the thrust to pull out of the high angle dive. He was supposed to do a touch and go but had no thrust to save the aircraft. It was a Mig 29. One of the first times this aircraft was seen outside the Soviet Block.
Zindo

NOT A MiG-29!!!

Shattered OUT...

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 09:14 PM by ZindoDoone

The MiG-33 designation was introduced at the 1994 Farnborough Air Show as the briefly used marketing name for the MiG-29ME export model of the MiG-29M "Super Fulcrum", a comprehensively upgraded, fully multirole version of the MiG-29 (NATO reporting name: "Fulcrum-E"). Although only a few MiG-29M aircraft were built (and none exported), they have served as prototypes for the development of the latest, most advanced Fulcrum variant, the MiG-35 (NATO designation: "Fulcrum-F").
This was in 1999 at the Paris Air Show. It was designated 29 then. Sorry got dates wrong in first post about first time being seen in the post.

Zindo

[edit on 5/11/2008 by ZindoDoone]

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 09:44 PM by ShatteredSkies

reply to post by ZindoDoone

It's not a MiG at all.

It's a Su-33 Flanker Naval variant.

Not only denoted by the size of the aircraft, its profile, and it's canards, but also denoted by its paint scheme.

A little something to help you with identification:

Wikipedia (Rudementary background information)

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ShatteredSkies]

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 09:49 PM by Shugo

reply to post by ZindoDoone

Where the hell are you getting "MiG" from? That is not a MiG, do I have to get pictures? A baby could tell the difference between a Sukhoi and a MiG! Good lord.

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 10:01 PM by ZindoDoone

Well,pardon me all to hell,LOL

Zindo

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 10:33 PM by OEAOHOO

Originally posted by Shugo
Where's the MiG? I don't see a MiG. I see a Su-33.

No one's ever seen them pull a stall technique at an airshow? It's very easy to have something go wrong...oh, but leave it to the UFOers to know it all.

I'd imagine the flat corkscrew diving and thrust-vectoring abilities of the Sukhoi to be those touted as leading, and advantageous over similar fighter jets, and therefore be the ones most often demonstrated at air shows.

Here's a couple of airshows where the SU-30 is doing just that;

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I think in the OP's video the pilot as he himself stated "did one too many revolutions" and simply lost the thrust ..no birds, no ufos ..just human error

..and yes I'm a UFOer ..whatever that means

[edit on 11-5-2008 by OEAOHOO]

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 11:15 PM by Macrotus

You guys are all wrong. It's one of those damned swamp gasses!

reply posted on 12-5-2008 @ 12:48 AM by Shugo

reply to post by OEAOHOO

Well then my good friend, my hat is off to you for being able to observe both sides of a story logically and truthfully!

reply posted on 12-5-2008 @ 12:54 AM by mattguy404

UFO or no UFO, that was a freakin' awesome CRASH. So lucky those pilots got out, it looked like they were leaving it to the very last second before they could eject.

Was that the afterburner trying to power it back up after it tried to pull out of the dive? I'm not all that smart with jets and noisy things.

Lots of stuff like this happens at air shows, they were trying to show it off a bit too much. I don't what the thing was behind them, but I don't think it's anything 'mysterious'.

reply posted on 12-5-2008 @ 12:57 AM by Shugo

reply to post by mattguy404

That's called my engine caught on fire, lets try to fix it. Snap we can't, eject.

No, it wasn't the afterburner trying to jump back, that was just, the engine is on fire.

reply posted on 12-5-2008 @ 01:33 AM by kthulu

reply to post by Shugo

I believe someone posted this as being a SU-30, not an Su-33. Whos right?
Oh wait, it doesnt matter, does it?

reply posted on 12-5-2008 @ 01:43 AM by internos

reply to post by kthulu

In according to what has been reported by some News Agencies like Reuters, Itar Tass and Associated Press, it was a Sukhoi-30 MK.

reply posted on 12-5-2008 @ 02:25 AM by toreishi

You people can probably do the search for yourselves but in the interest of further clarification I've decided to post these images:

SU-27

SU-30

SU-33

all images found at the AeroSpaceWeb site

reply posted on 12-5-2008 @ 02:32 AM by Shugo

reply to post by internos

Nope, as posted above, Su-30's don't have the front nozzles. 33's do. That craft isn't a 30 as reported, looks like it at first, but after you get a top bottom look, you can see it.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^