Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA manouverability versus F-22

[Abraham Gubler]

Slenderness has a lot to do with drag.

Only if the aircraft isn't designed to delay transition from laminar flow to beyond what its fineness ratio would imply.

 

[sferrin]

So?

Slenderness has a lot to do with drag.

So does cross-sectional area and wet area.

 

[Sundog]

The T-50 also has higher interference drag. But in and of itself it doesn't mean anything. It's the whole package that counts. One of those is a prototype, the other is in operational service in large numbers. That actually means more than any of the other stats, at least for the moment anyway.

Having said that, I just see images of two excellent fighter designs.

 

[Radical]

A little preview of the PAK-FA in MAKS starting at 1:19 of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIzrawJmPJE

 

[Orionblamblam]

Pictures show T-50 is much more slender than F-22.

Seems to have traded up-and-down slenderness for side-to-side wideness.

 

[flanker]

I believe one of the nicknames T-50 has is "Igolka", meaning "needle". And F-22 has only slighter less wingspan.

 

[sferrin]

I believe one of the nicknames T-50 has is "Igolka", meaning "needle". And F-22 has only slighter less wingspan.

Now compare fuselage/engine bay width.

 

[F-14D]

When there was a claim about an all new flight suit needed for the Pakfa, with more pilot protection from G loads in the yaw axis am now really wondering if the Pakfa will have yaw supermaneuver at high speeds, not just for low and slow airshow tricks. Wouldn't the combat value of yaw maneuver at high speed be extremely useful against countering missile threats and bring a new dimension to high speed combat far superior to the F-22? Looking at the T-50s airframe shape, tails and engine nozzles, it was built to super-maneuver in yaw, not just pitch as the F-22. This could be a very significant leap in capability over the f-22.

Violent yaw at high speed is a very good way to get to low speed very quickly via deployment of the world's largest airbrake, your whole aircraft, followed by catastrophic damage, I would imagine.

I don't see it being very useful against an F-22 except in a dogfight.

I agree that using yaw to slow down would be counterproductive and may do the enemy's work for him. Better to reduce power while rapidly pitching up to high AOA. You'll get an even more massive airbrake, the stress is more in line with the vectors the a/c was designed for, and once you release back pressure the nose will want to drop back to where you want t it when you add back in the power. Of course, you'll be in a low energy state, depending on how long you do it, so it's not something you'd want to try every time. We know newer Russian a/c are good at high AoA, and I've seen F/A-18s and F-14s do this as well.


Merlin: What are you doin'? You're slowin' down, you're slowin' down!

Maverick: I'm bringing him in closer Merlin.

Merlin: You're gonna do what? This is it Maverick!

Maverick: I'm gonna hit the brakes, he'll fly right by.

I'm doubting an AIM-9X/ASSRAM/etc. will be affected much by that strategy.

Yes, Maverick's maneuver is more geared to the mano-a-mano type of gunfight that has not played a major role in A2A for 50 years (and I am including Vietnam). it would also be useful at the longer ranges when AIM-9X or ASRAAM (which actually has longer range) are low on energy. That's one of the reasons USN is working so hard to get more range/performance out of AIM-9X.

What it looks like the Russians are doing with all their Ultra-maneuverability is working to create aircraft with true carefree handling. In the West, aircraft like Typhoon, Rafale, F-22 and to a lesser extent F-16, get what they call carefree handling by having flight control systems that automatically keep the aircraft from exceeding its flight limitations. The Soviets/Russians did this with the MiG-29/SU-27 to a certain extent by doing the same thing but with "soft" limits--the FCS would keep you within bounds, but if you pulled and held really hard, you could override the protections momentarily. I suspect F-22 is somewhat similar.

I posit that what the Russians are doing with the PAK-FA is attempting to achieve carefree handling in a different way. The fancy maneuvers we see are all very nice and many are useful for extreme nose point for a snap shot, but what they also demonstrate to me is that they're working towards no-kidding carefree. In other words, no matter what you do, this thing is going to stay under control, not because it's restricted, but because it 's that flexible. That could be one of the reasons the engines are splayed out, sacrificing a bit of forward thrust effect for greater controllability and reduced impact of asymmetric thrust in certain situations. The other reason is that they get much of the benefit of 3D vectoring while actually only swiveling on one axis.

