I am on dev, but my monke brain works on vibes instead of hard data so i have zero clue on what this changed in Flanker behavior.
Initially it had RPM copied from mig-29 engines. They changed them to Al-31F ones.
so does it change anything? Or RPM is just an arbitrary number in-game?
I couldn’t tell the diffefence, just tested on dev.
1 Like
My monke brain was able to tell they changed the statcard image lol
The absolute refutation of this myth that Su-35’s center-line store positions are wider between the engines.
That bug report is a bug report on the thickness of the center bar, not the width of the entire dual pylon.
As you can see from the photo and screenshot, the width of the dual launcher is correct as the fins overlap perfectly, and the engine width is the same.
Su-35 and Su-30SM: Weird how the countermeasure blocks take up the same exact space between the engines. More proof there is no new space between the engines.
Su-35 and Su-27: Well this is embarrassing… it’s the same width.
No one, not a single person that has actually worked on Su-35s has spoken with me.
Not a single person has provided evidence to substantiate a claim that Su-35’s engine width is supposed to be different.
Changing the width between the engines of a jet, let alone a fighter jet is super expensive, and can mess up many things aerodynamically. Sukhoi obviously wouldn’t do that, and they didn’t.
Pixel hunters can find more images and prove the engine width is the same if they want, but this case is closed.
Stop perpetuating myths.
1 Like
you haven’t provided any evidence of the Su-27SM or Su-30SM carrying the pylon
1 Like
@Papa_Daniel
That was not the purpose of this post. Either address the post, or stop the red herring fallacy.
I have no claim for Su-27SM as is.
please submit an image of the Su-27SM or Su-30SM carrying the pylon, thank you
You can’t read?.. It says that space between launcher irl 1.3 wider than central beam.
Yes, because the in-game central beam is too wide.
The entire launcher width is correct, the central beam width is not.
If the launcher itself was wider it wouldn’t be able to fit on Su-35.
Well, this definitely warrants 16 AMRUMS to the Golden Eagle
1 Like
You’re the one that have to provide evidence of that. Its Kh-38 all over again. (And don’t bring that bad take some mod of this forum misused just to prove they were right. Leaving the most important part, out of the discussion).
Do the same that the guy on the Report did. Look at Su-35 and other Flankers space in between the engine and count pixel for pixel to see if it don’t fit. Because right now that report only show that The pylon its badly modeled. Just like a lot of thing in the Su-30sm and that people has point out. And not that it can’t use the Double Pylon.
Its about the same stuff that Surprise the same guy that did that Kh-38 thread. Tried to do with IRBIS just last week. Trying to said Oh look IRBIS BAD. “Its had slow scan rate”. When he was using a video from a test of the radar on a Plane that Don’t have AL-41. And was using long range scanning mode. Meaning that the scan rate its slow because it need to concentrate more power in the beam at longer range. And that don’t prove anything about what the TWS scan rate its.
Talking about AL-41F1-s that its originator of this discussion. Because they are a little bigger than normal AL-31. But when i looked at the engine bay the difference between them is almost not noticiable. And if nothing it would mean that the Su-35s couldn’t use the Double pylon because it have less space. But that its not what are you arguing here right??. Thank god someone managed to have a pic of the double Pylon on the Su-35s before they move to use that pylons only for R-37m. Or i could bet someone in this forum would make a post copium about the Su-35s couldn’t use them because the AL-41F are bigger. And WE would need to show POOFF about it.
Also idk who its this guy that worked on flanker you’re talking about. Because right now the only guy that its vocal about his work with Flankers its
@GeorgeN28581
. Also there is a guy on SP forum that USED to work at Vympel. Flateric? i think it was… Or are you talking about BBCRF?
2 Likes
At least su-35s has been advertised for dual racks since forever. Literally no other flankers have been advertised for double rack r77s other than the su-35
George has confirmed that Su-35s indeed use RAM paint…
I think most of the ppl are pointing out that VKS simply doesn’t used them on any other plane except Su-35S.
1 Like
iirc from what i heard the su30sm can physically carry double pylons for R77 but due to the smaller space between the intakes , a missile launch could damage the aircraft , which is why it is not used. it should probably be removed atleast when they add the su35.
1 Like
And most probably will never do. Now its cooler to use R-37m on them.
Yea i have hear that Su-35s have bigger wing. Turns out its was just Khibiny pods.