Alfa Posted February 20, 2007 Author Posted February 20, 2007 I agree but from what I read about the 35 still no word about new engine while for the KUB they said it's powered by the new version of the 33K. Of course in terms of airframe they are interchangeable but the MK features a new FADEC system which needs more than just airframe changes. And while the 29KUB is a brand new prototype we all know the 35 is actualy the '154' M, later modified into the two-seater M2. But since Alfa_Kilo says he has witnessed a smokeless 35 it's another story, hence my questions:) The MiG-29M2 was built on the basis of the "154" airframe for practical reasons - i.e. it is indeed an entirely new variant and not a case of the MiG-29M bort "154" being modified :) . Remember that the "OVT" was built on the "156" airframe.....and that got the new TVC engines ;) . Anyway, I read an article by someone(think it was Georg Mader) who got a ride in the MiG-29M2 and remember him saying that the engines didn't smoke back then either :) . JJ
Alfa Posted February 20, 2007 Author Posted February 20, 2007 The 35 will most probably loose its spine airbrake, its function will be performed by deflecting the rudders inwards. Why do you think that? :) JJ
Alfa Posted February 20, 2007 Author Posted February 20, 2007 BTW....found the article: http://www.airpower.at/news03/0316_mig-flug/index.html Ich suche links von uns nach der M2 - finde sie nicht gleich. Georg hingegen hat uns sofort erblickt - wir ziehen die ьblich mдchtige Rauchfahne hinter uns her. Wir haben's da schwerer, fьr uns funktioniert der alte Trick "Follow the smoketrail and find the MiG" nicht mehr - die M2 raucht nicht - und zwar ьberhaupt nicht - nicht das kleinste bisschen. Freely translated: "I look to the left for the M2 - could not find it directly. George[in the MiG-29M2] saw us[in MiG-29UB] immediately - we pull the usually powerful smoke trail behind us. We had a harder time - for us the old trick "Follow the smoketrail and find the MiG" did not work anymore - the M2 does not smoke - not at all - not the slightest bit." JJ
Alfa_Kilo Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Why do you think that? :) It was again mentioned in the article where I picked up the rest of the specs from. BTW, is it true that the airbrake aids maneuverability (by increasing lift) in the S u-27?
RvETito Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 In the Su-27 it does create some positive pitch momentum because the resultant force is above the CG, not sure how significant it is though. However I think it's best use in terms of maneuverability is to slow you down to corner speed if you fly faster. "See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89. =RvE=
EvilBivol-1 Posted February 26, 2007 Posted February 26, 2007 Nice photos! - EB [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer. The Parable of Jane's A-10 Forum Rules
Alfa_Kilo Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 Is the fairing under the engine nacelle (second pic) part of the MAWS? High res photos of IN MiG-29KUB, -29OVT, -35 and others. Note the different RWR antennae on the -29KUB's tail. http://pilot.strizhi.info/2007/02/14/2173#more-2173
EvilBivol-1 Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 From the descriptions, it appears the item under the port intake is the MAWS lower hemisphere sensor. The upper hemisphere sensor can be seen just aft of the cockpit. The device on the starboard intake is an EO targeting sensor. The small sensors on the wingtips are part of the laser warning system. - EB [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer. The Parable of Jane's A-10 Forum Rules
Alfa_Kilo Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 Does anyone have details on the OLS-K lower hemisphere IRST and the system's sensors' FOV, magnification etc? How does it compare to conventional podded systems?
Kusch Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 Does anyone have details on the OLS-K lower hemisphere IRST and the system's sensors' FOV, magnification etc? How does it compare to conventional podded systems? In short time should be something. Ps; Alfa_Kilo do you have picture India Mirage 2000 with R-27R? Give me "flying telephone pole" (SA-2)!
Alfa_Kilo Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 The IAF Mirage 2000H/TH do not carry R-27 AAMs, despite some sources stating otherwise. The only a/c in IAF service which carry these AAMs are MiG-29B/UB & Su-30K/MKI.
Alfa_Kilo Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 @Kusch Are there any major upgrade plans for SPRP MiG-29 fighters?
Kusch Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 SPRP? Polish Air Force? Unfortunately no (they are adapted to NATO only - IFF, TACAN, GPS). Mikojan it offers us modernization to SMT, but knowing our politicians...only wished Give me "flying telephone pole" (SA-2)!
GGTharos Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 SMT is not such a great upgrade. Your F-16's are much better. Had they offered you something akin to MiG-29M2's or SMT2's or 35's ... but then I guess the airframes are different. SMT would be a waste of money IMHO. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kusch Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 If this I decided :) added only APG-65 radar (ex Germans Phantom) and AMRAAM... just there now the mikojan would stop then the delivery of part... Give me "flying telephone pole" (SA-2)!
Alfa_Kilo Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 Is the upgrade similar to Slovak MiG-29AS/UBS then (with the new fairing on the spine)? BTW, why cant the MiG-29 carry the twin R-60 launch rail like the -23 & -31?
Pilotasso Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 If this I decided :) added only APG-65 radar (ex Germans Phantom) and AMRAAM... just there now the mikojan would stop then the delivery of part... I heard Phamtoms were using APG-66's instead. But I might be wrong. .
Kusch Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 I heard Phamtoms were using APG-66's instead. But I might be wrong. Wrong. Give me "flying telephone pole" (SA-2)!
tflash Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 No, German ICE Phantoms have APG-65 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Kusch Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 Is the upgrade similar to Slovak MiG-29AS/UBS then (with the new fairing on the spine)? No. One pics 100 words Cockpit IFF Tacan BTW, why cant the MiG-29 carry the twin R-60 launch rail like the -23 & -31? Hmmm, strange I heard only this: http://img107.imageshack.us/my.php?image=podwieszenia9au.jpg Give me "flying telephone pole" (SA-2)!
Alfa_Kilo Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 No. One pics 100 words Hmmm, strange I heard only this: http://img107.imageshack.us/my.php?image=podwieszenia9au.jpg Thanks for the pics so thats a special MiG-29 for airborne forces........ :lol:
Trident Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 I heard Phamtoms were using APG-66's instead. But I might be wrong. Partially wrong - as others have pointed out, the German F-4s use the APG-65, however the Japanese F-4EJ Kai uses the APG-66 if I'm not mistaken.
Trident Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 SMT is not such a great upgrade. Your F-16's are much better. Had they offered you something akin to MiG-29M2's or SMT2's or 35's ... but then I guess the airframes are different. SMT would be a waste of money IMHO. Ah, but the Falcons are also likely to have been a good bit more expensive. IMHO the SMT upgrade has some merit for Poland even now, with the F-16s, the added air to ground capabilities might enable them to get rid of the Su-22s which surely can't be cheap to operate.
Pilotasso Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 ah, then that maybe the source of my confusion. .
Recommended Posts