+lindr2 Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 Returned this back... EMOTIONS NEVER SHOULD WIN REASON... Remain in a topic theme, please... Full story http://pilot.strizhi.info/photos/v/Medvede...ubinke+Tehnika/ Su-34 Mi-28N Ka-52 Su-24M2 Mig-31BM Su-25SM Su-27SM MiG-29SMT Yak-130 A-50 T-90 inside An-22 Pantsyr' SAM Quote
Silverbolt Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 Reposting: I must go in any Russian Airshow before i die Quote
az12121 Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 I will repost question too: I've heard that a glass parts of canopy in new one seaters of MiG-29M's and K's will be that same as in two seater MiG-29M2, KUB and 35.Is it true ? Maybe someone know the answer. Quote
GreyCap Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 lindr2 don't take this the wrong way, but gawd there's something butt ugly about Russian planes. Except for the MiG-29 and Su-27, in fact the curves on the Su-27 makes it the most sexy of all fighters. Of course this is just my opinion. Quote
+MigBuster Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 lindr2 don't take this the wrong way, but gawd there's something butt ugly about Russian planes. Except for the MiG-29 and Su-27, in fact the curves on the Su-27 makes it the most sexy of all fighters. Of course this is just my opinion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder im sure - and as proven looks normally comes with performance - that looks like standard issue ground attack uglyness to me - and every air force is stuck with it! Pretty sure jets are not designed with looks in mind - no point having a good looking plane that cant do its job! Quote
+russouk2004 Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) I must admit I like the Russian...."Scratch built" look of their a\c... they always look like??? ...but you cant just put your finger on it....its as if they are all prototypes.even tho they are the finished article....the aircraft all seem to me to look 10 years behind everyone else in their construction methods...not the actual a\c...I do like the blue white red stars too...they are cool.. all in all I do like Russkie a\c..a lot Edited April 3, 2009 by russouk2004 Quote
+suhsjake Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 I must agree, the Su-34 is very ugly for a Su. I like the Yak-130, Ka-52, and Mil-28. Wonder if someone will make a Yak-130 for WOx/SF2. Quote
Silverbolt Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 I must agree, the Su-34 is very ugly for a Su. I like the Yak-130, Ka-52, and Mil-28. Wonder if someone will make a Yak-130 for WOx/SF2. jvk44(insky 3d modeler) have one Yak-130 and one Mi-28 to be finished Quote
GreyCap Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder im sure - and as proven looks normally comes with performance - that looks like standard issue ground attack uglyness to me - and every air force is stuck with it! Pretty sure jets are not designed with looks in mind - no point having a good looking plane that cant do its job! Yes, of course. Reminds me of how the English Spitfire pilots would make fun of the P-47 Jug when it first arrived on the scene. And we all know how well the 'Jug' later performed in combat. I still say most Russian a/c look like lawn mowers with wings. Quote
+lindr2 Posted April 3, 2009 Author Posted April 3, 2009 I will repost question too:I've heard that a glass parts of canopy in new one seaters of MiG-29M's and K's will be that same as in two seater MiG-29M2, KUB and 35.Is it true ? Maybe someone know the answer. Partially yes, partially - no... ...Миг-35 Can be manufactured in several versions: single-seat/two-seat, controled thrust vector or not, with canards or not. Quote
Silverbolt Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 Partially yes, partially - no... ...Миг-35 Can be manufactured in several versions: single-seat/two-seat, controled thrust vector or not, with canards or not. canard? do you have a photo or an artwork conception? Quote
az12121 Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 do you have a photo or an artwork conception? He maybe can't show us that... That same in new MiG-29M's ??? Will it be same as previous M or K,or there will be any external differences (on one seaters)? Quote
+lindr2 Posted April 3, 2009 Author Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) He maybe can't show us that... That same in new MiG-29M's ??? Will it be same as previous M or K,or there will be any external differences (on one seaters)? MiG-35 & 35-D has WIP status... too early for talking about final design. KUB, K (9-41), UBT in serial production NOW, K has folded wings with extended span... P.S. Very inter. is these A-A missiles Something like Kh-32 (AGM) story: nobody seen Kh-32, but Kh-32M in testing NOW. Edited April 3, 2009 by lindr2 Quote
+lindr2 Posted April 3, 2009 Author Posted April 3, 2009 It looks like R-73 modification! You sure?... Quote
+Gepard Posted April 4, 2009 Posted April 4, 2009 Hey Lindr, is this a new russian insignia at the Hokum or only marketing? Quote
+JediMaster Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Those missiles are far too long to be R-73s, just look at the shot above it. Anyway, the Su-34 looks like the winner of the "can you make a Flanker look ugly?" contest. Interesting that it has an external fuel tank, I didn't think they'd ever need one with as much internal fuel as they can hold. Quote
+krizis Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Nobody noticed three black strips... These strips always indicate that the missile is just a training dummie (based on R-73 in this case) which retains original geometry only partly. Dont use such "references" for modelling. Quote
Jug Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 great shots thanks lindr! Beautiful shots, lindr. Thanks very much. Are they some good looking jets or what? Quote
Derk Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 lindr2 don't take this the wrong way, but gawd there's something butt ugly about Russian planes. Except for the MiG-29 and Su-27, in fact the curves on the Su-27 makes it the most sexy of all fighters. Of course this is just my opinion. Think SU 25 is a lot prettier than the A10...... :yes: Hou doe, Derk Quote
+JediMaster Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 The A-10 has a reverse beauty...it's sheer ugliness is what makes it beautiful. If you will, its beauty comes in its disdain for aesthetics and its pure dedication to its mission. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.