This is one of the main reason. People thought that Bigger wing = bigger space between engine. So that was the Reason for Double pylon. When IRL The wingspan its the same. And the space between engine its also the same. The only difference i notice its that on Su-35s the engine its slightly tilted outward.
In the report that was accepted the Pylon are also Tilted outward compare to the in game that is straight. But that its not indicative that the Su-30sm couldn’t use them.
I’m totally okay with gaijin remove them. I was even against R-77-1. And i would love to see Su-35s. Its not that i don’t like the Su-30sm. But its was FAT and Slow. for the current meta of the game (Right now is Okayish). I’m also against gaijin add Su-35s with thing like F-15EX, Eurofighter with AESA etc. But how thing are going that will be the case.
The manufacturer of the dual pylons cite Su-30 and Su-35 as two of the platforms.
I forgot to save that cause I was on my laptop instead of my desktop when I saw it.
It’s the same distance as between Su-35’s intakes. Su-34 is the only complete redesign of the Flanker, which is one of the reasons it’s not called a Flanker.
This is also the case on standard Su-27s. It’s likely for improved stability.
It’s pretty hilarious that NATO still gave it a reporting name that starts with “F”. Sure it’s a fighter-bomber, but in Russian classification pretty much everything is a fighter-bomber or fighter-interceptor nowadays.
Entirety of NATO trembles in fear. I mean, Su-39 can carry grand total of 20 missiles that can attack aerial targets, no fighter jet can come even close.
My “favourite” time was a bug when Bars randomly locked whatever it felt to when you tried to switch between ACM and HMS modes. Made close combat with Su-30SM almost impossible.
