Eminent Martinez, I fear you have contradicted yourself.

Many different and contradicting opinions from you both too(you and Trident), makes answering this crazy. :very_drunk:Reason I entered this pointless discussion was reading this explanation to a warping skin on a freshly built Su-35 visible mostly on the aircraft front section.

Imho, it has nothing to do with build quality. It appears to be a warping of the metal (probably an aluminium alloy) due to fatigue & stress cycles including heat, pressure and aerodynamic loads. For some strange reason the worst offender appears localised to the bort number region….

Please, no offense, it seems you have even less experience with basic aircraft production/assembly technologies, a primary joining methods such as riveting, welding, bonding, or why is the skin on some fuselage areas so prone to get deformed in assembly joining proccesses.
Then some fools have noticed a 50 years old B-52 with a wrinkled skin on the fuselage, automatically thought the new Su-35 has it due to the same reason, fatigue, stress cycles, g-loads, aerodynamic heat and pressure. That is utter bull$hit. Anyway, the B-52 was born with wrinkled skin, bcs it is by its design structure which doesnt include longitudinal stringers, there are frames connected to four extruded beams running the whole length of the fuselage originating from wing torsion box. When sitting on the ground on landing gears, there is a tension in the long fuselage causing bending visualized in the skin wrinkles. Generally they will disappear when aircraft is put on jacks and leveled to an aircraft longitudinal plane or when flying in the air. Of course we can not forget the riveting proccesses as well, they`ve made its own foot print during the B-52 aircraft assembly in 50ies.
You would know that even when working with MRO service, for example a major aircraft repair, e.g. replacing a part of an aircraft frame due to mechanical damage, corrosion,…etc. You have put aircraft on jacks first, then you can tear apart the fuselage bcs of present tensions in the structure when on the landing gears. Not to mention using some special tooling, and assembly jigs.

Now, we all wonder why one year old Su-35S with several flight hours logged, built with a sukhoi state-of the art aircraft production technology is showing some similar skin deformations around rivet rows, frames, stringers. It is bcs it was born with those skin deformations during the hand-made joining proccesses, e.g. riveting a skin structure, 0.8mm thick plates made from Al-Cu-Mg alloy to an aircraft frame. Skin deformations are less visible when the surface is painted with a bright matte color, e.g. yellow zinc-chromate primer. Nevertheless it is still there and is visible unless you provide a good high-angle lighting conditions and paint it with a semi matt to glossy dark paint.
You can also machine self-carrying skin by using chemical milling processes, accuratelly drill countersink holes for rivets with help of laser measuring technologies, using automated riveting machines in the end to make better appearance, build quality. Then the Su-35 will cost a 100mil per piece, not a wise way to replace aging aircrafts in the VVS, do not you think?
Check this site with Sukhoi production line in Irkuts, the last picture is showing the Su-30SM freshly painted just before delivery to a combat unit. Here we go again, decades we hear complains about russian aircraft build quality/issues from the west, now even the far east, China starts to make fun from it, Geez get over it. 😀
http://gelio.livejournal.com/200901.html
[ATTACH=CONFIG]233099[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]233100[/ATTACH]

I wholly agree with you that the MiG-29K has a far superior surface finish than the Su-35S. This is because the Indian Navy bank-rolled the programme and the 29K had obvious requirements for high quality surface finish due to the demands of oversea operations. Obviously they are able to raise quality on 4G airframes as and when demanded (and costs permitting)- it is NOT a capability issue.

That’s quite an interesting opinion you’ve got there, taking into account RSK MIG and its associated companies economic misery in past 20 years, uncertain future, leadership crisis and lapses, since 2005 being choked under UAC and Sukhoi holding leadership, their contracts for delivery of aircrafts have been seen as importnant objectives for securing MiG survival only when compared to big money deals what Sukhoi has done within the same period of time. Now starting a low rate production of MIg-29K/KUB with help of India`s funding, you say it already begun to appear with a far superior surface finish than the Su-35S….:rolleyes: The question would be, why Sukhoi is not fielding advanced materials(CFC), joining assembly technologies on the production line Su30,34,35 aircrafts? The Mig always was ahead in aircraft structure and production technologies, remember it pioneered the CFC use in the end of 70ies, then lightweight aluminum-lithium alloys, the whole Mig-29 front section has been spot welded instead of riveted as on Sukhois-27 familly and we can go on….