They seem willing to sacrifice some stealth to achieve this while clearly the F-22 puts that as a higher priority than ultimate maneuverability. This seems a difference in thoughts on how combat might occur. If F-22 expects to stay up there at 60,000 ft. most of the time, the most stealth is going to be much more important than pushing the control and flight envelope boundaries as far as you can, especially if you're supercruising. On the other hand, if it chooses to close it gives up a number of it's advantages. I get yelled at when I say this, but I opine that in a maneuvering contest, the Typhoon is at least as agile as a Raptor. The Russians may feel that more closer in encounters are going to occur, leading them to different priorities.

FWIW

 

[Trident]

I'm doubting an AIM-9X/ASSRAM/etc. will be affected much by that strategy.

It does have DIRCM to help with that problem.

What it looks like the Russians are doing with all their Ultra-maneuverability is working to create aircraft with true carefree handling. In the West, aircraft like Typhoon, Rafale, F-22 and to a lesser extent F-16, get what they call carefree handling by having flight control systems that automatically keep the aircraft from exceeding its flight limitations.

Yes, it's an aspect of 'super maneuverability' that is frequently overlooked. I believe it was John Farley who mentioned this idea when talking about what impressed him about the original Su-27, his opinion was that the air show moves it pulled were indicative of greatly relaxed airframe limitations which would allow the pilot to concentrate more on fighting rather than merely flying his aircraft. That's pretty much the essence of what the care-free handling philosophy attempts to achieve.
As you say, there are two basic ways of accomplishing it: make sure the pilot cannot overstep any boundaries by making the limits 'hard', or make sure the aircraft handles so superbly that few if any such limitations for him to overstep exist in the first place.

 

[Mat Parry]

In a world war III scenario an extremely stealthy BVR sniper at 60,000 ft. would seem to be the best solution (but also the most technically challenging / expensive). In less drastic conflicts where T-50 could be involved (not necessarily Russian T-50's), western political considerations could drive rules of engagement which forbade BVR (forcing pilots to visually identify targets), in this case maneuverability will be desirable.

Is it possible that the Russians had a look at the cost (money & time) of matching F-22 and decided to maximise their airframe numbers and potential exports by avoiding the prohibitive cost in developing F-22 capabilities and instead focussing on maximising capabilities WVR?

EDIT, I regretted the "visually identify" bit as soon as I posted but hopefully you get my point

 

[F-14D]

In a world war III scenario an extremely stealthy BVR sniper at 60,000 ft. would seem to be the best solution (but also the most technically challenging / expensive). In less drastic conflicts where T-50 could be involved (not necessarily Russian T-50's), western political considerations could drive rules of engagement which forbade BVR (forcing pilots to visually identify targets), in this case maneuverability will be desirable.

Is it possible that the Russians had a look at the cost (money & time) of matching F-22 and decided to maximise their airframe numbers and potential exports by avoiding the prohibitive cost in developing F-22 capabilities and instead focussing on maximising capabilities WVR?

EDIT, I regretted the "visually identify" bit as soon as I posted but hopefully you get my point

I'd say it was more a difference in philosophy.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:0d7744f4-2937-4f66-bdbe-fa0b5b37e15c

See weapons bay... Now back to making 3D model(Soon™)! B)

MOAR PHOTOS!!!

http://fotografersha.livejournal.com/429658.html?nojs=1

http://aviator-ru.livejournal.com/364094.html

 

[Radical]

How many Kh-58UShKE will it be packing? According to the official website http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/540/, the missile is 0.4 m wide, and the weapon bays are 1 m wide according to this source.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148201957/Butowski-P-Jul-2012-T-50-Russia-s-Fifth-Generation-Fighter-Aviation-News

Will they be able to pack two of these per bay? Or can the allegedly deeper forward bay stack two of these vertically?

 

[bring_it_on]

Any definitive news on how many MRAAM's go into the bays?

