Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 Thanks for sharing Nazar! Great links and very useful reference! :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Ken as our resident Flanker expert whats your view on this question? Now you are putting me on the spot..... The AiV drawings are considered to be accurate ....... but. They show the rear edge of the nosewheel bay just about exactly in line with the canard leading edge root. The Hasegawa Su-33 - which matches the AiV drawings in just about every respect - has the well rear edge AHEAD of the canard root. Meanwhile - this photo I took of the Su-33 - whilst not perfectly side on - looks like the well rear edge is BEHIND the canard root.... Make up you own minds..... Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 Thanks Ken! :) Fantastic photo by the way, cheers for sharing! Well I think for my part at least I'm satisfied with the direction my build is taking on the wheel bay issue, behind it is for me. :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 On a seperate note does anyone have experience with AKAN paint? I have a set on route from Linden Hill. I know some folks use it neat like Vallejo model Air, but do AKAN have a deducted thinner? Or can water be used? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Inquisitor Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) 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. Actually the photo you're using is kinda flawed for this situation, since it obviously isn't a perfect side profile noted by both vertical tails being visibly offset of each other (the right tail in the background slightly aft of the left tail in the foreground in this view). If it were a perfect side view the left vert tail would be obscuring most of the right tail from view. And just like the left vertical tail is displaced/offset forward by the parallax/angle/perspective, elements in the foreground or closer to the viewer too. Thus the lerx/canard you're using as reference might seem to be further forward than they might be versus the elements in the background or in this case the landing gear and bay. If I were to take your method literally, and trace a line over the windshield frame, strangely the left end of the frame is forward of the right one, so in the end like I said this photo and it's angle doesn't facilitate checking the position of the gear well. And I stand by the photo I showed since it's the closest you'll get to view from directly below. I already slightly angled the red lines to account for the bottom not being flat and further analyzing my photo and zooming in, you can see stressed panel lines in the skin which run lengthwise and perpendicularly to the frame. If you follow the perpendicular line closest to the well edge, it ends up again slightly forward of the canards. But like they say, it's up to each other how they interpret the data they receive. Edited September 21, 2011 by Inquisitor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Actually the photo you're using is kinda flawed for this situation, since it obviously isn't a perfect side profile noted by both vertical tails being visibly offset of each other (the right tail in the background slightly aft of the left tail in the foreground in this view). If it were a perfect side view the left vert tail would be obscuring most of the right tail from view. And just like the left vertical tail is displaced/offset forward by the parallax/angle/perspective, elements in the foreground or closer to the viewer too. Thus the lerx/canard you're using as reference might seem to be further forward than they might be versus the elements in the background or in this case the landing gear and bay. I am aware of that. It is the best pic i had on PC, and i have other things to do that searching online for a perfect match. Here, is the most perfect one i have seen: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Navy/Sukhoi-Su-33-%28Su-27K%29/1347502/L/&sid=0b547c399f3867421fe45afb069874c8 There you can see the middle of the LG might be slightly ahead of the beginning of the canard shoulder. Sadly the is surprisingly few pics of the bottomside of Su-33, atleast i haven't found many. Here is the best one i had: And if you zoom in, and draw at the panelline, you get this: I am not yet convinced the bay is *behind* the shoulder start. If you do a simple test: take hasegawa kit in your hands with both fuselage parts attached. View in side profile. Then slightly turn the plane against the clock. Just 1-3 degrees, and it looks like the bay is *BEHIND* the shoulder start, while in fact, in the kit it the bays are *IN FRONT* of the shoulder start. My point is that i think Ken's pic is flawed. Edited September 21, 2011 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Inquisitor Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) If you do a simple test: take hasegawa kit in your hands with both fuselage parts attached. View in side profile. Then slightly turn the plane against the clock. Just 1-3 degrees, and it looks like the bay is *BEHIND* the shoulder start, while in fact, in the kit it the bays are *IN FRONT* of the shoulder start. My point is that i think Ken's pic is flawed. Yup that's the first thing I did after looking at your pic. I took the kit, put the vert tails and nose gear, rotated it slightly to match the angle on your photo and the edge of the gear well ends up behind the canard shoulders. Same with Ken's photo. On the last pic you provided which, barring the low res, the well edge is at least in line with the shoulder if not slightly forward. About AKAN paints, I have some of them but haven't used them on any projects yet. But so far tested and had no problems thinning them with water. 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 Thanks for the tips on AKAN! I look forward to trying it out. One thing, I forgot, the gun covers will also need to be changed slightly as this resin part was made for the "old" position of the airbrake. Since I'll be rescribing the top of the airbrake I can't use it as it is at the moment, I'll need to reduce the length a little to fit to the corrected airbrake position. Totally over looked that! ;) Also thanks to everyone for the interest in the build, support, and interesting discussion. I'm certainly learning a lot on this aircraft as the blog progresses! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 21, 2011 Author Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Hello all. Quick question for you. I found a section in an old Mil-tech series book on the Su-27 by Hans Halberstadt that mentions the following on the Su-27K (su-33): "The Russians use a ski jump ramp similar to that used by the British for their Harriers. The su-27 was a good candidate for this kind of modification because of robust landing gear, although the intake screens are no longer necessary." My question is, do Su-33 still have the large FOD intake screens like the Su-27, or are they removed? The author doesn't mention if necessary means unused but fitted, or totally absent. I've modelled mine with the intake screens in the closed position. Is this incorrect? This book is a bit old and focuses mostly on the flanker, so I don't know how accurate or reliable it is. But this paragraph got me thinking. Intake screens aren't mentioned in my squadron signal walkaround book at all for the Su-33. Any thoughts or ideas as always would be most welcome :) Edited September 21, 2011 by Jon