The MiG-29 is still pretty terrible by normal standards. It just has nice, matt paint, but once you walk right up to it you can tell it’s still rather rustic – in some regards worse actually than the Su-35S. I snooped round both at MAKS 2007 (both being prototypes at the time, so fair enough) and the MiG still had really ill-fitting hatches and doors – the gap widths were enormous in places, something the Su-35 actually did quite well by contrast.

Finally, we came to a conclusion what does the trick with a “baby” smooth skin on a high-end combat aircrafts. Mostly it is the layer of a RAM paint thick several tenths of millimeters, covering all countersunk rivets, surface scratches, corrugations and imperfections. A regular aircraft paint system is about 0,1mm thick, nicely visible on the Su-35S photos posted. Compare that with the Mig-29K photos for India.
On Maks2007 only the prototype was present, therefore you have to keep statements unbiased. I`ve got a touch experience with the India Mig-29K displayed on Maks2009 and it felt very nice compared what I saw at Su-35 stand.

Mig-29K India on MAKS2009 with a special RAM coatings on the fuselage.
http://deton.lietadla.com/img_0583.jpg
http://deton.lietadla.com/img_0616.jpg

Su-35S RuAF with a regular paint system up to 0,1mm thick.
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/401381/50624xkocpLedht/ygHbG8sHXQ/928672.jpg

I myself, OTOH, am deeply suspicious of the J-20 showboated from day one in matt black paint and unimpressed by the ‘half-baked’ (to put it politely) appearance of the J-30- also never shown as a bare airframe. What are they hiding? If they wanted to show the World that in aerospace terms that they ‘have arrived’ then that would definitely be the way to go.

funny reasoning at all, so now it is a sign of J-20/31 “half-baked” design and issues with production quality when they painted all prototypes from the beginning? I doubt that, we will see that very soon, but anyway what is the point of showing and flying with a bare airframe in the first place? :rolleyes: How often have you seen to fly the F-22 in bare after being assembled? To me it is opposite and clear as a day that the T-50 is half baked aircraft and each time we see an unpaited prototype, bcs they fight with deadlines, always behind the schedule, we know exactly what they`ve been fixing, repairing, strenghtening and troubled with. I do not think they are much happy about it in Knaapo….:D:D Looking forward to see those mentioned design changes introducted with the T-50-6.

I think it also depend on climate, for which the plane is designed. Su-35 is made for cold Siberian climate, so its surface is fine at low temperature. But in hotter climate its surface could look like the one on chinese photo because of temperature ductility, specially if surface is from different material than structure inside and have different ductility. In opposite, if you send a plane with smooth surface in warm climate to cold one, than there will be cracks and breaks in surface.

I havent thought about that, ut it kind of make sens.
Its a big different frm cold East Russia climat down to warmer China region.

It’s not a design decision or matter of build quality. It has nothing to do with where they expect to fight. Its basic material science. Metal at warmer temperature warps and you get that effect on panels/rivets. Every jet will experience the same thing. Its also why ships develop that same kind of warping effect in warm waters no matter what yard made them — American, Russian or Chinese. Metal warps — news at 11.
MAKS is in August and Moscow in August is 90 degree days. You would see the same thing at MAKS.

I would beat you if I was your teacher in school for such comments….:D:D

Nah. It’s just a question of lighting:
http://russianplanes.net/id119918
As martinez said, although both have beefed up structure (milled from solid rather than built up bulkheads etc.) internally, they are still to a large extent built on legacy Su-27 tooling. Apparently the relatively high manual labour cost was still cheaper than redesigning and acquiring new tooling for those parts of the airframe. Since it’s inconsequential in terms of performance for a non-stealth fighter, so what?

Finally, agreed.

Imho, it has nothing to do with build quality. It appears to be a warping of the metal (probably an aluminium alloy) due to fatigue & stress cycles including heat, pressure and aerodynamic loads. For some strange reason the worst offender appears localised to the bort number region, and is to be taken in the context of light conditions already discussed elsewhere:

http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/401381/50624xkocpLedht/ygHbG8sHXQ/928672.jpg

