AerialHawk Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Does anyone know? I recall reading somewhere that they were grounded for whatever reason, or just stopped landing on the carrier.
Colt40Five Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 I doubt there is anything wrong with the Su-33, but the Kutz has and will spend more time in dock than it ever will at sea due to the $$$ situation in the Russian military. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Brit_Radar_Dude Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Seem to recall reading a post earlier this year that they lost one when an arrestor cable snapped? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Sorry Death, you lose! It was Professor Plum....
EvilBivol-1 Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 That is correct, one Su-33 was lost when an arrestor wire snapped after touchdown and the jet simply rolled off the deck. The pilot ejected safely. Believe it or not, on the very landing following that incident, another wire snapped, slightly damaging a second -33. - EB [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer. The Parable of Jane's A-10 Forum Rules
nscode Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Very believeble... those things can sometimes snap even if they ARE replaced on time... Someone would say that it's a stupid choice between the $$ arrestor wire and $$$$$ airplane, but there realy isn't a choice. They either fly with what they have or not at all. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Dudikoff Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 I have read in JDW that their budget for this year envisages new (and different) arrestor cables because of these mishaps. I guess it's not really motivating for pilots if it's doubtful if they'll be able to land safely. i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!
dodger42 Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Sweet system specs ijozic! What does your available conventional memory max out at? Did you beat 634 KB? There was actually a product from Quarterdeck before QEMM called QRAM for 286s. Ahh the golden days. Back then apps worked perfectly. . . . Lockon Advanced Realism with Touch-Buddy
Dmut Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 That is correct, one Su-33 was lost when an arrestor wire snapped after touchdown and the jet simply rolled off the deck. The pilot ejected safely. Believe it or not, on the very landing following that incident, another wire snapped, slightly damaging a second -33. that's true. I saw video from deck cams. "There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: recklessness, which leads to destruction; cowardice, which leads to capture; a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble." Sun Tzu [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic2354_5.gif[/sigpic]
dynamocl Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 The US on landing apply full power before touchdown so that if they dont capture the wire they can takeoff again. Do the Russians have a similar procedure? Or did the snapped wire damage the aircraft and it couldnt take off again? Just wondering why the pilot couldnt just do a "touch and go" in a snapped cable situation.
nscode Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 They do it becose they wouldn't have enough power. Su would :) I guess it's not really motivating for pilots if it's doubtful if they'll be able to land safely. Hmm... no... they are pilots. They would take off even if they know there is a chance they would have to eject to get out. Landing is not an important part of the flight. It's only purpose is to let you fly again. And if it fails... at least you've flown. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Dudikoff Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 They do it becose they wouldn't have enough power. Su would :) It's not the power that's in question, but the jet engine reaction time. You don't go from 70% Mil to full afterburner in a second. Hmm... no... they are pilots. They would take off even if they know there is a chance they would have to eject to get out. Landing is not an important part of the flight. It's only purpose is to let you fly again. And if it fails... at least you've flown. I hope you're not serious. i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!
Dudikoff Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Sweet system specs ijozic! What does your available conventional memory max out at? Did you beat 634 KB? There was actually a product from Quarterdeck before QEMM called QRAM for 286s. Ahh the golden days. Back then apps worked perfectly. I don't quite recall, but I don't think I beat the 634 KB with QEMM. I also remember using Memmaker from MS because some games were not working with QEMM, but I only got 621 KB from it. Never had 286, though. Went straight to 386 from Atari ST. Yes, the good old frustrating days, especially with floppy disk quality. Have you used programs like 2m (or was it called like that?)? It could format the disks to 1.8 MBs. It made a big difference back then but it also shorted the already too short floppy disk lifetime. i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!
