LERX louvres open ? Perhaps the aircraft is flying at very low speed behind an An-26 or similar aircraft.:)

No, should narrow it down better. It has nothing to do with airframe systems though, but it is quite visible that one system needs urgent servicing, is malfunctioning….:) Just showing condition under which Migs are operated in Slovak airforce when you sign a deal with RSk MiG for supervising, servicing and spare parts. The article “RAC “MiG” was awarded the prize “European Quality” sound like a joke for people working near Mig-29. 😡

P.S. compare pictures!

Ahh, so long post, take hours to read properly, will try to answer briefly;)

No, please check this up. The MiG-29 and Su-27 system are similar and their common base of tech is well known, but a crucial difference AFAIK, is that the Su-27 system continues to display the TWS targets in SNP while the MiG-29s original N019 did not. That was a big deal. BTW, in Indian service, the MiG-29s did see a limited upgrade later, so this issue was presumably solved, but the N001 did not have this problem early on. In fact, this is what I have in my notes regarding how the Su-27 system was overall more sophisticated – I think the poster was Pit (who corroborated what i was informed by actual crew)

I see, but you talking apples now. The difference is the datalink showing tactical situation on the IPV screen while the radar is loosing sight of other targets going from SNP to RNP(STT) mode, a feature missing on point defence fighter Mig-29, where the output information on IPV and ILS was doubled only. Sure, you can blame MiG for screwed up design, even it is well known fact that early produced 9.12/9.13 had the switches METKA/TRACCA – TAKT/DUBL of the Narciss-M display system on their IPV screen installed, in the meaning they had probably been prepared for the datalink. I rather believe the datalink feature was not implemented due to its absence in airforce requirements. Check the photo below.

understand the simple point being made that the MiG team screwed up by sticking to an overly restrictive set of requirements limiting the usage of the fighter. In which case, the “narrow minded” people at MiG stuck to a very bizarre requirement of limited range and hence hobbled their aircraft to become a glorified short range hot rod.

Nevermind, I respect the rights of others to have an opinion even if they bizzare and scewed up even more than mine.;) Blaming MiG for not adressing its shortcommings, e.g. for low fuel capacity is one of the weirdest I ever heard. The solutions were known from the beginning, they`ve added underwing fuel tanks 2x1150l, izd. 9.13 with more internal fuel in its spine or even the izd. 9.15 with totaly redesigned and increased fuel capacity. They surely could not install 9000 liters fuel on board as on the Su-27.
WP countries never really complained about the Mig-29 having short legs mostly due to not flying over large distances. Perhaps now it seems that India AF made a mistake and picked up a wrong aircraft when buying the MiG-29 in 1986, but who is there to blame for, MiG design bureau ?? :D:D

And MiG has failed its customer repeatedly, as far as Indian experience is concerned. So much so, that the “love for all things Russian”, transferred to Sukhoi, and has remained there.

The MiG-29 had intensive problems in operation and maintenance since its induction due to premature failure of engines, components, and systems. 74% of the engines failed within five years, were out of supply pipeline for three years, and reduced aircraft availability by 15, to 20%. This led to a decision to restrict flying efforts and therefore compromised operational and training commitments

Feeling a lot of frustration when reading that….That means airworthiness 10-14 aircrafts from 70 during time period 1987-1991. I imagine Indian AF hot-heads blaming MiG-29 for quality issues, then MiG blaming customer for not operating and maintaining aircrafts properly. One could easily say all the bad things about relationships between MiG and India during that time. Roughly speaking we are in a similar situation right now, so I know what I`m talking about. 😉
What is interesting, though, is that India`s Mig-29(9.12B) were early built Fulcrums lacking nose wheel mud guards what according to the article was not fixed until 1992. Realize that WP countries got Fulcrums in 1988-1990 all with mud guards installed. Thus very bad relationships between India and MiG from the beginning….
Some remarks to Mig-29 FOD problems It is maybe possible that some debris which logged onto oblique FOD doors seals withstood the airstream and vibrations during take off speed 200km/h and then they;re ingested into the engine, but it is even more possible that they were also ingested afterwards when taxiing, parking on a ramp and switching off engines, the door are opened when the RD-33 still has 60% RPM. Why it is not mentioned in the report, any clue ?
Either way, hopefully the installation of mud guards solved the situation with FOD problems in IndianAF.

