AirRyan Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 (edited) I've got an Academy Su-27UB and I was thinking about what it would take to make it look like a navalized Su-33? I'm just wondering off the top of my head here, it's probably more work than possible but I was thinking about doing a hypothetical navalized two seat Su' model for sh!ts and giggles and putting some USN decals on it. F/A-18F's are alright, even if Hasegawa can't do a 1/48 scale yet, but a two seat Su-33 is the only thing today that is going to be able to replace the F-14, and I'm curious to see what else might be requried to make a mock of this hypotheical idea of mine. With the skyrocketing costs of F-22's and even the Super Hornets, buying from Russia on the cheap and putting in GE engines and a glass pit would not only be cheaper, but it'd look way cooler! Edited February 20, 2005 by AirRyan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zmey Smirnoff Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 It's been done before you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AirRyan Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 (edited) The KUB variant is no doubt an interesting bird and you make a good point that I was not aware of, with an ingress like a B-1 and a flight deck like an F-111, but I still prefer the tandem two seaters myself! See, all we have to do is get Boeing and Sukhoi's already established relationship with the RRJ to liscense build these bad boys in the USA and we're set! If I heard correctly, doesn't the KUB have a toilet in the back? Edited February 20, 2005 by AirRyan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shark Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 it does. even a little kitchenet. And the Navy already once tried to get Navalized Flankers, but they got told to buy american. too bad. Maybe you can make SU27UBK (K for Navalized version, as in the Russian word for "Karrier Borne) in US colors as a "What - if" build. It would be very interesting to see this bird in 3 tone Navy grays. Said, being curious. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AirRyan Posted February 21, 2005 Author Share Posted February 21, 2005 In regards to US Navy Sukhois are you referring to Admiral Gilchrists book about the Tomcat or is there something I missed? Any ideas if someone has a Su-33 planned in 1/48th? What's the Su-33 have besides say my Su-27UB? I know there is a conversion kit to make it a Su-33, would that be enough? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 In regards to US Navy Sukhois are you referring to Admiral Gilchrists book about the Tomcat or is there something I missed? Any ideas if someone has a Su-33 planned in 1/48th? What's the Su-33 have besides say my Su-27UB? I know there is a conversion kit to make it a Su-33, would that be enough? OK..... You know that the Su-33 is a single-seater right ?? I am assuming you want to make a 'ficticious' Su-27UBK (where K stands for 'Korabel' (shipborne) as opposed to 'Kommercheski (Export)). This is to distinguish it from the 'export' two-seat trainer Su-27UBK (Uchebno Boyevoy Kommercheski - Combat Trainer Export). The visual differences between a single seat Su-27 and the navalised Su-33 are :- Canards, bigger wing with triple-slotted slats, wing and tailplane fold, twin wheel nosegear, arrestor hook, shortened tailboom, thicker mainwheel legs, IFR probe and offset IRST ball. I think that should cover it. You can check out my 1;72 scale conversion of the Airfix kit at :- http://66.226.87.135/seaflanker.htm Happy Flankering..... Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AirRyan Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 (edited) Thanks for the note. Yes, I am pondering what a hypothetical navalized Su-27UB might look like if say the USN were to buy a handful of them. What do you think about taking the parts from this SOL Su-33 conversion kit and using everything minus the single seat pieces into the Academy Su-27UB kit with the SOL Su-27UB cockpit? Slap some VF or VFA decals on it and I could call this say a Su-30USN! SOL Su33 Conversion Edited February 22, 2005 by AirRyan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 F-22 will never be navalized. As well, it takes a lot more than just sawpping a pair of GEs into a flanker and a bunch of western hardware to US-navalize the aircraft. Aerospace engineering is a lot more than meets the eye. The major difference between US Navy & Russian carrier ops is in the launch method. The AVMF (Russian Navy) Su-33's are already stressed for no-flare carrier landings using arresting gear. But they take off up a ski ramp - after being held back by restraints while they spool up to full power. THE US Navy uses the steam catapult - using the launch bar attached to the aircraft's nosewheel. To make a Su-33 able to operate from a US carrier, you would need to stress the forward fuselage and nosegear to take the loads of a nosewheel launch. Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AirRyan Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 So do you think US navalized Sue's would have to require a towbar to catch the catapualt then? The distance on the US Carrers is a lot more than on the Russian CV's. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 So do you think US navalized Sue's would have to require a towbar to catch the catapualt then? The distance on the US Carrers is a lot more than on the Russian CV's. Yes - but they don't have the Russian 'holdback' system to allow the jet to spool up to full power, nor do they have a ski ramp - all vital elements of the Su-33 launch system. I know that the US Navy has a holdback system - but that is attached to the nosewheel strut - so, again, you would need to stress the nosegear and surrounding structure. You could probably takeoff in a Su-33 from a US carrier - if the Flanker started its run from way back at the stern - but that would not be very practical for an operational system !! But this is all talk about the 'real thing' - you can do what you like on a model !!! Take a Su-27UB, add canards, modify the flaps if you want to, shorten the tailcone (to fit in the hangar space), add a twin-wheel nosegear - complete with launch bar and paint it up to look