 

[Radical]

Apparently, 2 RVV-BD per main bay. I don't know if they'll try to accommodate more R-77 derived missiles though, since those are quite a bit thinner.

I think it's almost undeniable that the T-50 will be superior in the yaw axis.

 

[EricChase88]

How many Kh-58UShKE will it be packing? According to the official website http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/540/, the missile is 0.4 m wide, and the weapon bays are 1 m wide according to this source.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148201957/Butowski-P-Jul-2012-T-50-Russia-s-Fifth-Generation-Fighter-Aviation-News

Will they be able to pack two of these per bay? Or can the allegedly deeper forward bay stack two of these vertically?

The supercruise speed in there cant be right. Su-35S clean can go faster than mach 1.3 with weaker 117S engines. There is no way T-50 with better aerodynamics and better engine will not be faster.

 

[bring_it_on]

Apparently, 2 RVV-BD per main bay. I don't know if they'll try to accommodate more R-77 derived missiles though, since those are quite a bit thinner.

I think it's almost undeniable that the T-50 will be superior in the yaw axis.

The ability to carry 2 LRAAM's has been much talked about. Any word on R-77's or future MRAAM's for the rest of the bays?

 

[flanker]

Su-35S clean can go faster than mach 1.3 with weaker 117S engines.

And you know this how?

 

[EricChase88]

Su-35S clean can go faster than mach 1.3 with weaker 117S engines.

And you know this how?

According to interview with Sergey Bogdan regarding early factory testing.

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=245524#245524

Russia & CIS Observer / Archive / №3 (22) August 2008 / DEFENSE / Sukhoi Su-35 Achieves Supercruise Flight /

By Vladimir Karnozov

"Surplus power:

During the test flight at the highest thrust regime without the use of afterburner the Su-35 achieved Mach 1.1 speed and was still accelerating
By late June, the no. 1 flying prototype had completed 13 test missions. These were devoted to assessment of the airplane's stability and controllability, maneuvering characteristics and powerplant performance.
In addition, the operation of onboard systems was closely monitored. Having received a generally positive assessment of the aircraft, Sukhoi sent it into the supersonic regime. On mission 12, the airplane accelerated to Mach 1.2 at medium altitudes (up to 6,000 meters). The next flight went as high as 11,000 meters and reached speeds of Mach 1.3.
Importantly, the airplane demonstrated its ability to maintain supersonic speed at military power (the highest thrust regime without the use of afterburner).
Sergei Bogdan selected his words carefully, but did state: "At medium altitudes and with military power, the airplane was making a moderate supersonic speed and still accelerating. In one of the flights, I achieved Mach 1.1, and while the aircraft could accelerate further, I had to slow down because I was approaching the end of our supersonic flight zone."
Sukhoi continues assessments of the recorded parameters in order to determine whether the airplane had actually attained supercruise. Additionally, the company continues to define altitudes, weights, external and internal loads at which the Su-35 can reach its supercruise performance. A number of additional missions shall be devoted to these assessments.
"The power reserve is clearly seen when the Su-35 is accompanied by a Su-30," Bogdan says. "During the very first mission, I had the chance to assess how well the Su-35 responds to the throttle. When I was accelerating at combat power, the chase plane's pilot had to use afterburner from time to time. And still, he was going slower."
In afterburner, the Su-35 accelerates much faster than the original Flanker. This is due to the increase in engine power at full afterburner from 12,500 to 14,500 kgf. During takeoff, the ground run is shorter, as the pilot is given much more freedom in pulling back on the stick. The onboard computer takes responsibility for preventing tail strike and other unwanted consequences of over-rotation. With smart computer control over critical regimes, the Su-35 can become airborne much faster than legacy fighters, taking full advantage of excessive power and superagility."

 

[flanker]

Lets just say haavarla tends to get things wrong. He did this time too, as Bogdan never said 1.3, he said 1.1+.

As to your quote there is nothing in it that suggests 1.3M was achieved without afterburner. Not that i have terrible difficulty thinking 1.3M is believable, i have just not seen anything being stated beyond Bogdan's 1.1+.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Lets just say haavarla tends to get things wrong. He did this time too, as Bogdan never said 1.3, he said 1.1+.

