OT good flying, but risky

[J Tiers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVzLV-R_-kk

[MichaelP]

Well, I will just say that I am glad our leadership and decision makers are more thoughtful about the long-term implications of such reckless choices.
"Fault" is a slippery slope (and often a matter of opinion), as is "wrong", and when the repercussion is likely WW3, extreme caution and extraordinary thoughtfulness is the only reasonable course.

Russians cannot take a small Ukrainian village for a month. What WW3 are you talking about? All they can do is to provoke everyone to establish how far they can go. And if you don't hit them in the face right away, they will continue doing it. Erdogan shot a Russian jet without any warning, and guess what? There were no WW3 started. Russians declared embargo on Turkish tomatoes, and then lifted it in a few weeks.

If the West hit Russia with heavy sanctions after the war in Georgia or, better yet, provided military help to Georgians, there wouldn't be Crimea annexation or war in Ukraine.

The problem is that the West doesn't understand Putin's nature. He is a guy who can be easily tamed by a brute force, but completely ignores any diplomatic efforts. He sees polite conversation as a sign of weakness, he was raised this way. Putin is a coward, who pretends to be an alpha dog until he is kicked in the butt. A typical street punk. And the longer West dances around him, the higher the chance of getting into more serious problems.

Unfortunately. we don't have churchills, reagans or thatchers nowadays...

[The Artful Bodger]

"wake turbulence" don't turn props into pretzels...
.

Who told you that?

[Joel]

What WW3...

In brief - Russia itself doesn't concern me too terribly. China OTOH (in effect, their ally), worries me a great deal.
Given the rising tensions, at some point it won't take much of a trigger by any number of people for a catastrophic escalation to occur with speed and alacrity.
I don't disagree with much of your post. A proper response would be lengthy and likely too inappropriate and political for the forum, but I can respond using the site's message center.

[Mcgyver]

. Why would a pilot risk his plane and his life to intentionally hit the other plane?

Orders? Seems to me there is a growing list of rhetoric and reported events by Russia that can be used to 1) support his domestic propaganda and 2) craft the case (lie) that Russia is under attack from the west.

e.g. "Comrades, today our glorious jet fighter pilots successful repulsed an attack from the evil imperialist US. Your brave comrade pilot was unharmed and the American aircraft was easily downed and plunged into the Sea".....meanwhile done without firing a shot, important to upping the BS without triggering a more aggressive US response. Rather miraculous work on behalf of the pilot....as much as they've become the evil empire, it seems a bit of impressive flying.

[Michael Edwards]

Who told you that?

Tell me Bodger, do you really think "wake turbulence" did this amount damage?

[A.K. Boomer]

Orders? Seems to me there is a growing list of rhetoric and reported events by Russia that can be used to 1) support his domestic propaganda and 2) craft the case (lie) that Russia is under attack from the west.

e.g. "Comrades, today our glorious jet fighter pilots successful repulsed an attack from the evil imperialist US. Your brave comrade pilot was unharmed and the American aircraft was easily downed and plunged into the Sea".....meanwhile done without firing a shot, important to upping the BS without triggering a more aggressive US response. Rather miraculous work on behalf of the pilot....as much as they've become the evil empire, it seems a bit of impressive flying.

I do believe the basic proof that it was an accident is the fact that it was "yet another" fuel dump just before IMPACT, if the intentions were to actually try to "connect" then why the fuel dumping?

They kept pushing it closer and closer then then finally hit, but the hit was an "accident" so the pilot radically "misjudged" and in doing so turned it into a very high risk game for both crafts, those drones are not exactly something that fits in the palm of your hand and made out of cardboard....

maybe someday well get to see a pick of the su-27 and get to speculate about what another half foot of engagement would have done and if the results would have been different, slicing into a tank/wing might have been all she wrote especially considering they were probably already pushing their range with multiple fuel dumping on the poor innocent drone...
as for now I doubt we will see a pic anytime soon due to them denying any "contact"

[RB211]

The reason wake turbulence is dangerous to smaller aircraft than the aircraft that creates is the vortex can be larger than the wingspan of the smaller aircraft, which can cause smaller aircraft to roll upside down. This is not to say that larger aircraft than the one that generates it is immune.
The 777 I fly has a wingspan of 65 meters or ~213'. It is very easy to tell when we encounter some one else's wake turbulence, the airplane will roll slightly to the right than back to the left by itself, while also feeling a slight variance in g loading, positive and negative.