There is absolutely nothing with the join tolerances- which, for a nearly all-metal aircraft, are actually very good:

http://www.knaapo.ru/media/rus/gallery/aircrafts/combat/su-35s/su-35s_01_hires.jpg

yes, without any hesitation, you can state its a poor build quality, workmanship or whatever for a “top-notch” military aircraft produced in 2012, you can see all those bendings on the surface caused by riveting during assembly, maintenance panels not correctly aligned(riveted metal sheet parts, no chemically milled parts), countersunk rivets are not always countersunk, they protrude from skin surface, bcs it is a metal ingot handmade, an aircraft production technology from “80ies”. But hell, Russians would say it is just an 4++th gen aircraft, thus no advanced materials, joining technologies, surface treatments, I do agree. The Su-35 is just a Su-27 on steroids, I remember some here are using nice terms like “cold war” relics….:D
As it looks like, then it is even pointless to used thick RAM paint to cover the skin surface of the Su-35, price and maintenance would have blown sky high with negligible effect….Even the Mig-29K is better than the Su-35.
http://deton.lietadla.com/img_0583.jpg
http://deton.lietadla.com/img_0616.jpg

Now when China “owning” the largest portion of the U.S. debt, is clearly getting some STEALTH TECH from them and building the J-20, J-31, they might find some things amusing on the Su-35 for sure, but some still interested in, engines for example.

Yup, incredibly lazy and incredibly dumb. Here, some more BMC, whatever that is:

sorry, just realized I;ve been wrong, after seeing photos of algerian SMT after delivery, peeling off is the russian top coat, most likely the AC-1115 alkyd-acrylic paint , due to its extensive chalking behaviour. Algerian camouflage is still adhering well, but starts to reappear, funny but not dumb …:D Explanation should be that VVS didnt want to have Migs wearing algerian camouflage, therefore ordered quick and cheap repaint, bcs stripping off the whole paint from an “overhauled” aircraft is expensive and time consuming, there wasn not reason for that at all. Anyway, not saying the deal with Algerian SMT was kosher.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]232886[/ATTACH]

check that top coat of this Mig-29SMT, it is already peeling off, only two years in the service …. cause? overpaiting the old one, no wonder why algerians dropped SMT deal. 😀

year 2012

year 2014

a dumb fake, awkward photoshop job,

Built in ladder on the Su-33 we discussed a few months ago here….

http://forums.airforce.ru/matchast/4131-reestr-su-33-a-11/

Btw, in regards to your point to test-pilots, MAKS etc; i do agree with you here. I won’t be surprised if regular pilots often have the TVC turned off when they fly regular mission to save the lifetime etc. However, our disagreement is this; when you say it is turned off, you mean completely and utterly turned off. I say when they turn it off, it is still turned on, but not nearly as active.

Just got this from an official source.
The Su-35 FBW has two main TVC modes accessible for a pilot on the control column, one “M-маневр” or maneuvering where TVC nozzles are working within operational flight envelope, the second one is “ТУ-траекторное управление” – trajectory control where TVC nozzles are aligned to engine axis, TVC is switched off with aircraft flying without benefit of the control augmentation, but if pilot reaches critical flight regime represented by control surfaces limit deflections the FBW will engage TVC automatically to optimize flight path and maintain safety. TVC disengages also during FBW system malfunctions.

Anyway, I would not be surprised if there is a switch inside the MLG bay operated by ground personnel only, saying “Учебный-боевой” overidding the FBW software cutting off the TVC for real.:) a common practice on soviet/russian military aircrafts. Even if they claim the nozzle having TBO of engines installed, I believe flying regular missions on daily basis with TVC switched OFF is still the main part of the aircraft combat employment. Having said that before, Sergey Bogdan used the TVC switched OFF mode when landing the ‘Red07’ at Le Bourget. The only thing you can see there is nozzle changing diameter following engine throttle movements. In case of the ‘Red08’ landing at KNAAZ 80 years airshow, wind was probably not a factor when seeing the wing sleeve indicator next to rwy, just a pilot error.
So far I`ve been very gentle and shaking head in amusement when you believing that the TVC on the SU-35 can`t be switched OFF. At least if you can’t formulate a credible answer do not be jumpy, I`m not one of your admirers which can be fooled easily by claims such as “I am not sure if the pilots are supposed to turn it off for the landing at all”. period

The landing setup (shock absorber or tires pressure) was not adapted to the runway. So, variable damping on the strut’s shock absorber… I am the only one with it ?

sorry, do not buy it, the high/low shock absorber chambers of the MLG have to be charged according to instructions, are you just saying that ground personal fcked up the preflight phase as well? Too much imagination. I`m sticking with pilot error bcs of shortened approach and TVC to assist.