Fitzgerald Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 On a seperate note does anyone have experience with AKAN paint? I have a set on route from Linden Hill. I know some folks use it neat like Vallejo model Air, but do AKAN have a deducted thinner? Or can water be used? Akan must be thinned with water only, but this set has problems with color, they are not all accurate. Scalemodels Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Hello all. Quick question for you. I found a section in an old Mil-tech series book on the Su-27 by Hans Halberstadt that mentions the following on the Su-27K (su-33): "The Russians use a ski jump ramp similar to that used by the British for their Harriers. The su-27 was a good candidate for this kind of modification because of robust landing gear, although the intake screens are no longer necessary." My question is, do Su-33 still have the large FOD intake screens like the Su-27, or are they removed? The author doesn't mention if necessary means unused but fitted, or totally absent. I've modelled mine with the intake screens in the closed position. Is this incorrect? This book is a bit old and focuses mostly on the flanker, so I don't know how accurate or reliable it is. But this paragraph got me thinking. Intake screens aren't mentioned in my squadron signal walkaround book at all for the Su-33. Any thoughts or ideas as always would be most welcome :) It all depends on the weight with which and with which the starting position he takes off, how fast is the ship and so on, can take off the screen, can not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Inquisitor Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 It all depends on the weight with which and with which the starting position he takes off, how fast is the ship and so on, can take off the screen, can not. I think there's been a misunderstanding. Nazar is talking about the blast deflectors on the carrier. But Jon is referring to the FOD mesh in the Su-27 intake. Do Su-33 has them too? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I think there's been a misunderstanding. Nazar is talking about the blast deflectors on the carrier. But Jon is referring to the FOD mesh in the Su-27 intake. Do Su-33 has them too? Apparently I was not properly understood the question I had in mind Jet Blast Defector on an aircraft carrier. :( Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Akan must be thinned with water only, but this set has problems with color, they are not all accurate. Scalemodels Hi Nazar, What exactly are the problems? I bought the naval deck aviation set because everyone told me how great and accurate AKAN colours are! :) if they are wrong this sucks! Would you mind to discuss a little here, maybe hopefully it will help other people from making the mistake of ordering the set. Can the colours be easily corrected by a little mixing perhaps? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Apparently I was not properly understood the question I had in mind Jet Blast Defector on an aircraft carrier. :( No problem! :D don't worry :) By the way do you have any links to the complete picture set of glazkov? What publication did his Su-33 drawings appear in? On the scalemodels thread I can only find one glazkov drawing. Are these better than the AiV pictures? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Hi Nazar, What exactly are the problems? I bought the naval deck aviation set because everyone told me how great and accurate AKAN colours are! :) if they are wrong this sucks! Would you mind to discuss a little here, maybe hopefully it will help other people from making the mistake of ordering the set. Can the colours be easily corrected by a little mixing perhaps? I think this photo shows the discrepancy of flowers, I do not think it would be difficult ispravit. We must try to right colors are mixed right of these, I'm sure everything will turn out. That's perfectly painted model of the Su-33 Cу-33 with AKAN Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I do not know why something is not attached links to my site Су-33 http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_31266.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Thanks Nazar, Out of interest do you have any views or opinions on what colours from Tamiya (if any) could be mixed to make accurate su-33 colours? In the UK for example Tamiya and Vallejo are the easiest paints to find, Akan are very difficult to find. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Thanks Nazar, Out of interest do you have any views or opinions on what colours from Tamiya (if any) could be mixed to make accurate su-33 colours? In the UK for example Tamiya and Vallejo are the easiest paints to find, Akan are very difficult to find. In Russia, it is easy to find Tamiya and Vallejo, but unfortunately I do not know how they are mixed in the correct colors on the Su-33. Try this topic pochitat http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=232477 Here, people of color alone prevented. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 My question is, do Su-33 still have the large FOD intake screens like the Su-27, or are they removed? The author doesn't mention if necessary means unused but fitted, or totally absent. Check one of the links i sent to you. You will find answer there. ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 My question is, do Su-33 still have the large FOD intake screens like the Su-27, or are they removed? The author doesn't mention if necessary means unused but fitted, or totally absent. Of course there are, in all Su-33 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) Anton, Nazar - thanks! :) Tanel also just sent me this photo. I thought they would be, but this book got me worried! :D Intake FOD Screen Also, not to keep going on about it, but photos sure are funny things. Like folks have said its all about angle and positioning I guess. This photo and a few others I have seem to suggest this, but of course this isnt directly side on either : The answer of course is easy, I just have to visit the Admiral Kuznetsov with a tape measure, camera, and pencil! And do it before the Su-33 gets retired and completely replaced by the MiG-29K! Either that or I phone the chaps at Sukhoi OKB and ask for a copy of the blueprints or factory plan! Incidentally what is the opinion on this drawing? Header says Mir Aviatsyia? Is this the name of the magazine maybe? Edited September 22, 2011 by Jon Fitzgerald Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nazar Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) Yes, there was a zhurnal. can such a picture would help? I did it strictly at right angles to the axis of the aircraft Edited September 22, 2011 by Nazar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 We can discuss this for ages, but i think the drawing is correct. Here you see the opposite of what your picture show. ;) http://scalemodels.ru/modules/photo/viewcat.php?id=1789&cid=104&min=0&orderby=dateA&show=12 It is all matter of perspective, but my underside pic showed the bay is in line with the start of canard shoulders, or slightly ahead. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jon Fitzgerald Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Thanks Nazar! Great picture! :) Is this drawing from Mir Aviatsyia a good guide for panel line detail or do you think AiV is better for panels and surface detail? 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.