How to make an Aviation Website Stand Out?

[Webmaster]

Well, you should start by trying to figure out why you don't get more visitors first. Then you should look at their blogs. I don't mean just the blogs themselves, but how do they score on google, and also search them on google to see where they get their visitors from.

Send me a PM with the URLs and I'll have a look too.

Where they get it from? Probably Wikipedia? Been kinda messy there on the Sukhoi front, it's improving though, and I could also pack my bags if I start thinking what's the point.


It's more important that you are happy with it. Most visitors take it all for granted anyway.

[SukhoiLover]

Well, you should start by trying to figure out why you don't get more visitors first. Then you should look at their blogs. I don't mean just the blogs themselves, but how do they score on google, and also search them on google to see where they get their visitors from.

Send me a PM with the URLs and I'll have a look too.

Where they get it from? Probably Wikipedia? Been kinda messy there on the Sukhoi front, it's improving though, and I could also pack my bags if I start thinking what's the point.


It's more important that you are happy with it. Most visitors take it all for granted anyway.

Thats another curious thing, here in Portugal, at least, when you type anything about Sukhoi or something like that, my blog appears first, b

Well, you should start by trying to figure out why you don't get more visitors first. Then you should look at their blogs. I don't mean just the blogs themselves, but how do they score on google, and also search them on google to see where they get their visitors from.

If i type Su-35BM on the option "Web" this one appears in second ( http://equipamentos-militares-aereo.blogspot.com/2007/06/su-35bm-nova-gerao-do-super-flanker.html ), while that mine appears in 5th.

If you read my article and his article, you´ll notice that mine is just as complete as his, but mine is more organized, has much better images, and does not contain mistakes like saying the ceiling of the BM is 18.800m when its brochures from KnAAPO states 18.000m.

Also, he states it supecruises at Mach 1.05 and thats it.

If you take a look at mine, i state that it supercruises at Mach 1.6 but i made it this way( ?1.6?), the question mark is used to indicate thats just speculation, not something confirmed, in other words, when there something that is just speculation, i clearly indicate it as such.

Another thing, he states the sustained turning rate of the BM is 60º per second when no such information has ever been released.

But anyway, i´m not gonna stop, its better to have 40 visitors who like quality than 200 visitor who want bullshit and speculation.

P.S-Yeah, wikipedia is most likely their source.

[Webmaster]

His blog is older, something which counts for ranking. He has got more aircraft, so he also get visitors on those.

How do you know he is getting more visitors than you? If it's the total count I wouldn't be surprised. Or do you know the number for just the Su-35 page.


The things you mentioned are hardly mistakes, except for the turn rate, that's a mistake by you. He has 32 degrees/s on there... I don't see 60?? The only 60degree/s I found is for the movement of the TVC nozzle.

And calling it Su-35BM is wrong, lol.

But about the ceiling spec, you got it from a sales brochure published before it was flying. Those are always inaccurate, if it says 18000, then it's around or more than that as that was probably the design specification. 18800 is the same as some sources report for the Su-27/37. You have to take these early specs with a big grain of salt. Depending on how the 117S performs, we still have to see what the actual ceiling that will be put into the flight manual, and then it can still be higher in reality or lower due to operational limits, just like speed, etc.

Here's (one of) his source(s) I think: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-35bm-specs.htm

Regarding supercruise, meaningless number, depends on too much to worry about it being accurate. But the new engines have like 1000 kgf more dry thrust, so 2000 kgf roughly, that's like 5000 lbf more. With the additional weight considered... that isn't going to take it from subsonic cruise speed (Su-27) to a supercruiser. Sure, 1.05 may be possible, why not, other planes do. But is it really a capability? I guess not otherwise KnAAPO/Sukhoi would have jumped on the "supercruise" band wagon too.

Mach 1.6 seems impossible, the design hasn't changed that much, so it has to come from the engines then. That's still pretty much the same too, only uprated and FADEC and things to improve MTBO/MTBF. But I don't know much about aerodynamics and engine stuff. Just seems wrong to me that all it takes to double cruise speed and beyond the sound barrier takes only a new FCS and updated engine.