did the Su-30 MKI even have a single customer before the IAF purchased it?! Clearly you didnt follow the history of the deal. The excuses you have listed out for MiG is huge, and yes, some of these problems were valid, but they clearly dont absolve MiG for its lackluster approach.

I admit that, I;ve never been much interested in Indian Su-30 deals, even though I was thinking of first Su-30K deals which AFAIK India AF accused of being obsolete, bad quality in workmanship, …etc
I think the IndianAF is a large fleet, surely divided into severeal fractions, each one is flying and maintaining some types of aircrafts. They fight among each other through media, blaming the other sides, who waste more funding or what and how many maintenance issues they have. In spite of many complains and negative reports against MiG, India AF still spending money to modernize and operate a large fleet of MiG aircrafts. The funniest thing is the Indian AF is even buying new ones. There is a on old saying “Dogs are barking but caravane is going it’s way”. 🙂

In contrast, MiG sat on its hands when India approached it to set up local spares production in India (because MiG claimed it could no longer guarantee spares supply). -refused to part with design data when India, frustrated, said it would make the spares on its own, but needed MiG to assist in the process

I believe you, high attrition rate airforces like Indian AF could have this kind of problems with MiG from the beginning. We never had in the past, meaning 90ies, but when spare parts stocks dried up, we practically ended up at the same route.

Finally, especially for the MiG-29s and MiG-23s, India started making spares in-house. When your customer has to go through all these problems just to keep its investment operational, then yeah, its high time MiG realized that its a business and professional customers do expect proper business like terms. Agreed, but its not just spares, its the attitude.

Keeping fingers crossed for you, Polish AF went the same way and started to produce its own spare parts, but still it needs aprovements of the MiG design bureau for appropriate design changes, upgrades. When I visited Bydgoscz repair plant I was told about their experience with MiG service. Nowadays MiG personal visit at Polish AFB with Mig-29 is prohibited.

See, when a company is in trouble, it has to do far more to survive. Here, in India, the long arm of the Govt protected several firms as state owned enterprises.Point is what MiG went through was hard, but its attitude (or at least that of some key people in the organization) was shambolic.

Do not know how some Govt owned electronic company in India can be compared with gigant like MiG with its production plants and dozens of subcontractors, but I understand what you are saying. When the centrally planed economy collapsed in SU, it was quite a shock for companies including MiG and others in defence industry wihout state funding. Without a system, planning, willingness and airforce support to induct upgraded Mig-29M into service, I still do not think that a few skillful bussinessmen would make a difference, but regarding attitude maybe.

Fact is though, its just new wine in an old bottle. Its simply not in the class of Rafale/Typhoon in terms of overall performance. Or its own peer the heavier Su-35.

An example to prove my point. In order to ensure Su-35 export success they have to induct the type into RuAF, even though the Su-35 is exactly a new wine in an old bottle. I personally praise the MiG-35 much more than even Rafale and EF.
What is Indian navy saying about the RAM paint applied on the Mig-29K aircraft surface, is it working at least a bit or already peeled off? :diablo:

Basically, all the constraints mentioned above were relevant to the VVS bar 22 airframes, for a while at least. The SP mode mentioned is a free search mode (probably volume search) and the radar display/ergonomics issues associated with overall fit, plus the lack of SA when SNP/TWS mode went to STT mentioned would remain.
N019 is the USSR standard model.

N019EA is the version supplied to Warsaw Pact countries. Lacks “SP” mode.

N019EB is an export variant for general export. More downgraded. Less capable TS100.02.06 digital processor. Also lacks “SP” mode.