As to your quote there is nothing in it that suggests 1.3M was achieved without afterburner. Not that i have terrible difficulty thinking 1.3M is believable, i have just not seen anything being stated beyond Bogdan's 1.1+.

I can't believe we are quoting posters on other forums as proof of anything. :

 

[flanker]

Depends who it is.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Depends who it is.

Whats Haavalra's reputation/background? out of curiosity?

 

[Radical]

I've seen several sources say the dry thrust of the 117 as 9.5 tonnes. Is that accurate? Also, the most recent articles I can find says the dry thrust of second stage engine to be 107 kN.

Lets just say haavarla tends to get things wrong. He did this time too, as Bogdan never said 1.3, he said 1.1+.

As to your quote there is nothing in it that suggests 1.3M was achieved without afterburner. Not that i have terrible difficulty thinking 1.3M is believable, i have just not seen anything being stated beyond Bogdan's 1.1+.

According to this article a clean demilitarised Su-27UB thats 3000 lb lighter than a stock Su-27 will do Mach 1.3 at minimum afterburner. According to the pilot he's burning 110 kg per minute at that speed.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/04/flying-the-flanker/

I heard that clean stock F-15 with F100-PW-229 can do Mach 1.2.

 

[sferrin]

According to this article a clean demilitarised Su-27UB thats 3000 lb lighter than a stock Su-27 will do Mach 1.3 at minimum afterburner.

""High indicated airspeed. I'm not sure of the interpretation of that
statement, but at Homestead AFB in the 319th FIS it meant 650 KIAS or
better. And when we got the J79-19 engine the airplane could attain
that in military power. In afterburner - redline was easily attained;
much more, if you really needed it, like 825+. The result of the new
engine was that we could now take on any of the aircraft prior to the
F15/F16 and beat them. This includes the MiG21, as proven out at
Edwards by two of my close friends who spent a happy TDY out there.
BTW the 319th wanted to go for the time to climb to 30,000 meters but
USAF HQ nixed it. Bad show for a 1956 aircraft to set a new record.BTW
In 1967 I flew a cross-country in the bird at M2.0 and 73,000
indicated. Fuel burn was 100 pounds a minute. In another 1967 flight
the bird went from brake release to 45000 in 90 seconds. Damn few
airplanes can do that even today.
Comment: citing the German F104G losses is more an indictment of the
GAF's training and maintenance than of the airplane. Look at the
Belgian AF - they did just fine.
Comment: I'll take superior speed and acceleration over turning
performance every time. Think about it. Speed is for attack; turn is
for defense. Don't compare fighters using 1v1; use 2v2 or even 4v4 for
a realistic comparison.
Question: Which fighter has greater profile drag, the F16 or the
F104?
Walt BJ "

B)

 

[EricChase88]

From MAKS 2013 airshow

T-50 is doing 360 turns in 18-19 seconds, already comparable to Su-35S and F-22. T-50 is also not using max power in those turns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoFmbLm-oKg

At 3:55, the plane does near vertical climb while accelerating. Acceleration is quick and noticable, I have never seen any aircraft with such power. This is not even using second stage engines.

And remember T-50 is only showing 40% of it's potential here.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

already comparable to Su-35S and F-22.

source?

T-50 is also not using max power in those turns.

ok what are the power settings then? How much does the aircraft weigh? How much fuel is on board?

Acceleration is quick and noticable, I have never seen any aircraft with such power.

based on awhat experience? relative terms like "quick" and "noticeable" don't do you any favors either.

And remember T-50 is only showing 40% of it's potential here.

Source?

 

[EricChase88]

Compare that climb with F-22 during airshows. You will see the T-50's climb acceleration is very quick and noticable. If F-22 isn't hold back at airshows, T-50's climb and acceleration performance will exceed it even with weaker 117 engines.

40% is from Sergey Bogdan interview during MAKS.

