Alfa

Me too :) Indeed - its a monster!

Thanks for trying - much appreciated! :)

=Sal= you are a STAR! :) Thats perfect - even the text on the lamps. Thank you so much ! :)

Good suggestion thanks! :) By the way, in regards to #3(word below "Шланг") - I figured it out - its not "Неран", but "убран" :) .

Indeed :)

On a little more "on-topic" note - in regards to the question raised by the OP about the missing airbrake indication light in cockpit. I came across the attached image - its from a simulator, but clearly the light in question is lit.

Long time no speak - how are things Mattias? :) Anyway, did you mean a jacuzzi for the captain? - IIRC the Typhoon class actually has luxuries(especially on a sub) such as a sauna, a small swimming pool and a gym for the crew as such....says a lot about the size of that thing :) .

The thrust figures you quoted are correct, but I am not sure whether the AL-31F on the Su-33 actually has a separate designation. At any rate, it is essentially the same engine as on the Su-27 and has the same standard AFB thrust of 12500 kgf(~245 KN) - the extra thrust comes via a special "over-drive" mode for take-off/emergency situations and is only available for a few minutes at a time. So you cannot make general performance comparisons to the Su-27 and F-15C based on this, whereas - in comparison to the Su-27 - the Su-33 is a great deal heavier, more draggy and has a lower g-rating(8 vs. 9). What you should expect the PFM to reveal however, is that the Su-33 has improved low speed and high AOA handling compared to the Su-27 - i.e. things that were necessary for its carrier application.

Good suggestions thanks :) . In regards to #3, I know that "Шланг" means hose, that the down-position is "Выпущ"(extend/release) and that the center-position is "откл"(off), so the up-position must be the word for retract or rewind, but I couldn't find a Russian word for it that somehow matches what appears to be written. It does look like it says "Неран", but Google translate has rewind as "перемотка"

Yeah, but I guess that is the point(bringing them to the navy day parade) :) .

I don't know probad - I guess there is a possibility that they actually sent another vessel of the same class, but no one realised that it wasn't the originally announced "Changsha". I have been looking around, but so far I have found nothing to suggest that it isn't.

Ok thanks - I wonder if you could help me. I have been working(on and off) on a 3d cockpit based on the T10K-5, so decided to try and make that "tanker panel" based on what I can see on the photo I posted. I think I have decifered most of the switch captions, but a few are partly obscured(see attached image) and since I don't speak Russian I cannot identify a word if I can only see part of it. Do you know or can you tell what they say from the visible parts?.....and perhaps verify that the rest is correct(see attached rendering).

Ahh so thats what it is!. I thought that a tanker was just a regular Su-33 fitted with the UPAZ unit and always wondered where the cockpit controls for it were - I didn't realise that they are modified with a special panel for the purpose. But yes, when zoomed in, I can just make out the word "шланг"(in danish it is called "slange" and sounds the same:) ) by the yellow switch. I never really looked closely at the panel and since the T10K-5 is a test aircraft, I just assumed that it wasn't fitted with a radar and that the panel was for some test function. Does that mean that the tanker version has no radar - or is the control panel just located elsewhere? Yes but even that layout has recently changed - e.g. new MFD in place of the IPV :)

I did check the link. You don't understand - T10K-5 is not a prototype: - Prototypes: T10K-1 & T10K-2....both built in 1987 - Series built test aircraft: T-10K-3 -> T-10K-9....built in 1990 and 1991(T10K-8 and T10K-9) If the DCS' "left-side" cockpit layout is already newer than that of the T10K-5, then its even more so than any of two prototypes....see what I mean? :) There is a possibility that one of the later test aircraft could have a more "progressed" layout than the T10K-5, but considering that they were series built and within a rather short time period(little over a year), I doubt there were significant differences. The following batches of production aircraft(for operational service) did seem to have lots of variations between them(maybe as a result of operational experiences)....which is what I was referring to.

