A Russian aviation company has conducted a maiden flight of a new forward-swept wing trainer aircraft.

The SR-10 is two-seat forward-swept wing trainer aircraft. It was earlier reported that 16 are to be produced however this cannot be verified.

On December 25th, the SR-10 made its first flight at an airfield near Vorotynsk, in the Kaluga Region, sdelanounas.ru website reported. It is understood that an initial engineering model was presented at MAKS-2009 airshow but in the following years the project encountered financial problems.

It was also reported maximum takeoff weight is 2,700kg. The forward-swept wing aircraft can also be powered with either a Soviet design AI-25TLSh engine or a modern Russian-made AL-55 gas-turbine jet engine making it attractive to nations using such technology.

78
Leave a Reply

avatar
30 Comment threads
48 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
46 Comment authors
Assad RiazNeil Matthew PalapalaSimon GurdenIon PinionMartin Gray Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Tom Baker
Guest

What’s the point in forward swept wings?

Charlie Edwards
Guest

It already looks shot to shit so the Turks will leave it alone

Charlie Edwards
Guest

I believe that is why

Felipe Yassuda
Guest

Maneuverability at high speeds

Chris Duncan
Guest

It means that you can still manoeuvre whilst close to stalling. Inner portion of wing stalls first but there’s still airflow over the ailerons

Dato Aliff Alex
Guest

give u lot of advantage in manuverability,payload since the root connected backward.. but reduce control surface movement, created lot of flex

Richard Willis
Guest

Perhaps they put them on the wrong way round ?

Davy Donnelly
Guest

Can fly backwards 🙂

Martin Boland
Guest

Not enough for the F-22 to have them despite the X-29 trialing them 30 years ago

Daniel Rafferty
Guest

The wing vortex doesn’t leave from the wing tips as in swept back wings, it’s leaves from the wing roots. Therefore the wing vortices are closer to the fuselage, which apparently makes the aircraft more manoeuvrable. It’s cutting edge tech.

Kevin Blaze
Guest

Bro forward swept wing are design and to give boost the Manoeuvrable ability with air drag of upper region can balance at subsonic while at low Supersonic speed . while they can fly higher altitude with no problem. It’s very complex design and Russian achieved it.

UK Defence Journal
Guest

Many countries have produced aircraft prototypes like this, very few have decided it’s a good idea.

David Anthony Simpson
Guest

And I for one am surprised they have bothered on such a small and lightweight trainer ac. Intriguing.

Tom Baker
Guest

Thanks for the replies. ? makes more sense ?

James Gale
Guest

3 major issues are stall…aeroelasticity and yaw instability. All this for extra agility when the West are focusing on BVR Russia is still dabbling in merged combat which is 20 years old.

Vladislav Kuznetsov
Guest
Vladislav Kuznetsov

It’s for better arrangement of canopy, wing’s center section and the focus of lift. Also, it comes with 20% reduction of drag compared to the similar rearward config.

Chris Harding
Guest

looks strangle stubby for a forward sweper, the X-29 and SU47 Bekuit were quite elegant in there form

Steve Muir
Guest

Russian been playing around with this design for a few years now.. see the SU47 Berkut.

UK Defence Journal
Guest

It’s a new trainer as the article says, not a large aircraft like the Su-47.

Steve Muir
Guest

I know it’s a trainer.. just making a comparison with the SU47 design.

Vladislav Kuznetsov
Guest
Vladislav Kuznetsov

SU-47 also has canards and twin tail, while SR-10 hasn’t.

Kevin Blaze
Guest

It’s Firkin The Su-47 . there are only two prototype . and one is spotted

UK Defence Journal
Guest

No Kevin, it’s not, it’s a new aircraft.

Kevin Blaze
Guest

Yes right coz Firkin is still under research works while there are no progress report in that. Surely this is any classified project

UK Defence Journal
Guest

No, it’s a private venture and was also reported by RT and others, it’s a trainer.

Kevin Blaze
Guest

Okkk then we can say its only technology Demonstrator

UK Defence Journal
Guest

It’s not, it’s a production variant trainer.

Ini Fadhil Lho
Guest

It’s new? New from SU-47?

UK Defence Journal
Guest

It’s a new trainer as the article says, not a large aircraft like the Su-47.

Ini Fadhil Lho
Guest

Ooooo it’s new trainer… Ok thank’s bro

Robert Smith
Guest

Allegedly su37 berkut. Nato name terminator. Fsw makes fighters more maneuverable. But wont fly without computers. The yanks equiv was the x29

UK Defence Journal
Guest

It’s a new trainer as the article says, not a large aircraft like the Su-47.

Jamie Bowes
Guest

I thought the forward swept wing idea is a dead end?