What the Russians were trying to do is dump fuel on the drone then ignite the afterburners, it's as if they designed their airplanes for this? Who in the hell else would design an airplane to dump fuel by the afterburners, beyond what afterburners actually do?

And there is no way that wake turbulence would do that to a propeller. There was a second blade in a feathered position which tells you a mechanical interaction occurred that stripped, destroyed gears in the prop hub.

[A.K. Boomer]

It is very easy to tell when we encounter some one else's wake turbulence, the airplane will roll slightly to the right than back to the left by itself, while also feeling a slight variance in g loading, positive and negative.

RB, always from the right to the left? I would have thought that depended on "what wing" got the most of the wake?

What the Russians were trying to do is dump fuel on the drone then ignite the afterburners, it's as if they designed their airplanes for this? Who in the hell else would design an airplane to dump fuel by the afterburners, beyond what afterburners actually do?

perhaps a tactic and inbred engineering for when closely matched fighters are tailing one another? not really suited for trying to match it to a slow moving propped plane...

And there is no way that wake turbulence would do that to a propeller. There was a second blade in a feathered position which tells you a mechanical interaction occurred that stripped, destroyed gears in the prop hub.

Yes good eye,,, blew up the variable pitch bevels, but the thing that's really conclusive is that one blade being totally compressed, air alone cannot do that, now it could in theory create a situation where a blade tip might go out of its designated operating range axially and connect with a mounting structure or something of the sort - but the damage would not compress the blade into the hub more....

[RB211]

RB, always from the right to the left? I would have thought that depended on "what wing" got the most of the wake?

perhaps a tactic and inbred engineering for when closely matched fighters are tailing one another? not really suited for trying to match it to a slow moving propped plane...

Yes good eye,,, blew up the variable pitch bevels, but the thing that's really conclusive is that one blade being totally compressed, air alone cannot do that, now it could in theory create a situation where a blade tip might go out of its designated operating range axially and connect with a mounting structure or something of the sort - but the damage would not compress the blade into the hub more....

You are correct, same with up and down.

[A.K. Boomer]

So - Wiki's already got that same vid up that Vector posted, in the previous fuel dump pass it looks as if the drone is missing a lower access panel? Now that's something wake turbulence could have easily caused.... and if so would also be proof of not just two fuel dump attempts but more....

Also note, that in the pass before the "interference incident" the drones camera craps out for just a short bit due to wake turbulence....

Edit; it's very hard to tell - the underside of the craft comes into view "during" the turbulence,,, if someone has the ability to take things frame by frame they might actually see the panel detaching from that first pass that does not result in collision...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/8/84/US_Air_Force_MQ-9_camera_footage_Russian_Su-27_Black_Sea_intercept.webm/US_Air_Force_MQ-9_camera_footage_Russian_Su-27_Black_Sea_intercept.webm.480p.vp9.webm

[old mart]

Only Guido also noticed the number of prop blades in post # 29 which I had questioned in post # 18. The other thing I would like confirmed is the direction of rotation.

[A.K. Boomer]

Only Guido also noticed the number of prop blades in post # 29 which I had questioned in post # 18. The other thing I would like confirmed is the direction of rotation.

The MQ-9A reaper in the wiki link appears to have a triple propeller - the one in the vid "appears" to have a quad, I do think they dinked around with different engines and such so maybe there's variations?

All are "pusher props" and regardless of that fact all prop planes will "free run" in the same direction of when powered,,, so it "appears" be it under power or power cut that the reaper in the crash has a prop that rotates "clockwise" when standing at the back of the craft and observing,,,

[Doozer]

Why is it the less guys know about something, the more they like to talk about it ?
Take sports for example.

-Doozer

[JRouche]

All the other stuff aside, how bout the camera (s) on that drone! I have never seen any footage from one at that angle before. Seems pretty impressive. How do I get one for my neighborhood watch JR