Not only Su-34 and Su-57. As i recall, on RU forum someone shared Su-35S and Su-27/30 gabarit comparison: SU-35 has a larger nacelle angle.
The front intakes of Su-35 could’ve been modernized, but the engine mounting position is blatantly identical between Su-27 [original] through Su-35S.
Note, NONE of these facts are being used to justify dual racks on Su-27SM2/3 in-game.
I am not doing that.
All I am doing is refuting the spacing myth, because I find it annoying and have evidence.
There’s a reason I grabbed photographs that have weapons mounted in the center for good reference.
I am not your enemy, KYoo, I am at worst an ally.
We’re all on the same page of loving aviation.
Edit:
I haven’t found a good top-down of Su-35 and Su-27 to provide 100% proof of wing span differences, but I know from underside photographs of Su-35s mounted with weapons that the added aircraft width is purely from the new wingspan, which also adds the extra fuel to Su-35.
Why do u think that it’s su-35 photo? Because it’s signed that way?
Because the photographer cited it, I have the full image on my primary desktop which shows the full wingspan [which also shows the Su-35’s wingtips], and the cropped image shows the iconic Su-35 tail with the protrusions… oh and you can see the extra flare/chaff dispensers on it as well.
So yeah, I have no reason to believe that this isn’t a photograph of a real Su-35 doing a flight.
It’s Su-5000, believe me)
Do you even know how many experimental modifications of the Su-35 there were?
I mean, read the full run-on sentence of mine. :)
If I didn’t include the photographer’s claim, I felt my reasoning would be incomplete.
I also never noticed the extra flare/chaff of that Su-35 photograph until today. XD
Nope, and that argument is easily used against you.
There are dozens of service Su-35s photographed with the same exact engine spacing as all other Flankers, because they’re all still Flankers. Su-35 adds 1 foot of wingspan on each side of the aircraft, that’s where all the ~2 feet of extra width comes from.
If there’s an experimental aircraft… extra spacing could’ve easily been an experimental version that never passed experiments.
Which is why despite these engine spacing claims occurring every few months, a total of zero photos have been posted proving the case.
Yet 5? to dozens of photos proving identical engine spacing have been posted.
Not only.
I repeat, what makes you think that it’s a Su-35s on photo?
Which one? There are ~10 different planes and ALL are called Su-35.
All Su-35s have the same wingspan.
And dual R-77s were cited “Su-35” with no specific variant, as well as one of the either testing Su-30s or modernized service Su-30s prior to the thrust vectoring variants, and perhaps one other vehicle I forgot.
Either way, Su-30SM and 35 can both use them, which means Su-30MKM’s is correct because that’s a 2019 vectoring Flanker using many modernized systems.
The only contention is if the Su-27SM2/3’s fire control computer can handle it, and we won’t know without a manual, which we won’t get under normal circumstances for like 30 years, and can’t share on this forum until it’s unclassified.
Ahahah, pomyanem. Identify each modification and attach a photo that confirms your words.
I do not know how you will do this because half of modifications photo are not publicly available in principle.
I’ll make it easy for him.
Here couple pictures of crashed Su-35, now lets see if he can prove his point :)
1 Like
IMHO, it’s impossible).
1 Like