Intresting about ski jump

[zaGURUinzaSKY]

I was reading this on wikipedia:

 

Unlike comparable American carrier-borne fighters like the F-14 Tomcat, the Su-33 it is designed to use a ski-jump instead of catapult for carrier takeoff. The ski jump provides many advantages over a catapult launch. The most evident is that a ski jump does not put stress on the airframe and pilot, allowing lower weight because less structural reinforcement is required and prevents G-LOC (G-force induced impairment.) Also, with a ski jump launch, the aircraft can engage full afterburner earlier than a catapult launch, because the aircraft is restrained by pop-up detents rather than a catapult shoe. Once in the air the aircraft has a positive AOA as well as pitch angular speed which increases during acceleration, and assists the climb. This method does require an aircraft that is more stable and maneuverable at low speeds. On the down side, an aircraft launched off a ski jump cannot launch at maximum takeoff weight (unless MTOW is very light to begin with, as in the BAe Harrier and its family), so either combat load or range will suffer vis a vis a catapulted aircraft. Large aircraft cannot launch off a ski jump at all, restricting a ski jump-equipped carrier to tactical aviation only with very limited AWACS capability, usually provided by helicopters.

 

Will we have the limited MTOW with carrier takeoff in future version of lomac ?

[Force_Feedback]

I was reading this on wikipedia:

 

 

 

Will we have the limited MTOW with carrier takeoff in future version of lomac ?

 

Yes, unless they allow you to take off from the third starting position with a run-up distance of 180m, allowing for maximum combat load and fuel take offs, with a carrier speed of 15 kts.

[SVK_Fox]

true

 

I know that about SKYJUMP and it is another proof that russian engineers make thinks easyest and not complicated like US. Also interesting think rhat I read is about: nuclear bombs as weapon for Su-27 and also about system and anex how to activate it:smilewink:

[enigma6584]

*cough* ummmmm.... sorry to nitpick but it was actually the Royal Navy who invented the ski-jump (also the concept of the angled deck) on aircraft carriers. :smilewink:

 

Very true and the British were also the driving force with respect to radar.:)

[SUBS17]

I know that about SKYJUMP and it is another proof that russian engineers make thinks easyest and not complicated like US. Also interesting think rhat I read is about: nuclear bombs as weapon for Su-27 and also about system and anex how to activate it:smilewink:

 

Steam Cat is much better as the aircraft can launch with a heavier weight, its a far better design. Also helicopters acting as AWACs is another uneconomical way of doing it(as the brits discovered during the faulkands war). The Russian Navy did intend on and nearly built a Carrier with steam Cats but the fall of Communism and lack of funding stopped that from happening.

[S77th-konkussion]

Steam Cat is much better as the aircraft can launch with a heavier weight, its a far better design. Also helicopters acting as AWACs is another uneconomical way of doing it(as the brits discovered during the faulkands war). The Russian Navy did intend on and nearly built a Carrier with steam Cats but the fall of Communism and lack of funding stopped that from happening.

 

 

Bingo.

[Alfa]

Steam Cat is much better as the aircraft can launch with a heavier weight, its a far better design.

 

That is a rather simplistic statement.

 

Catapults are complex, bulky and can fail.....meaning are expensive to acquire, takes up a lot of space and require maintenance.

 

None of this is the case with a ramp. To the extend your aircraft can take off on its own power from a ramp while carrying the ordinance required for the mission, the ramp method is the better design :) . The merit of the catapult design is that it allows aircraft with lower thrust to weight ratio to operate from carriers and fighters in heavy strike configuration to take off safely.

 

Considering that Soviet aviation cruisers had a different mission and thus were configured in a very different way to US aircraft carriers, being able to launch waves of strike fighters is not really a requirement.

 

Also helicopters acting as AWACs is another uneconomical way of doing it(as the brits discovered during the faulkands war).

 

I don't know if it is particularly "uneconomical", but you can get much more capable early warning assets with better endurance when basing it on a fixed wing airframe.

 

The Russian Navy did intend on and nearly built a Carrier with steam Cats but the fall of Communism and lack of funding stopped that from happening.

 

Not quite true. They did start building an aviation cruiser with two steam catapults, but only two for the above purpose - namely to launch the Yak-44 AEW aircraft(similar to the E2 Hawkeye)......the ramp was retained for fighter launches :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

but it was actually the Royal Navy who invented the ski-jump (also the concept of the angled deck) on aircraft carriers

....not forgetting we also invented the steam catapult and the "meatball".

[Weta43]

And the computer as it turns out (Turns out ENIAC wasn't the first after all !)