 

[Deino]

@ EricChase88

Please ... even if You are quite new here such claims like the ones mentioned above, like the repeated use superlatives in companion with the T50 as done here and in the other tread like "That looks incredible. A testament to the plane's amazing maneuverability" or " ...will be a true symbol of the sheer brilliance of Russian engineers" are maybe understandable but without any substantial proof they are nothing more than fan-boy comments and they do no contribute to Your credibility or even reliability. As such may I beg You to calm down Your enthusiasm a bit since we are here not at the Key-Forum ? ???

Anyway wellcome on board here.

Deino

 

[EricChase88]

Compare the T-50's climb in the video with F-22 climb in airshows. Here is description of F-22 airshow maneuvers. The climbs are done at max power. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3_5/publication/afi11-246v1/afi11-246v1.pdf I have yet to see F-22 do a compareble climb.

 

[Trident]

According to this article a clean demilitarised Su-27UB thats 3000 lb lighter than a stock Su-27 will do Mach 1.3 at minimum afterburner.

""High indicated airspeed. I'm not sure of the interpretation of that
statement, but at Homestead AFB in the 319th FIS it meant 650 KIAS or
better. And when we got the J79-19 engine the airplane could attain
that in military power. In afterburner - redline was easily attained;
much more, if you really needed it, like 825+. The result of the new
engine was that we could now take on any of the aircraft prior to the
F15/F16 and beat them. This includes the MiG21, as proven out at
Edwards by two of my close friends who spent a happy TDY out there.
BTW the 319th wanted to go for the time to climb to 30,000 meters but
USAF HQ nixed it. Bad show for a 1956 aircraft to set a new record.BTW
In 1967 I flew a cross-country in the bird at M2.0 and 73,000
indicated. Fuel burn was 100 pounds a minute. In another 1967 flight
the bird went from brake release to 45000 in 90 seconds. Damn few
airplanes can do that even today.
Comment: citing the German F104G losses is more an indictment of the
GAF's training and maintenance than of the airplane. Look at the
Belgian AF - they did just fine.
Comment: I'll take superior speed and acceleration over turning
performance every time. Think about it. Speed is for attack; turn is
for defense. Don't compare fighters using 1v1; use 2v2 or even 4v4 for
a realistic comparison.
Question: Which fighter has greater profile drag, the F16 or the
F104?
Walt BJ "

B)

It's impressive for sure, but that's what a turbojet (as opposed to twin turbofans with a relatively high BPR of 0.6) and absolutely uncompromising optimization for that part of the envelope gets you Compared to the Flanker, the F-104 is a one-trick-pony, and the sheer size difference is worth mentioning - the Zipper at MTOW is lighter (and not inconsiderably so) than the Su-27 empty! Wing area is not even a third of the Flanker's, and in this case we are also talking about a twin-seater which is noticeably more draggy thanks to the stepped canopy. As the author alludes to, don't for a moment think the comparison would be any more flattering to US fourth generation fighters.
I kind of doubt Mach 2.0 @ 73000 feet was officially part of the flight envelope, too Regarding the F-15 hitting Mach 1.2 dry on -229 engines, I can definitely believe that if 'clean' means without CFTs - BPR is quite low (0.3 IIRC) and in that configuration the Strike Eagle has a frankly preposterous T/W ratio. It might even beat the F-22, bearing in mind how much weight growth the Raptor experienced.

 

[sferrin]

Compare that climb with F-22 during airshows. You will see the T-50's climb acceleration is very quick and noticable. If F-22 isn't hold back at airshows, T-50's climb and acceleration performance will exceed it even with weaker 117 engines.

40% is from Sergey Bogdan interview during MAKS.

Oh boy.

 

[bobbymike]

Compare that climb with F-22 during airshows. You will see the T-50's climb acceleration is very quick and noticable. If F-22 isn't hold back at airshows, T-50's climb and acceleration performance will exceed it even with weaker 117 engines.

40% is from Sergey Bogdan interview during MAKS.

Oh boy.

Based on the MAKS performance and Mr. Chase's comments on the T-50 the entire US aviation industry locked the doors and laid everyone off saying, 'The ultimate is aviation has been achieved no point even going on'

 

[SOC]

'The ultimate is aviation has been achieved no point even going on'

...and then we went and bought the F-22 anyway ;D

 

[Dragon029]

Compare the T-50's climb in the video with F-22 climb in airshows. Here is description of F-22 airshow maneuvers. The climbs are done at max power. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3_5/publication/afi11-246v1/afi11-246v1.pdf I have yet to see F-22 do a compareble climb.

