Petarvu Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I think the difference in length can be between the L-004 L-005, may measure other pod. Ken the difference in diameter is small and could be caused by measure way. I think so. Nazar, do you know what Su-27 modification carries L-004 , do you have some photos? Thanks, P Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Inquisitor Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I wish Windmark does Su-34 1/48 conversion ...:-)P Like Nazar said, Su-34 is too different to make a reasonable conversion. It needs a complete new forward fuselage including cockpit, windshield, canards and even most of the spine in the upper fuselage is different; tail stinger, nose and main wheel bays and landing gears and even the intakes are different. The only thing you'd be left from the original kit would be the a little portion of the rear fuselage, the wings and vertical & horizontal stabilizers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Nazar, do you know what Su-27 modification carries L-004 , do you have some photos? Thanks, P In theory yes, but unfortunately I have no photos of Su-27 to L-004 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 I think the difference in length can be between the L-004 L-005, may measure other pod. Ken the difference in diameter is small and could be caused by measure way. I think so. Thanks Nazar, do you have any photos of the pod when you measured it? It would be great to see them. Was it on wing tips or removed from aircraft? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 nice progress... cheers Thanks! I hope you enjoy the blog. I'll be posting more images this evening. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Thanks Nazar, do you have any photos of the pod when you measured it? It would be great to see them. Was it on wing tips or removed from aircraft? I wrote that I was not measured, but my friend, the container was removed from the wing, and his pictures he did not, but it was the L-005 for sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 From what I can see the L-004 is used on the Su-34 and Su-27. See images on this post on a Russian Forum http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1066359&postcount=2695 I could be wrong of course as my Russian is not so great with technical terms. :D I am not sure regarding L-004, but basically, i would ignore it, and just add L-005 to all Flankers. However, Su-34 does not use L-005! Well, i am sure it *can* but it already carries a more powerful (apparently it is super powerful, used with great success during 8.8.8 war in Georgia). I think destination of the new Su-34 carried ECM station is L-265. Regarding the issues pointed out by Nazar earlier with the airbrake placement: If you are planning on closing it, wouldn't it be fairly easy to glue it on, make it all smooth, fill panellines, and scribe new one a bit longer up. That is my idea anyway, if you care "fixing" that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 Hi Anton, yes! That's exactly what I plan on doing with the airbrake. I'll glue it in, fill the end and scribe the rest :) as you say it's actually quite an easy fix. ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 I wrote that I was not measured, but my friend, the container was removed from the wing, and his pictures he did not, but it was the L-005 for sure. Ah, I see! Sorry Nazar my misunderstanding! ;) thank you Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 It is off topic, but i did some research: The name is indeed L-265, previously known as L-175M. L-265 is the name of the whole ECM complex Su-34 has, not just the pods on the wings. Su-35S will also carry it. And each container needs 16 (!!!) liters of alcohol to be used as cooling. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Ah, I see! Sorry Nazar my misunderstanding! ;) thank you If there are any questions on the Su-33, please, try to help Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 :D wow! That's a lot of Vodka ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Petarvu Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 It is off topic, but i did some research: The name is indeed L-265, previously known as L-175M. L-265 is the name of the whole ECM complex Su-34 has, not just the pods on the wings. Su-35S will also carry it. And each container needs 16 (!!!) liters of alcohol to be used as cooling. How interesting! Thanks Berkut. I'll stick to 005... Jon this will be very interesting build and "conversation" , awaiting more updates.. Petar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 Hi Guys, well here are some more updates on work that needs to be done on the build. First off the corrections to the length extension. As Nazar and Anton pointed out the airbrake needs to be fixed. It's actually a nice and simple process because I will position my airbrake closed. I read that Su-33 airbrakes like other canard variants of the flanker need to be slightly larger than on the Su-27 anyway. So by extending it to fit with the new extension I'm not making the part inaccurate or too massive :) Another area that needs to be changed as I mentioned earlier is the gun cover. Since the extension has moved the part further up by about 7mm I need to fix this with a new gun cover. To put it back in the correct starting place. Here is a diagram of the lower fuselage and underside, and the work that is needed when you adjust the length of the upper fuselage. Also there is more surgery for me, I am getting some detail parts in resin from Tanel at Turbine, that will mean some changes to the lower fuselage (areas in red) If you plan to use Wolf packs Su-27 wheel bays you have to remove the large red rectangle area, if you arent, you can simply cut the curved dotted line area. I am not using these Wolfpack parts as they didn't include them in the Su-33 boxing (strangely they only provide the front bay and not the two rear ones). So I am cutting in the curved dotted lines and detailing the bays myself with lead wire and plastic. As before these changes to the lower fuselage were done after the two halves were glued together, as I found about about the required surgery retrospectively when Tanel offered me the