like an F-14. You could even move the IRST ball from in front of the windscreen to below the nose - like the Tomcat - and add some kind of 'pallets' along the centreline and on the intake trunks - and fit R-33 missiles ! Happy Flankering Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CW4 Erick Swanberg Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Ryan that is a great idea I would even go so far as to put some winders, AIM-120's and AIM -54's on it. I just got the 48th scale kit with the Neomega resin cockpit and eduard photo-etch set and it would be a fun conversion maybe rob the nose gear from a F-18 or F-14 and and splice it together I think it is awesome idea might give it a shot to maybe we could do a small group build Erick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AirRyan Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 Yeah, I haven't decided exactly how I might do this one up, the SOL kits are very expensive and so I'm just not sure. I've also been thinking about doing a USN/USMC aggressors squadron, then I wouldn't need the carrier gear and I could still do a cool camo scheme. I think a towbar if not the entire front nose wheel would do the trick. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CW4 Erick Swanberg Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Well if you think about it if they used the US carriers since they had a longer deck to land on they wouldnt neccesarily need the canards I am assuming that they are becdause of the slow speeds they have to be to land on the short decks? Can anyone back this up, But being able to land on a longer deck then they could go without cince the landing speed would be higher and it would also cost you alot less for the conversion too Something to think about if you get anyother ideas just pm me and see what we can do with this sounds fun anyway Erick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 I just found the photo I scanned a few years back. It is from a US mag called Flight Journal - and had an article by a Retired US Navy Admiral about the possibility of Su-27's replacing F-14's. It was a serious article - but the idea was obviously never going to be implemented - if only !! Anyway, the article was accompanied by the attached photo - which shows a photo of a Su-27 and Su-27UB airbrushed up in US Navy markings - totally ficticious, but nonetheless interesting... Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Well if you think about it if they used the US carriers since they had a longer deck to land on they wouldnt neccesarily need the canards I am assuming that they are becdause of the slow speeds they have to be to land on the short decks? Can anyone back this up, But being able to land on a longer deck then they could go without cince the landing speed would be higher and it would also cost you alot less for the conversion too Something to think about if you get anyother ideas just pm me and see what we can do with this sounds fun anyway Erick The canards were added to counter the pitch-down force generated by the LE & TE flaps, reducing approach speed by 1.5 times and acted as 'destabilisers' in supersonic cruise, reducing trim drag. I don't quite follow the reasoning behind the reference to 'longer decks' on US carriers. The length of the landing area is the same (more or less) on the Kuznetsov as on a US carrier - the a/c makes a no-flare landing onto the area where the wires are - the total length of the deck is irrelevant. FWIW, the overall length of the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov is 306.3m, the length of a Nimitz class carrier is 332.85m - so the US carrier is actually only about 80 feet longer overall anyway! What the pilot wants in both cases is a slower approach speed - so it gives more time to line things up and get it right. Over the years this has been provided in different ways by a variable-incidence wing (F-8 Crusader), swing wings (F-14) and canards with TE high-lift devices (Su-27K) - anything to reduce the aproach speed over the deck. I guess what I am saying is that to make a realistic carrier-capable Su-27UB, you would need to change the flaperons on the wings to triple-slotted flaps of bigger area. Then to counterbalance the pitch-down force that these trailing-edge hight-lift devices generate, you then need to add canards. Then to take the increased weight over the front end, you need to add a twin-wheel noseleg - and, to make it catapult launchable, you need to add a towbar etc etc. Then you need folding wings and a tailhook etc But hey, it's only a bit of fun anyway - so you can make it as feasible or as unrealistic as you want. For the simplest 'conversion' just paint a bog-standard Su-27UB in US Navy markings ! Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CW4 Erick Swanberg Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Flankerman, thanks for the insight I didnt know that the Russian Carriers had almost the same landing length thats why I said Assume in my post ;)!!! It is a cool idea that Ryan came up with kind of a what if thanks for the info Erick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KRI76 Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 I just found the photo I scanned a few years back.It is from a US mag called Flight Journal - and had an article by a Retired US Navy Admiral about the possibility of Su-27's replacing F-14's. It was a serious article - but the idea was obviously never going to be implemented - if only !! Anyway, the article was accompanied by the attached photo - which shows a photo of a Su-27 and Su-27UB airbrushed up in US Navy markings - totally ficticious, but nonetheless interesting... Ken This article makes me almost want to build a Flanker with - let´s say - VF-103 markings...That would actually be really cool!!!! Hhmmm......maybe....why not?...... /Kristian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shark Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 and why not!!!!! am telling you, this topic actually sent me back to my hobby desk after a month of no plastic time. mh... a ficticious Flanker ... hell, I might even finish my scratch built conversion I was mid off. keep the ideas coming! Said 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.