Not quite true - there may be such elements, but the "left side" of the DCS cockpit definitely isn't from an "early prototype" - compare it to the attached cockpit photo of T10K-5(no. 69), which is one of the seven series-built test aircraft(i.e. not even a prototype) and you will see a lot of differences.....it doesn't even have the standard radar control panel(front left console). The thing is that if you search for photos of the Su-33 cockpit, you will be hard-pressed to find two with the exact same layout.....unless they are from the same airframe of course :) . I do agree with the point about the SPO-15 though......never seen a -33 pit with it. Either there is just nothing there at all, there is a cover plate where it should be or there is a different looking panel which appears to be for the L-150.

I doubt it - for a start it would, IMHO, not be a good idea to assign an indication light with a new function, if the same indication has a different meaning on other aircraft with the same(or similar) indication panel. I haven't seen cockpit footage of the indication panel with the wingfold mechanism in action, but I would imagine that the lamps for folded wings work in the same way as the ones for the landing gear - i.e. lit when folded up, flashing in transit and off when the wings are down and locked.

Well apparently they either fixed it or sent a replacement, because three Chinese navy ships(a destroyer, a frigate and a replenishment ship) also passed through the strait a few days earlier(Wednesday morning). https://www.thelocal.dk/20170719/chinese-navy-sails-through-danish-waters Edit: So if there was a problem with the destroyer in question, they must have fixed it in the meantime :)

Who yesterday had the chance to observe the following 3 impressive Russian navy ships.. - "Dmitry Donskoy"(Pr. 941/"Typhoon class" SSBN) - world largest submarine. - "Pyotr Velikiy"(Pr. 1144.2/ Kirov Class CGN) - world largest missile cruiser. - "Nikolay Chiker" - world largest/most powerful rescue tug. ...as they passed through the Great Belt(Denmark) into the Baltic sea on route to St. Petersburg, where they will participate in the annual naval day parade. Short close-up video shot from a news channel helicopter: http://nyheder.tv2.dk/video/a3NhbFViYWFkTEFORzIxMDcxNw

Yes I know what you were referring to :) . What I am saying is that in the sim they are part of the aircraft 3D model and made visible when the aircraft is at the starting position of the carrier/made invisible again at launch. Its just a simplistic representation of the starting blocks, which of course should be an animated part of the aircraft carrier model instead - I was speculating that maybe it is on ED's new 3D model and that they removed the old method of appearance in preparation for that.....see what I mean? :)

Yes with an automatic power-down, which BTW I believe is controlled by EGT level rather than a fixed time period. No not really - it just provides a little extra power to accelerate to safe take-off speed at a certain TOW within the fixed distance(s) available and helps to recover from a low energy state e.g. in case of missed wire. I am not sure about the Su-33, but for the MiG-29K(9.31 which had a similar mode) it was to enable it to take off from the forward start position(105 m run) at normal TOW and from the rear position(195 m run) at max TOW.

Ok NP :) . I was just a nitpicking in regards to the terms "war power" and "emergency military power"(since "military power" is the term for maximum thrust without AFB).

The AL-31 as such does not - only the one used on the Su-33. Its not a "War power" mode, but an "Emergency mode" with the primary purpose of ensuring safe take-offs from the aircraft carrier and recovery in case of a "bolter".

AFAIK the chucks were the same as used when the aircraft is parked and are part of the aircraft 3D model(added/removed via visibility argument). So maybe ED removed their appearance from the carrier logic in preparation for the arrival of the new aircraft carrier model(with the proper chucks)?

The engine feature in question is called "чрезвычайный режим (ЧР)" in Russian, which I believe simply translates to "emergency mode". Its an extension to the engine's afterburner regime, which in turn is separate from the normal thrust range for which "military power" is the max setting.

Thanks mate :) No not yet as far as I know. I could imagine upgraded MiG-31, Su-35 and PAK-FA - i.e. aircraft with radars powerful enough to take advantage. Possibly, but then I have found that the R-77 and RVV-AE designations are used a little randomly - e.g. I have read accounts for the very early days of development(beginning of the 80'ies), where the missile is consistently referred to as the "RVV-AE", despite this designation supposedly being for a different mid-90'ies export variant. Likewise, as Dudikoff said, the RVV-SD is also known as the R-77-1 :hmm:.