George JCrobato:
You are turning out to be a more refined version of Yahoo25. You were talking about Orbat of ‘chinese flankers’ which now you insist relates to J-11 and not the MKK and yet I have yet to see pics or quotes from PLAAF sources talking about either. Most of the talking seems to be from Kanwa, CDF (you) and SinoDef which is all well hearsay.
I do agree that a pattern has to be repeatable. Harry and Jai showed to different reference which talk about the MKI being 38 and 39T machine respectively. You are also insinuating that the ACM of the IAF is lying (yeah I can see how that would be the case since we hear so much from the PLAAF about their a/c).
You insist that I am indulging in semantics but yet you seem to have a problem explaining the sematic differences between the FACTORY DOCUMENTED terms of LIMIT MTOW and MTOW in terms of take off weight of the MKK.
________
WR450
________
Rambler Six History
George JCrobato:
Dont you think its kinda ironic that you are vehemently defending the capeablities of an a/c that as you claim ‘no western media has access to’ using whats written about it. Its even more ironic that when the chief of a contemporary AF is quoted about a similar a/c you think its a quip or typo.
MTOW in itself not a big deal, but the portent of the MTOW being 38T is max to/fuel, which should hint at other aspects of the said airframe including empty weight and structural compostion of the a/c and the mysterious ‘actual thrust’ of the AL-31FP which we all know is only 12,500kg as IAPO, Lyulka and rest of the jingbang says so. Or are supposed to say so….
But if i really wanted to fincky about semantics I would still argue based on the Ken’s brouchure posting that the MKK is listed at 34T max and 38.8T limit and unless someone can emphatically state the difference between MAX and LIMIT its a marketing gimmic which seems to be pretty close to what the chief of IAF has stated in a newsbrief.
________
sativa strains
________
Aurion
George JUmm it is 5270 kg of fuel > 8 T payload > 4.5 hrs ~ 3000 kms
OR it is 9400 kg of fuel > x T payload > 10 hrs ~ xxxx kms
OR ……..5270 kg of fuel > 8 T payload> REFUEL > 10 hrs ~ 5200 kms
OR ……..5270 kg of fuel > y T payload > REFUEL > 10 hrs ~ 8000 kms
x = Air Defence Configuration: IAF
y = I donno
Now you need to put Fomin Max fuel of 9400 kgs with an unknown payload and 3000 kms range in perspective.
Off course all this for the K/MK.
That reminds me….I do need to take a shower. I hope that improves my credibility too.
:rolleyes:
________
universal health
________
Essential vaaapp
George JYahoo:
The keyword is NORMAL that denotes the Normal Fuel reserve, the max internal is 9400 kg again thats for the K/MK which DOES NOT have max payload/fuel TO capeablity. It can only lift 8T with 5270 kgs of fuel and fly for 4.5 hours, in case you forgot (it happens) we are still talking about MKI lifting 10T of fuel with 8 T of payload. Further it (K/MK) ‘can stay aloft for 10 hours in an air defence configuration*’ and you can do the math on the fuel load.
So once again to refresh you memory we are talking bout the MKI not K/MK.
Dont fall off the train again.
________________________
*Akash Yoddha
________
Honda Quint
________
Weed
George JHey atleast some of us don;t resort to showing ring on the finger or what model of car one us to prove a proint (Circa 2001) :diablo:
Its not they dont resort to…some of us are actually not ALLOWED to….. like I keep saying there is no second batch of MKI 😉 and like he keeps saying the MKI only lifts 34 T :diablo:
________
Ford Taurus history
________
Vaporizer Affiliates
George JKen:
Your previous post about the 36 page brouchure published by RA Intervestnik-2003 differentiates Normal, Max and Limit for the MKK. Its the limit thats 38T and the max is 34T. Your 2004 russian language chart lists ALSO lists 34T as Max and says limit is 38.8T, but does not divulge anything about the MKI’s limit. Now unless ‘LIMIT’ is a KnAAPO marketing concept that, it does not make sense that only one a/c can have this feature.
Fast forward Dec 2003, the ACM of the IAF comes out quips about 38T and its been privately acknowledged that the a/c does indeed to max payload/fuel take offs, around the same time. You are free to believe what you wish but I for one will NEVER buy that max payload/fuel TO is the sole purview of the MKK.
________
volcano vaporizers
________
Ferrari f430 challenge history
George JUmm the russian version of the Fomin book came out in 1999. The english version of the same came out in 2000. Now I am sure if you had read the book you would realize that book does not seem to provide any factual data (testing, production, design, etc…) beyond 1998-99 (you can infer this by reading about events like MAKS and how he states that Su-35UB is to be flight tested in 2000 etc). If you could show me anything that indicates to the contrary, I would be happy to correct my opinion.
The first production std MKI was delivered in fall of 2002. The first reference to it being 38T comes out in December 2003, the first private admission to “max payload/fuel load” comes a few weeks later. For that matter I cant find any reference to the composites being used on the MKI either, but you have been rather enthusiastic about MKK’s composite wing that Fomin mentions. Yet if you read newsreports emanating from India about HAL providing $30 million worth of ‘sub-assemblies’ like canards, stablizers and fins made of composites for the MKM contract you cant help infer what the MKI ‘program’ can do.