N019M

Time period he has been working on the avionics list, he hasnt clue what the SP mode is for, the info is outdated. The SP(Svobodnoe Prostranstvo) mode was present on early Soviet fulcrums only, then also removed, bcs of its simplyfied signal processing algorithms not giving enough data about the targets. Is it possible to send me via PM a picture of Indian Mig-29 cockpit with the N019ME? Thanks

regards
Martinez

And there are already machine riveting and plumbing at KnAAPO if you don’t know.

here we go, 18year old riveting machines at KnAAPO working on Sukhoi Superjet 100 airframes asembly….:D:D:D:D

o’rly? then Boeing seems to be in trouble, too

Funny, I heard that from a guy working on Zhukovski LII, you both aviation armchair experts never worked in the industry, when the job and money is leaving the country you make fun from that and also comparing “poor” Sukhoi with Boeing large portfolio(or Embraer for instance, just check you both dumbasses who owns the company :rolleyes: ) doesnt help you much when considering they built more than 10000 commercial airplanes. How many Superjets have been built and delivered so far? 😀

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/projects/ssj100/

a good article “How Sukhoi lost $1,5 mld when learning to build airliners at Boeing”
http://www.forbes.ru/ekonomika/kompanii/67586-suhoi-potratil-15-mlrd-chtoby-nauchitsya-u-boeing-stroit-passazhirskie-lain

btw, that’s how weapon bays doors represented at model…:diablo:

right, no weapon bay doors represented at model.

there’s a good quote for this – “Satisfaction of one’s curiosity and ambitions for government and corporate money”
(One = Mikhail Petrovich Simonov)

To whom it was adressed to? Pogosyan I guess, I always thought he was to blame for that and with years passing since he became head of Sukhoi, I wonder whether his leadership is not questioned often. Probably not, when considering the production factories are still very busy earning money with fourth-generation jets fighters and its clones, what so to speak Simonov ensured when brought them into being. The design bureau could spent money for two new projects under his leadership the Raptorski T-50(so far not so fifth gen, looking forward when it turn out to be) and the Superjet100, a regional jet where only factory riveters and plumbers to build fuselage and wings are needed as everything else is manufactured outside Russia, imported then installed into the airframe. What a shame for civil aviation industry in Russia.

Some pics from S-37 assembly(videofotage), it seems the wing structure, spar to spar was from composite materials only.

I wonder who ever told you that S-37 would fly M=2.35?
btw, it’s my very own photo)
while model has almost all of the panel lines so sought by rivet counter modelers around the world, it lacks panel lines at the weapon bay area due to classification issues, and inlet tracts end with rounded deadlock a dozen inches behind inlet lips

Ehm, UFG…. I remember to see it in many articles, books, internet sites, max. speed 2500km/h, even Piotr Butowski in WAPJ stated 2200km/h or Mach2(OKB Sukhoi book by Y.Gordon)….well, perhaps not correct info, old, but you can hardly deny it.

Anyway, I;m sure if looking inside real Su-47 engine intakes you would be surprised how the wooden model differs…..

That is not Quiet Bird but the McDonald Douglas QAA (Quiet Attack Aircraft) which is from 1972-73.

There were also some design studies which never resulted in an operational system, but were delivered as technology demonstrators which were successful in promoting the evolution of sophisticated low observable technologies. In 1972-1973 McDonnell Douglas designed the Quiet Attack Aircraft Project (Figure 19), which attempted to achieve lower radar, infrared and acoustic signatures than former attack aircraft, increasing survivability in high threat environments……………………………………………….However, the edge returns resulted in a contradiction. Entire curved platform edges produced a flare spot, which resulted in a relatively strong diffracted return from part of the edge, perpendicular to the line-of-sight [13] at nearly every viewing aspect.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA496936
More at http://retromechanix.com/article/attack/mcdonnell-douglas-model-226-458-quiet-attack-aircraft/

thanks, quite inspiring reading !! 😀