So I read into it a bit, Su-27M 701 was slightly different than the others, since it had an angle at the top of the rudder whereas the others were flat.
Other than that, two stand out models were 711 (Later developed into the Su-37) and 710 (Which tested the Al-41s). And given Gaijin’s track record of implementing things which were simply tested (or may not have even existed in some cases), if we got a 27M, it may very well have AL-41s.
Also, Su-35 is indeed a valid name, but most people think of the Su-35S. If someone is confused, why not just refer to it as the Su-27M?
2, there was Su-35 and Su-37.
If talking about specific variations of it, the aircraft line itself was a testbed. There were a dozen, none of which were the exact same.
Everything from T-10M-8 to T-10M-11, as well as T-10M-3, had flattened upper edges of the vertical stabs. They serve to do nothing more than increase fuel load by close to a tonne, which was also helped by its larger wings (quite sure that’s what 703 incorporated first).
More had the smaller stabilizers than not. Not entirely sure why fuel was the primary concern seeing how much of a whale the Su-27 was as a baseline.
It would be interesting to get 710 first, though I feel that would warrant different placement from what I had mentioned.
Who knows, maybe 710 instead of 711 as an event vehicle?
There is no reason for confusion to begin with. I had said Su-35, not Su-35S.
One could also be confused by somebody saying Su-35S, in which case the argument could also be “why not say T-10BM??”… There’s no reason to. It’s what it was called, and what it will be called.
In the USSR TT we have the MiG-29 (9.13) from the Mid 80s with the wrong missiles entirely it should not have R60M or R27ER(It’s designed for the R73, and it couldnt carry the R27ER) , and the MiG-29SMT(9.19) from 2006
We could get the M, S, or K
But i think before we get these versions, the MiG-29 Flight model needs to be fixed
I mean mate we know the Su-35 and Su-35S are different things but usually we just say 27M and 35, anyway nobody talks about the 27M anymore… you know, like how when people talk about the Su-30 they almost always refer to the MKI family and almost never to the MKK family
Su-27M would’ve been much clearer
There isn’t a “we” in this statement… You yourself have even mentioned it plainly as the Su-35.
According to?
Yeah… Nope.
So would T-10M-9, but I’m not going to say “Su-35 / Su-27M / T-10M-9” simply because a couple of autistic forumgoers don’t know the difference between the Su-35 and Su-35S.
No of course but when you read Su-35 you could make sure you’re talking about the same thing, because yes it’s a pitty but also a fact that most people don’t even know that the 27M exists.
When did I?
In conclusion, I get that you’re annoyed by people being unprecise but calling the Su-35 “Su-27M” would clarify it, not asking you to call the Su-35S “Su-35” though because that does bring confusion
Saying “Su-35” is unprecise and one shouldn’t use it at all
let me check, worse t/w i wonder how you came up with that. sure su47 has funny forward swept wings and canards but su57 aerodynamics are much more advanced. it has fully movable vert stabs which gives a major control over aircrafts mamneouvrability. other than that it has LEVCONS which acts as LERX when stationary and when it moves can allow sufficient airflow during critical AOA. the tunnel between the intakes acts as a lifting body and the blended wing design gives it good sustained rate.
seriously, you must be high atp. only thing barely stealth about su47 is its S shaped intakes, no other facts, not other angles, leading wing edges in a position giving decent amount of reflections.
I don’t care about what other people interpret it as long as they don’t start going on a tirade about the Su-35S. I said it for no other reason than to spitball a general idea for other people to think about… If somebody wants to mischaracterize what I said and attack my statement off of their own poor understanding of a statement I hadn’t even said, so be it.
What about it is unprecise? Once again, it’s quiet literally what the aircraft was displayed as at its very first worldwide display.
I’m so very sorry that the very clear and concise naming system of the Soviet and Russian air forces are so very specific, but the name of the aircraft is in no way unprecise.
i want to see a Su-57 do this intil then i remain to my opinion that the Su-47 has better maunuverbility
You not only Cut what i say but you do it for War thudner forum cloud , The fact is that the Frame which the Su-47 has gives it a slight better stealth performance i am saying if fitted with proper coating it could achive better performance