Also let me clarify, I am arguing that MKI has max payload/fuel load capeablity, now this can be done with MTOW of 34.4 T as you would like or 38 T if the ACM is correct (if the a/c can take off with 38T then it better have max fuel/payload given that most of the weight is due to structural reinforcements 😉 to allow for that, or its made of lead). But I can see how we should be trusting your views over the ACM’s statements.
Finally let me quote something I read elsewhere which applies quite well to this debate 😀 :
It must be said that the news coverage on China?s Flanker programs are often muddled and contradictory. Up to now there is actually no Chinese official acknowledgment of the actual numbers purchased from each order. One should be reminded to keep an open mind, as new events or disclosures might reveal truths about China?s Flanker program that may even overturn previous accepted ideas. Sources like Kanwa, Jane?s, Richard Fisher, JED online, Flight International, AFM, Aviation Week, may be fairly reliable but even these are not perfect.
Q.E.D
________
Jaguar XK150 history
________
OREGON MARIJUANA DISPENSARY
George JSo far I have only seen one public quip whose virtue is to give only a benefit of a doubt but not proof enough………. I don’t care about your opinions, but for the other people in this forum, a higher level or standard of evidence is needed as always in order to convince them.
Yes I can understand how the Chief of the IAF who was instrumental in developing the MKI ‘Program’ is definately an unreliable source. I am not disputing the 38.8T or whatever # is associated with the MTOW for the MKK. If you feel the the IAF chief is lying then so be it…you off course are an honorable person …..
But the MKI circa 2002 (in this case late 2003) is not the same as Fomin’s MKI of circa 1998. The MKI does have max fuel/max payload TO capeablity and the only fleeting PUBLIC reference to this is the Chief of the IAF’s quip…but then off course we should be weighing your opinion more than the chief’s.
I cant go beyond my brief, I can only contest whats out there in public. I say the MKI has max fuel/payload TO you say BS but then you know more about this stuff than I do….more about the MKI than the IAF chief does. I rest my case.
Dont get me started on the FP….for now its only 12,500 kgf. 😉
________
extreme vaporizer
________
BEST PORTABLE VAPORIZER
George JKen,
Thats EXACTLY my point. Even though Fomin quotes MKI’s MTOW as 34T there are enough and more public and private indications that it has Max fuel and Max payload capability and the number associated with this is 38T. The first public admission of this is the article that Harry linked to.
Also what exactly do they mean by max TOW and limit TOW in your last reference?
________
Nash 600
________
Tiger Blood
George JWell if you believe Fomin then the MTOW of the MKK is indeed 4T more than the MKI. Fomin was working with that was available to him (and allowed to him) in 1998. Now if Fomin is right then the ACM of the IAF is wrong which I am sure would be the prevailing theory of oracles, village idiots and other such personalities. If Fomin is wrong and the ACM is right then it only reinforces whats been admitted privately by those who matter. Who I am sure dont have the veracity of oracles and village idots.
________
Ford Corcel history
________
BUY PORTABLE VAPORIZER
George JWas a Su-35 built after 1994?
Is the Su-30 MKK based on the Su-27PU?
ALL the Su-35 (prototypes and ‘series production a/c’) were delivered to its current users by 1996. The production of the 12 (proto+production) had concluded by 1995.
Since I’ve lent out my Fomin it would take someone else on the board to tell you the exact evolution of the MKK (thats if you believe that it actually evolved from an Su-27UB and did not actually come down as manna from the heavens).
________
Barracuda
________
Smoke Weed Every Day
George JFinally an open source reference….thats a great find Harry. The 38 tons is take off with max fuel and weapon load. This was one of the features of the MKK that Crobato was tomtomming about the last time we had this discussion and unfortunately I could not talk about it untill there was a bloody opensource reference to the MKI having the same (its ironic coz the Hindu article was published 3 months before the MKK-MKI debate). Need to tell the BR crowd about it.
Oh please carry on…expounding on how the MKI is a mere upgrade of the -27UB and the MKK/Su-35 was built by Thor and Zeus.
________
arizona dispensaries
________
Herbalaire
George JUmm more than Vetrivale on the MKM….but since the oracle has spoken let it be.
________
R11
________
Rhode Island Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
George JGeorge JUmm only SPOT and STRIP? What about Wide area moving target indicator(WAMTI), Narrow Sector Search (NSS) and Single beam scan(SBS)?
Also am i correct in inferring that you cant detect (or engage) moving targets with SPOT and STRIP? And WAMTI is only an indicator does not mean you can engage unless you have other means (FLIR) or long range optics to id and engage?
Also I am a bit confused about range and azimuth for SAR. For eg. what does this mean in simple english?
Spot mode:
1.8 meter resolution
4.9 Km range and 1.1 to 2.9 Km in Azimuth
Positionable from 20-110 km
________
Lincoln-Zephyr V12 engine specifications
________
Nevada Marijuana Dispensary
Sign In