Don't get hung up on specs, they are just indicators.

[SukhoiLover]

"Capacidade de curva sustentada de até 60 graus"

Means sustained turning rate.

Also, about the ceiling stuff, i do not disagree with you, but do you consider correct to post something based on older models when the company already has a brochure with that figure?

About the supercruise, my point is he states 1.05 and thats it, no indication whatsoever about that figure beeing just estimated or not. To me thats wrong.

If you take a look at mine you read ?1.6?, i say the number but clearly indicate it has just speculation, nothing confirmed. And as far as i remember, i think i took that information from Air Power Australia.

And yet another thing, you can´t read Portuguese, so you can´t exactly fully compare my article to his, but trust me, mine is better.


But there many other blogs with similar situations, that one was just an example.

[SukhoiLover]

And yes, calling it 35BM is not fully correct but its the best way to tell apart the old model from this one, we already discussed this remember

[Webmaster]

Not trying to criticize your article, I was just reacting to your comments here.

"Capacidade de curva sustentada de até 60 graus"

Ok, so his text contradicts his specs.

Also, about the ceiling stuff, i do not disagree with you, but do you consider correct to post something based on older models when the company already has a brochure with that figure?

Obviously, he didn't use the brochure for his specs, but either globalsecurity or another source using those specs.

About the supercruise, my point is he states 1.05 and thats it, no indication whatsoever about that figure beeing just estimated or not. To me thats wrong.

Copied from source, who got it from god knows where. Wrong, well it's just bad practice. The majority of my specs come from Jane's, unless I really researched them. Now probably much of them is estimated without a note that they are. What am I going to do? I don't know which are estimated, if I say they are all estimated I am dishonouring my source, if I start digging deeper I only arrive at less reliable sources, unless I really start to make an effort and trace it all back to the original source by contacting publishers, authors, etc. I just want to have some specs to put on my blog/site...

The problem is that in the aviation press, even the professional publications, authors almost never declare their sources for information, and the marketing teams of manufacturers don't care about all the "if's and but's" attached to a certain number either. It's not a science, and even in science they get in wrong because "this publication said so, so I bet they did their research", but that's another story.

You are a big fan of Yefim Gordon right, you'd be shocked if someone would point out how much errors he has in his publications. And yet he became the "authority" on Russian military aviation.

Now, all of this considered, how much can you really expect from some blog?


All I want to say is that it is great you take it so serious and do your research. But don't get frustrated when others don't, believe me, been there, done that. It's not worth it, errors and inaccuracies are part of the field.

[SukhoiLover]

Ok, ok, i´ll calm myself down.

About experts being wrong sometimes, that doesn´t surprise me, it happens in all fields, not just in aviation.

And about plane specs, sure they are not 100% accurate, after all many times most of those specs are secret and are not meant to be disclosed.


By the way, since you referred Gordon, let me ask you something, just curious, which one do you like the most, Gordon or Fomin?

[Webmaster]

I can't really answer that question, I've got no preference, they aren't really comparable authors. Gordon puts out books like there's no tomorrow, which makes me wonder is he an author or an editor putting pieces together. Regardless, amazing line up and a wealth of information in a well presented form. I only know Fomin's work in the form of the Su-27 book and his articles in AFM, he seems to me the one who can be the most informed. But I can't say I have a preference.

Unless you mean Gordon's Su-27 book vs Fomin's Su-27 book. Then I prefer the book by Fomin, even though it's older, incomplete, less readable, and suffers from poor translation. If you look at the acknowledgements in both books, it's clear who's done the most research. It's also much more detailed, although a lot is left unexplained. Fomin's book also has forewords by Sukhoi and KnAAPO. Gordon also had talks with Sukhoi it seems, but he states "This book relies on unclassified sources (books and magazines published in Russia, the UK and the USA)." He mostly updated his own work. But don't get me wrong, I don't think it's worse. But now Fomin included a literature list instead of such a vague statement. That helps my credibility towards the book. But in the end, I can't completely judge that. My conclusion is that Gordon's publication is the better book, it's close to being the ultimate reference, but Fomin's book is the more valuable source.