parts. So a steady hand and some patience were in order :) Lastly heres a photo Tanel sent me showing why you shouldn't always trust scale drawings 100% and its good to cross check with photos ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Inquisitor Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) All this analyzing and interpreting images/drawings, it's a matter of perspective. On your image the gear door might be hiding where the gear rear wall really starts. Here's an image which show the lower front fuselage from a better angle. Notice how the gearwell starts a bit forward of the line traced between the canards (red)? I highlighted the gear well edge green & door yellow too. And interestingly looking at my Hasegawa Su-33, although they failed to capture some curves in the canopy and spine, they did catch this detail unlike the drawing where the canards and well follow the same line. And although you're already too advanced in your build, I think the 7mm discrepancy in that section of the fuselage/canards stems not from the resin, but the whole kit itself. I don't know if you already read Ken "Flankerman" Duffey's flanker survey. But basically the academy kit dimensions are off lenghtwise which throws off any measure or comparison made against a drawing, quoting: Span is absolutely correct and the overall wing shape is very good with separate flaps and slats. The length is 16mm too short - which is exactly the length of the nose probe. The quoted length of a Su-27 WITHOUT NOSE PROBE is 456.9mm in 1:48 scale, but Academy’s kit is that length exactly INCLUDING the probe - an error that crops up in a lot of the models reviewed here. Nonetheless, the overall shape of the fuselage is correct and it captures the curved-down look very well. The dorsal airbrake is separate with its own actauating ram. So there's a 16mm total difference between an actual 1:48 scale drawing and the academy plastic. This discrepancy averages through the body, but in your case it was most noticeable where you mated the canard resin piece. Here's Supergru's WIP where he tried to fix this with major surgery involving adding several 1-2 mm extensions in various parts of the body. Edited September 21, 2011 by Inquisitor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Doh! Double post! Stupid phone! Edited September 21, 2011 by Jon Fitzgerald Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Thanks for posting. I totally agree, everything depends on where your looking from and you make a good point about the last photo. I didn't make this image myself, friends sent it to me. And totally I agree that you shouldn't judge things as gospel truth. The good thing about it I guess is that it got me thinking, about looking at as many different sources as possible. Photos, walkarounds, and drawings. Yes I know about the length issue with the Academy flanker and I've seen supergrus excellent build. Again I agree that the issue isn't necessarily with the resin canard, but the kit itself. My surgery maybe is a half way house, not going as far as supergru but adding the length a little to try and get the "look" right. :) This will be my first attempt at this kind of thing, and I tried it following advice from other modellers and thought "hey why not", whether or not it's essential, or even necessary I'll leave that to you guys to decide ;) for me it's certainly been fun and an educational experience where I've gotten to try new skills :D Edited September 21, 2011 by Jon Fitzgerald Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mareku Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Jon you are doing so great wit this build And you are so right about modeling thougts. That is always so meny diferent pictures, from a diferent angles, of the same thigs. So If one think and try diferent alternatives, one always find the right resolutions. But one must have fun with the build otherwise what is the point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 If one draws a straight line through the front landing gear, then the middle of it should be around where the LERX stops, and where the canard starts. Like this. I think the landing gear bay starts slightly after the start of the canard. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 Thanks Anton! So many photos! :D Personally mine will be based off the assumption that the landing gear bay starts a little after. Maybe its wrong, maybe it's right. ;) Ken as our resident Flanker expert whats your view on this question? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 Jon you are doing so great wit this build And you are so right about modeling thougts. That is always so meny diferent pictures, from a diferent angles, of the same thigs. So If one think and try diferent alternatives, one always find the right resolutions. But one must have fun with the build otherwise what is the point. Thanks! I think so. :) Looking forward to seeing your Tomcat progress too! Now THATS ambitious! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Today I finally received a small parcel from Estonia! Inside where some resin upgrade parts for my Su-33 from Turbine Models :) Heres the gun cover replacement part With a quick dry fit which shows how it deals with the positioning problem Also it was my second wedding anniversary last weekend, and my wife got me these! A little off topic but appropriate! :D Edited September 21, 2011 by Jon Fitzgerald Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 But where such a belief in the drawings of the Su-27? On it there is no 100% correct graphics. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 Nazar, yes thats true, so I try to be careful where possible. Do you know if there are any accurate plans available from Sukhoi OKB? Also do you know where M-Hobby and AiV base their drawings from? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Nazar, yes thats true, so I try to be careful where possible. Do you know if there are any accurate plans available from Sukhoi OKB? Also do you know where M-Hobby and AiV base their drawings from? Airforce.ru Su-33 At this point, the most accurate drawings, this drawing of AiV Mikheev Quote Link to post Share on other sites
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.