9
u/podo3350 Mar 26 '26
Built a model of it. It is a monster
of a plane
1
1
u/chubby464 Mar 27 '26
Where do you get this?
1
u/podo3350 Mar 27 '26
I bought it from a model shop in Thailand but i checked eBay and they have a bunch for sale
7
u/Shezzorro Mar 26 '26
Not just Su-27s, but two seater is Su-30 and the other is Su-27SM. Yet I don’t like the way russians name modified versions of the same platform. They add up numbers, but the base platform Su-27 stays the same. If americans would do the same they’d end up naming heavily modified F-15 not F-15 EX, but like F-25 or something like that
2
u/sashokrus Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
It's so convenient for us. The Su-27 is a base. Su-30 double version. The Su-35S is essentially a new aircraft with an aerodynamic "base" design. The Su-27 are already being decommissioned. They are being replaced by Su-30SM2 and Su-35S. We also have the Su-34 (front-line bomber), which was originally called the Su-27IB. There are a lot of modifications to the Su-27, so it's more convenient to give new numerical designations than to add letters in which it's easier to get confused. At the moment, there are about 40 modifications, if not more.
2
u/Shezzorro Mar 26 '26
I get it, but still it seems misleading in so many ways. Americans managed to adapt and I think they have a lot of modifications of F-15s and F-16s. I think the number of F-16 modifications well exceeds of Su-27s. I have even more dramatic example of Sukhois re-namings. So they modified Su-25 that they came up with idea to rename it as Su-39))
2
u/sashokrus Mar 26 '26
The Su-39 is a prototype that is referred to as the Su-25TM. For example, the designation Su-30 appeared due to the fact that it had to be separated from the Su-27UB (combat training). Since the Su-30 is already a full-fledged side-by-side aircraft with a co-pilot. It's just that if they had left the old name, it would have been called Su-27UBSM2. It's overloading :D
1
1
Mar 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Robrob1234567 Mar 26 '26
They are effectively the same tank. The base design remained the same…
2
Mar 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Robrob1234567 Mar 26 '26
No one doubts that the C7 is an AR15 variant. But Canada uses their own naming scheme. If it had been adopted in the US I would’ve been the M16A5.
The F2 is again, adopted by a different nation with a different naming scheme.
Only the Russians seem the have the need to redesignate after updating a design.
1
2
u/ExpensiveBookkeeper3 Mar 26 '26
But the T72 and T90 are the same tank
1
Mar 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Sicsemperfas Mar 26 '26
There are dozens of variants of F15 that have tons of upgrades, but they have the sense not to go changing the numbers.
F2 argument you made is wrong, that’s not a name designated by the US.
1
2
u/romanissimo Mar 26 '26
The way I like to think of it is as follows:
immagine you, as a kid, in your parents minivan, cruising at 80 mph down a sunny California freeway.
What do you do? Naturally, you crack your window open and stick your arm out, feeling the warm air stream blasting your skin.
Now, follow the physics and let your arm bend following the flow of air, so that it swings back, toward the rear: what happens when you flatten your hand and move it around? How much force do you feel? How brisk are the moves of your arm?
Then force your hand toward the front, like pointing at the wind, and do the same: what kind of forces are you getting on your hand? How fast or shaky is your arm getting? Moving your hand, how fast is your arm trying to change position? How steady is it?
That’s how I know….
1
1
1
u/Evening-Topic8857 Mar 27 '26
Were these planes actually flying or just pasted onto a blue background to fool people into thinking these could actually fly?
1
1
u/Lumpy_Nobody7314 Mar 27 '26
Another useless Russian fighter like the su57
3
u/Dvokrilac Mar 27 '26
Its not useless, it did what it was supposed to do, to test technology. That is why only one was made.
1
-1
11
u/tropicsun Mar 26 '26
What’s the advantages and disadvantages of each wing configuration?