To put it basically; while it may look like it's climbing fast, comparing footage from 2 different events is simply impractical; how far away were the clouds in each video? How was each photographer adjusting their zoom? Are the lenses changing the colour of the sky and making it appear like a more rapid transition?

Unless we have actual values of ft per minute, there's not much to discuss.

 

[sferrin]

'The ultimate is aviation has been achieved no point even going on'

...and then we went and bought the F-22 anyway ;D

As much as I'd have preferred the F-23 you just know when it couldn't do back flips at the airshows anybody opposed to the idea of an ATF of the world would have been all over that.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Compare the T-50's climb in the video with F-22 climb in airshows. Here is description of F-22 airshow maneuvers. The climbs are done at max power. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3_5/publication/afi11-246v1/afi11-246v1.pdf I have yet to see F-22 do a compareble climb.

Strip all that weight for stealth, sensors, data fusion, weapons from an F-22 and you might have something that will climb as well as the PAK-FA/T-50. Be about as useless in combat as the PAK-FA currently is.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Compare that climb with F-22 during airshows. You will see the T-50's climb acceleration is very quick and noticable. If F-22 isn't hold back at airshows, T-50's climb and acceleration performance will exceed it even with weaker 117 engines.

Yes its holding back at airshows. There are flight restrictions at western airshows.

There is a whole world outside of youtube--Just because you have not seen it on youtube doesn't mean it does not exist.

According to Metz the F-22 pilot:

The fastest way to get to altitude in a Raptor is to accelerate to supersonic on the deck and climb all the way supersonically.

Not surprisingly, you won't see that at an airshow. I've also never seen an F-22 at 60,000ft in an airshow video before either, so its probably not capable of such heights.

Compare the T-50's climb in the video with F-22 climb in airshows. Here is description of F-22 airshow maneuvers. The climbs are done at max power. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3_5/publication/afi11-246v1/afi11-246v1.pdf I have yet to see F-22 do a compareble climb.

Then it must not be capable of such a thing. Since you havn't seen it.Not to put too fine a point on it but I have seen more impressive feats... some even at airshows. This PAK FA climb at 3:55 didn't really knock my socks off like it was supposed to. Not trying to upset the Russian fans just saying, I assume its not going full on either, so its not meant to be an insult. If that was full on, nothing held back then I have some bad news.

For obvious reasons these aircraft don't decide to max capability at low level for tourists and internet aviation analysts. The main priority is safety, and most people are more than happy to just "hear the noise and watch the toys" I'm still amazed people read anything into them. :

Compare the T-50's climb in the video with F-22 climb in airshows. Here is description of F-22 airshow maneuvers. The climbs are done at max power. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3_5/publication/afi11-246v1/afi11-246v1.pdf I have yet to see F-22 do a compareble climb.

To put it basically; while it may look like it's climbing fast, comparing footage from 2 different events is simply impractical; how far away were the clouds in each video? How was each photographer adjusting their zoom? Are the lenses changing the colour of the sky and making it appear like a more rapid transition?

Unless we have actual values of ft per minute, there's not much to discuss.

We have a winner. Without any kind of visual reference and measurable way to compare its just guesses, or in this case opinion.

When you compare videos you are not comparing aircraft. You are comparing videos. When you compare Airshow Demos, you are not comparing aircraft, you are comparing Airshow Demos.

Its a very nice video of an airshow demo. Its not going to give us measurable comparisons.

I have never seen any aircraft with such power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw2bAJGgCZI

here ya go buddy. enjoy.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

According to Metz the F-22 pilot:

That would be a rate of climb of >60,000 feet per minute... As Robin would say, "Holy Sh#t Batman!"

 

[VTOLicious]

When you compare videos you are not comparing aircraft. You are comparing videos. When you compare Airshow Demos, you are not comparing aircraft, you are comparing Airshow Demos.

Word! ;D