Interesting, thank you. I looked at pics of older Su-34’s and i do see some peeling on grey areas, but not as much. Looking through pictures, it seems that painting fashion (meaning all the grey areas we see on b/n 10) started on b/n 04 of the early production. The grey *in front* of the canards but on the shoulders is radar/signal transparent for sure, but i am not completely sure about area just behind the canards. Attached is an example of early frames peeling.

PS: Some or all prototypes had at some point all those grey areas as well. But that seems to vary from picture to picture.

Maybe we are making an elephant from a fly, those grey areas are just prone to paint peeling as they are on aircraft leading edges. The reason could be prosaic, fck-up paint technology, not suitable grey topcoat as it is peeling off the primer in sheets and too quickly, Interesting on picture below is that the the dielectric fairing in front of the cannards you`re talking about is painted with a yellow strontium/chromate primer. Do not know what antenna system is hidden there, but higher the transmit frequency the more sensitive is the antenna to metalic coatings as it would interfere with its performance. In other words a radio/iff antenna wouldn`t care, but a nav/gps antenna will be screwed up. The fairing behind the cannards is a metal one.

Found this Su-34 walkaround lately, sorry if posted here earlier.
http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/valkovenalainen/album/227985/?

it is hard to tell from the quality of the picture.

cellphone picture definitelly…..wonder how he could get that picture through RP admin censorship….:D

It looks like there already some structural mods to the ‘Hellducks’ – on the starboard fin and near the canard mounts.

Ken

what do you mean, those yellow parts? dont think so….;)

I am pretty sure 961 = 204. Look at the panel under refuel probe.

It is hard to find good pics of 961 port side, there are a few when searching google, which is weird….. I noticed that dielectric panel, but did not find it very convincing.:o

Welp, aparently 967 crashed in 2011 after being reconverted back to KUB ( 947?) , isn’t it ? At least , that’s how i understood that event.:confused:

Besides , i’ve read somewhere that since both the two seaters and single seaters have the same airframe ( with a 600l tank in the second cockpit for the single seaters ), it’s easy enough to convert it to a two seater.

Also , the “dirty” marks around the gun and around the cockpit and fins are strikingly similar to those of 961 , but i can’t find images as clear as for 204 for it (961 i meen ).

Lastly , usually Mikoyan’s bort number for prototypes tend to mean “something” isn’t it? It just stroke me when i saw bort 204, since MiG-35 961 is given as being converted from K airframe 02-04.

Just my 2 cents .:)

Damn it, I tried to prove you wrong again 🙂 comparing available pictures on the net, bcs the Mig-35 961 to KUB suggestion seemed fishy to me from the beginning. The conversion is not that easy, even if they share the same airframe and thinking you take out a 600l fuel barrel and put a seat inside and you ready to fly just sucks. Found some old 961 pictures, the last dated May2010, then the aircraft disappered. Interestingly, after two years there is a “new” double seater Mig-29KUB “204” with very similar weathered, mud spots on the grey camouflage and traces of being repaired, heavy maintenanced. They even have the red star insignia on the fin on the exact same position. It is still hard to believe they converted 961 to 204, but so far it seems to be the truth.
anyway, hats down to you. 😉

If the AL-31FM-1 engine was designed to upgrade the Su-27 with Al-31F, no chance they are used with the J-20, bcs gear box and APU is top mounted whereas the J-20 has engine with bottom mounted gear box, just remember that.

😀

cool, somehow reminds me of the FB-22, the longer, wider, with bigger payload and delta wings strike/bomber version of the F-22…:D

thanks for pics anyway

Well, well, digi fulcrum from Ukraine….:rolleyes: seems like the digital thunder camo