Alfa

What Texac said - shouldn't be a problem then.

I don't know mate - if you got the tonnage figures from the Russian side of the forum, they are probably metric. On the other hand, the converted weights you came up with look more realistic to me....being able to take off at 32000 kg with no head wind sounds rather optimistic IMHO.

Metric - 33000 and 25000 kg respectively :)

I guess it depends on who made the skin you tweaked - if its a user made skin, you could just ask the person who made it.

...unless the weights are given in metric tons, in which case you can simply add three zeros to get the kilograms :)

The Su-33 has a maximum take-off weight(from the carrier or otherwise) of 33 tons. IIRC the maximum allowed return weight is around 25 tons.

Yes I agree. I am working on a 3D cockpit for the older test version(based on photos of the T10K-5), so for me the above no. 79 scheme would also be great :)

Yeah maybe you are right - at least in the photos it does look more like the scheme of the test aircraft. Also in the first of your photos the Sukhoi emblem is painted on the tailfins, while the squadron markings(golden eagle and tiger head) aren't there yet in any of them. The scheme I had in mind when you talked about a darker one, is the one as seen on the T10K-6(no 79) in the attached photos - initially it also had dark grey radome and tailfin tips.

Hmm could you post a photo of the color scheme in question? I cannot remember having seen the operational Su-33s with anything other than the standard one - are you sure that it isn't just the lighting conditions that makes it look darker in some photos?.

No big deal mate :) . I only mentioned it because I noticed that some people were confused about what aircraft the skins are depicting. Maybe it would be a good idea to change the title on the download page to something like: "Su-35(T10M) liveries for the Su-33".

Those were for an earlier batch of 7 pre-production test aircraft built in 1990-1991.

Nice work! A little nitpick on your description though. The T10M was initially known as the Su-27M, but was later redesignated Su-35(same way as Su-27K became Su-33) and wasn't really an "upgrade" to the Su-27, but rather an entirely new multirole version with a new airframe(not just addition of canards) and fly-by-wire control system as well as a new system's package(including new radar and WCS). The currently operated Su-35S is an upgraded version of the T10M.

Thanks - yes I expected as much. So the German voice warnings in the MiG-29G are not likely to have been an LSK modification, but actually introduced by the Luftwaffe after the reunification?

You are welcome :) . You are right that, in the NATO context, it would have seemed more logical to also change the voice warnings to English. Thats why I think it may have been a leftover from the GDR days, that the Luftwaffe just found useful(or cool) to keep - but I don't know. I said that the MiG-29G cockpit has a mix of English and German, but as you know, there are also quite a few things that are still labelled in Russian.....so quite international :) .

I believe(maybe Pasquale1986 knows more), that in GDR schools, learning Russian was obligatory. Thats why I can imagine that the MiG-29 cockpits weren't re-labelled in German(or English for that matter). Exactly - and when you consider that the MiG-29 versions in DCS aren't all that different to each other(compared to other/newer versions), it makes having 3 different versions rather pointless if the differences that do exist aren't properly depicted :)

A mix of English and German is used in the MiG-29G cockpit. English panel decals, text on warning lamps and text messages on the Aekran, while the voice warning system is in German(don't know if it was changed after Poland bought them). Additionally some instruments are either swapped out(e.g. pressure altimeter) or re-calibrated for the imperial system. There are also changes to other equipment(e.g. the radio). I don't know, but it was probably in Russian, but I guess the German voice warnings could be a leftover from the GDR days.

Weta - the N010 Zhuk was never in the baseline MiG-29. It was developed in the eighties for the MiG-29M(9.15) and MiG-29K(9.31) . It was a much more advanced set than the N019 - with planar slotted array antenna and several air-to-surface modes(photo attached). Its correct that in the Yak-141 it had an antenna of reduced diameter(due to smaller radome), but it was the same radar as early MiG-29K. :) . You really need to find better sources.

Its hogwash Weta. The Yak-141(or Yak-41M if you like) was developed as a true multirole fighter - like I said, it was to be fitted with the N010 Zhuk radar(with air-to-surface modes) and in addition to air-to-air armament(R-77, R-27 and R-73) capable of deploying anti-ship missiles like the Kh-31A and Kh-35 as well as anti-radar missiles. No I am not. The Yak-38 was not "multirole" - it could carry unguided bombs and rockets only.

What about it Weta?. He was asking about carrier capable "pure fighters"(air-to-air only). The Yak-141 was not only A/G capable, but intended as a true multirole fighter using the same radar(N010 Zhuk) as the MiG-29K and same range of weaponry. IIRC two flying prototypes and two static test airframes. It did....and set several records for VSTOL aircraft in the process :) .

No advanced physics(PFM) is separate to the modelling of systems(and associated clickable cockpit functions). None of the FC3 aircraft have the latter and likely won't get it unless pursued as "full DCS" modules.

I think he was referring to the screenshot being from the "What If" section(thread) of the forum - more specifically SkateZilla's own mod project :) Edit: sniped by Sverre.

For carrier capable "Warsaw" aircraft none - even the old Yak-38 had ground-attack capability. The MiG-29K(both the old test version from late eighties and the current version) is a true multirole fighter like the F-18. So in fact was the Yak-141 supposed to be if it had materialised. By "true multirole" I mean the ability to conduct various mission types: anti-ship, anti-radar(SEAD) and ground attack with a range of guided missiles/bombs. So I guess the closest you can come to a pure fighter is the Su-33, which is primarily an air-dominance asset, but it does have a limited(unguided munitions only) ground attack capability.

Technical differences in terms of additional operating modes(to the extent they exist) - no, but difference in radar power certainly could be. The N019(MiG-29) and N001(Su-27) share some 70-80% components and are "on the same level with similar capabilities" as well :) . The difference in size(radar power/range) is roughly comparable to that of the APG-73 vs. APG-63.

Indeed - but again related to the aircraft's intended role, which leads me to.. The APG-73 is essentially a deep upgrade of the APG-65, which as you say, uses various parts from the APG-70(I believe) and I am sure you are right that they are on par on some levels. But that does not necessarily mean that the APG-73 got all the AA "tricks"(operating modes) of the APG-63/70, just as the F-15C didn't get A/G modes although these were introduced with the APG-70 on the F-15E :) .

More powerful engines does not say much in itself, since the F-15 is a much bigger aircraft - what you need to look at is the TWR, but even that does not tell the whole story - the airframes of the F-18 and F-15 are optimised for their respective intended roles and have very different characteristics. The F-15 was designed as a pure AA fighter with no compromises for anything else, while the F/A-18 was designed: a). for aircraft carrier deployment. b). as a true multi-role fighter with a fifty-fifty emphasis on AA/AG. ...with all the compromises that entail. For a start its larger(antenna diameter of some 900mm versus ~675 mm) - i.e. more radar power. AFAIK it also has more AA special modes, although that may be something of a moot point in the sim(since a lot of them aren't modelled - FC3 level).