Oh, how foolish to think the TVC cant be switched off…think about pilots retraining from other aircrafts to fly the SU-35 TVC assisted take-offs, landings, high alpha maneuvers, pilots have to get used to it, TVC enables a different level of flying, but it also demands a high level of skills and attention from pilots.
There has to be a fundamental function to switch it off quickly and easily, not to mention in case of malfunction and emergency. You always pointing to MAKS Zhukowsky photos and videos, where russian elite test-pilots fly and demonstrate high performance aircrafts, thus they keep TVC switched ON.

Jo, thanks for the video, simply proves my point. Haavarla, my friend are you blind?

A&D, No. Experimental components/stages of the Type 30 are expected to commence flight trials this year and a full-on prototype engine available next year*. Next to nothing is known of the FGFA’s definitive engine, and as concrete details are some way off -best refrain from speculation.

Djcross, informative as always and thanks for the ‘missing piece’ to the surge theory.

Haavarla, the latest buzz on the intertubes is swaying back to electrical power unit/cable fire (not directly engine related), my fingers are crossed for this outcome- otherwise the ‘engine surge theory’ could pose major design headaches.

*http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=2302

Usually surge/stall is leading to engine fire due to insufficient cooling of turbine blades, TIT temperature is quickly rissing, they deform, burn, melt, hiting each other, bummm….pilot has to hit quickly the fuel shut-off valve and engage the fire extinguishing system, otherwise he has to bail out. Something similar could happen in the compressor stage as well due to vibrations and shocks waves travelling forward/backward, rotor/stator blades hit each other, debris are likely to perforate anything around, outer skin or the fuel tanks, then the fire is difficult to stop. The same happened to our Mig-29 on the runway before take-off.
I`m not saying surge/stall shockswaves can`t damage the inlet structure, but if it happens there is a serious design problem, bcs there is never a “single wall” between the inlet and adjacent integral fuel tanks. Do not think it is common damage at all.
Anyway, If you notice those two barrels under the T-50-5, it seems they still had enough time to drain flammable liquids from burning aircraft as well…..

P.S. what I`m still wondering about is that right engine cowlings are not touched by fire, the fire was spreading from mid section skin towards the right engine….

Ok, sorry, nothing confirmed yet, but the sentence you quoted in your link stated “По предварительным данным, причиной инцидента стал отказ одной из силовых установок.” , then I was thinking about engines, but I wont speculate more.
I read that a smoke above the right intake was visible during taxiing after landing “над правым воздухозаборником, затем произошло локальное возгорание” , interesting is that the left levcon seems to be more damaged/melted than the right one, also judging from close-up pictures posted here. Am I correct?
Anyway, APU`s , power supply units, starter-generators GTDE whatever name you give it should be located near/between engines, far away from the fire damaged skin areas judging from this one-sided picture.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?118951-Pak-Fa-news-thread-part-21&p=1978539#post1978539

Confusingly ‘силовая установка’ is a term used for both powerplant and APU.

there is a clear difference, you have to watch the first word “Вспомогательная” силовая установка meaning “Auxiliary” power unit, when used without, usually it should mean the powerplant.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229072[/ATTACH]

that is correct, it seems from pictures above the fire was large and too intense and highly likely the airframe structure/bulkheads have been affected by heat, no chance they will spare time(not talking money) to repair it. If they claim the PAK-FA programm schedule wil not be affected, that is the only one way to do it.

M

Jo, that means one of the engines malfunctioned (силовая установка=engine) , power supply unit sounds too much electrically to me….8)

I believe the wisest course of action is to cannibalize the good components off of #55 and put them into a newly built airframe.

By the time the engineers perform their damage assessment, disassemble the jet, design unique replacement parts, fabricate/install the new parts and re-test/re-certify, a new airframe could have been built.

that is correct, it seems from pictures above the fire was large and too intense and highly likely the airframe structure/bulkheads have been affected by heat, no chance they will spare time(not talking money) to repair it. If they claim the PAK-FA programm schedule wil not be affected, that is the only one way to do it.

M

I thought the upgrade had been quite sucesful, and RSK MiG guaranteed 70% availability of the Fulcrums.

in reality it is rather a disaster, the availability went like 0 to 30% last few years, wonder where have you heard such nonsense that the upgrade was sucesful?

No idea, to be honest. Maybe the same type made of thinner material which enables few liters more?

bs.

Polish WZL-2 designed the whole Mig-29 modernization package itself, russians were allowed for certification purposes only. We bought the modernization package from Ruskaya Avionika+RSK MiG and the avionics upgrade is still not working correctly after several software upgrades, problems with radios, navigation, gps malfunctioning, freezing MFI displays, IFF not even capable as the old Parol system, high failure rate …..etc, really the upgrade is not worth a penny. And I`m still not talking the Russian regular maintenance, spare parts delivery and technical support, it is terrifying….true, the problem does not lie on the russian side only.

thanks for your insight, keeping fingers crossed that the book is out asap. I imagine how tough it must have been finding and sorting information about military aviation especially when talking about chinese, hats down to you.