James Gale
Guest

It is…..Russia is over a decade behind in BVR sensors.

Ion Baumann
Guest

James Gale what exactly does this have to do with the content of the article?

Matthew Smith
Guest

Stephen Coyle Dorian Legrand May

Kevin Miller
Guest

United States had one in 80’s

Vladislav Kuznetsov
Guest
Vladislav Kuznetsov

Meh. Soviet Union had one in 1946, google ‘Tsibin LL-3’. And Germany in 1944, it was Junkers Ju-287. So, 80’s is to late.

Paul Irving
Guest

I wonder if it’s derived from the YAK 130. It has a similar looking forward section and wing roots.

UK Defence Journal
Guest

It is as it happens Paul, good call.

Ion Baumann
Guest

most trainers and tactical jets seem to look the same.

Vladislav Kuznetsov
Guest
Vladislav Kuznetsov

No, this is a standalone project.
Also, Yak-130 is twice as heavy.
I think, it was derived from Sukhoi’s aerobatic aircraft, but not sure.

Douglas Madox
Guest

No new lol its a Su 47 Berkut

UK Defence Journal
Guest

No Douglas, it’s not. It’s a single engined training jet produced by a private company, perhaps read the article next time.

Douglas Madox
Guest

lol tnx sry.

Simon Taylor
Guest

Why?! As a trainer it’s just pointless!

David Anthony Simpson
Guest

Not if you are training for high maneouverability close air combat

Simon Taylor
Guest

Trainers are to give pilots the necessary experience to move onto fighters. There’s no point in learning the manoeuvring characteristics of a trainer to then have to relearn them in a much larger, totally different aircraft.

Ion Baumann
Guest

it’s a trainer designed and built by a small company, apparently having the MiG-29 (and its’ derivatives) as a “target”. the designers claim the operating/training cost per hour is overall smaller compared to its’ competitors (without Yak-130 which is more advanced).
in 2009 there was another rather weird looking trainer, “Black Raven”, next to SR-10.
Now, for a trainer jet, it looks a lot better than Yak-152.

Kent Reynolds
Guest

I bet it handles like a shopping trolley, which actually makes for a good trainer.

Heat Negria
Guest

hornet? did they just copy the hornet?

Simon Gurden
Guest

Alot of that doesn’t ring right to me. The plane they were testing before was big. This one has a maximum takeoff weight of 2,700kgs?? That seems a bit light!

Ion Pinion
Guest

It s a trainer developed by a small private company.

Simon Gurden
Guest

That would make more sense. Thankyou

Simon Gurden
Guest
Gene Illenberger
Guest

yo joe!

Heat Negria
Guest

G I joe? Xp

Eric Richmond
Guest
Jeremy Stockdale
Guest

It’s for when you are shooting something your not supposed to, you can say it wasn’t me cos I was flying in the other direction lol

Graeme Hatton
Guest

Is that so they can stick it in reverse when under attack?

Ant Holmes
Guest

1997 when Sukhoi were testing the S-47 Berkut. Forward swept wings nothing new there.

Darren Miller
Guest

The su47 was rejected for mass manufacture as the stress on the wings was too much.

UK Defence Journal
Guest

This is a new aircraft, the aircraft is new not the concept.

Darren Miller
Guest

Correct, I as just mentioning why the su47 didn’t make the grade, for those unaware. I shall now research this new aircraft.

Colin Peplow
Guest

Old news the picture is even from the start of the year

UK Defence Journal
Guest

Hi Colin, articles are reposted every few months at different times so they reach new people. For example, over 70% of the people who have read this article today are new readers.

Please keep in mind that while it may not be new info you, it is to most others. Thanks.

Ian Mainline Milne
Guest

It’s new to me;-)

Dan Duke
Guest

Do you not think it would be smarter to post relevant up-to-date information that’s factually
Correct? This article was written in January 2016 yet there are videos of it on YouTube that are over a year old. Sack your researchers, the general public know far more than you seem to….

https://youtu.be/K6SmVMtMmEU

Christopher Wood
Guest

A training aircraft?

Seb Haggart
Guest

Bloody experts commenting everywhere! Thank god it’s not F35 experts for once. On that note where is my Sopwith Camel ?

David Kitchener-Martin
Guest

Its not a new aircraft been around a few years.

Christian Rogers
Guest

This aircraft is fairly new, you’re thinking of the SU-47.

Karl Bromley
Guest
John England
Guest

Hasn’t nasa had a forward swept wing test bed since the 80’s?

Martin Gray
Guest

Alan Russell

Ion Pinion
Guest

SR-10 trainer

Neil Matthew Palapala
Guest

Baby Su 47 lol

Assad Riaz
Guest

I think it will reduce efficiency of plan in battlefield. Probably require more power to fly and combat.