Something a bit different !

… following several years of research here it is, a final teaser before I leave to France !!!

Hope You like it.

Deino

congrats, seems to be unique, are there another publications refering to chinese military aviation your book can be compared to?
what software are you using to create book;s design layout? could you explain it to me shortly please.

From North Korea

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218567[/ATTACH]

I am not sure if the DRPK’s AF is considered “small”, but their capability certainly is.

no fuel or hydraulic leakage, but an agricultural combat helo fighting american bugs, I bet….:very_drunk:

Similar trailing edge configuration to the Su-33, but even larger wing and more effective LE devices (think Mission Adaptive Wing rather than plain LE flaps).

Additional lift from larger wing area counterbalancing the SU-27KUB heavy nose and the momentum from full span TE lifting devices, therefore the opposite canard deflection compared to the SU-33, make sense and that might be the reason …..but even more apparent when looking those aircrafts landing side by side is greater horizontal stab deflection on the Su-27KUB counterbalancing nose-up moments while even more positively contributing to total lift. The point being is that close-coupled canards having negative deflection during landing(su-30mki, su-27kub, …) are more useful due to vortex interactions above main wing-body and it is interesting why is that different on the Su-33 only. Is the larger wing area the difference maker, or is there something else like different negative static margin for both aircrafts?

The Whole engine section is pushed by the TVC nozzles. And when they deflect 15 deg, thats 14.500kgf of thrust force trying to bend the Engines in a unatural axis.
Nope, no stress there.. lol

Thats why those are not for support, but for stress measurments.

What seems like support beams, are the stuff on top of the 901, top side between the engines. Its massive, not like this tiny little struts we are talking about.

Now when seeing detailed picture berkut provided, the Al-31 engine rear attachment points should be exact where the additional structure beam is mounted. The engine is attached to the frame nr.45 via adjustable connecting rods taking radial and axial thrust forces(see pictures below). With a more powerful engines the izd. 117 and the TVC control, the airframe attachment points stressed even more, they might have reconsider adding an external strenghtening structure element to support higher loads. The additional structure beam is at least 5mm thick with a premachined mount base to fit the rear engine and airframe attachment point. Guessing a construction high-strenght alloy steel 30ChGSa with a lot of high tensile strenght bolts, but would be nice to see the opposite end of the beam as well……

Did we decide why Bort 01 has a support strut between the engine & fuselage (just below the ventral fin) ??

It isn’t fitted to the Paris example.

Ken

more likely some installation from first external weapon release tests on the Su-35S, it is too thin to be any kind of supporting, strengthening equipment.

http://russianplanes.net/id80798

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMieSMJTNzU&feature=player_embedded#!

experts opinion needed, what they are doing on the new Su-30SM between 2:33-2:53min, there is a guy with a dc camera taking some pictures…??.:)

http://russianplanes.net/images/to104000/103314.jpg

Crappy paint on Su-34 peeling off. Heat from engines?

seems to be related to that carc resistant paint on engine fairings only, heat could be a catalyst, but I think it is rather obvious, fckd-up overpainting proccess, no adhesion, incompatibility between two paint layers, or solvent being used in the new paint, …..funny, NAPO will cut monthly salaries of the paintshop workers again….:D

to paralay:

that wingtip pylon was taken, there are 4 pylons per wing…..period