nscode Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 I hope you're not serious. Ok... let me put it differently. They are Russian pilots :) Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Alfa Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 The US on landing apply full power before touchdown so that if they dont capture the wire they can takeoff again. Do the Russians have a similar procedure? Yes of course. Or did the snapped wire damage the aircraft and it couldnt take off again? Just wondering why the pilot couldnt just do a "touch and go" in a snapped cable situation. The cables don't just snap on their own for no reason ;) . Applying full power after touching down is done in case the hook misses the wire(s) - in this case the hook did catch the wire, which in turn did what it was supposed to do - namely slowing the aircraft down, but snapped under the strain before it could bring it to a full stop. In other words, the aircraft wasn't slowed down enough to keep it from going over the side of the ship, but too much for it to get airborne again. Cheers, - JJ. JJ
Force_Feedback Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 that's true. I saw video from deck cams. Can we see it too? I saw pictures from the video, but I would kill for a working vid, as I'm an ejection seat nut, especially when it's a K-36. The story gets even better, the last plane in the formation (4 were airborne, one crashed, other got damaged, but did have enough power to get lift) had only 2 wires to stop with. As far as I've seen, the Su-33 does not go to full AB, or any kind of afterburning when landing, it seems to go to full military. The Mig-29K however did go to full AB after landing. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Cobra360 Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 When the Kuz went on it's cruise of the Med Sea the Su-33 was found to have serious problems with it's Russian pilot did not know that they were there until they were flying a few feet off each wing tip. Towards the end of the cruise the amount of missions flown dropped because of tyre and fuel shortages, a reason why the Su-33 that was intercepted did not have a wingman. One Su-25UTG had a hard lan ding resulting in a damaged landing gear on the same cruise which is shown on a vid on patricks site. Just before the cruise 12 Su-33s took part in an air to air exercise, firing R-60M missiles at drones. This was the first time ever the Su-33 had launched a missile, it was not even part of the test flights!
S77th-konkussion Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 As far as I've seen, the Su-33 does not go to full AB, or any kind of afterburning when landing, it seems to go to full military. The Mig-29K however did go to full AB after landing. Same with USN planes- they apply FMP, not burners. Not to say that a less experienced pilot wouldn't if he bolted, but that's not the protocol. [sIGPIC]http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=43337&d=1287169113[/sIGPIC]
nscode Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Just before the cruise 12 Su-33s took part in an air to air exercise, firing R-60M missiles at drones. This was the first time ever the Su-33 had launched a missile, it was not even part of the test flights! Uhm... there's a not so new video of it launching them... when was this you are talking about? Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Force_Feedback Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 I want to see the ejection and rocket launch videos (ejection more)! Please. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Cobra360 Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Uhm... there's a not so new video of it launching them... when was this you are talking about? The Med cruise was from '99. Didn't say it was new. It was just the first time the Su-33 ever launched a live missile.
ED Team Olgerd Posted May 24, 2006 ED Team Posted May 24, 2006 Does anyone know? I recall reading somewhere that they were grounded for whatever reason, or just stopped landing on the carrier. About 20-25 Su-33 are in service now. It is correct that they were grounded for a while after two flight incidents following each other during one flight day (one incident was ended up with the plane crash and the pilot ejection very near from water). All of this indicates only that finally our Su-33 pilots get more flight hours than it was in previous years. And that is the great fact indeed. Flying a carrier based jet is very risky business... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] К чему стадам дары свободы? Их должно резать или стричь. Наследство их из рода в роды Ярмо с гремушками да бич.
Force_Feedback Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Can we see the damn videos? I ant to see the k-36 in action. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
ED Team Olgerd Posted May 24, 2006 ED Team Posted May 24, 2006 I am in doubt if the video is in the public access. Sorry. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] К чему стадам дары свободы? Их должно резать или стричь. Наследство их из рода в роды Ярмо с гремушками да бич.
Force_Feedback Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 I am in doubt if the video is in the public access. Sorry. Oh come on, they posted pics of it, why not not post the real deal, they did it too with the su-25utg ****up landing. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
Alfa Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 The Med cruise was from '99. Didn't say it was new. It was just the first time the Su-33 ever launched a live missile. No Cobra the Med cruise was in '96 - it was the "maiden voyage" of the Kuznetsov :) . Cheers, - JJ. JJ
Recommended Posts