OT: SU-33 crashes in Norwegian sea

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

Here you go http://forums.airbase.ru/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=5613

You can use translator http://www.babelfish.altavista.com

And also that was THE ONLY source I found on that topic, that's why I posted it here (I don't speak russian either dude)

 

well why didnt you say so :D

 

no hard feelings dude , no malice intended ;)

[Lemon Lime]

Isn't that second Su-33 that crashed?

http://lenta.ru/russia/2001/07/17/su-27/

http://forums.airbase.ru/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=11775

Fifth.

First crashed in 1991, pilot Timur Apakidze ejected

second - 1996 Vitaly Kuz'menko was lost :(

third - 2000, Pavel Kretov ejected

fourth - 2001, Timur Apakidze was lost :(

fifth - now.

 

BTW, yesturday, when were landing Su-33s which were in air when crashed this one, was teared down second braking-wire but pilot could to take off and then land.

[Kenan]

Screw the plane, the pilot got out safely, that's what counts.

Navy can build another one..

[Force_Feedback]

The most important thing in such situations for the pilot is to react quickly, and not trying to troubleshoot the problem, because no matter how good the ejection seat is, if you don't have time for it to work, you're dead.

 

.5 seconds to actually "get out" of the plane, ie .5 seconds after pulling the ejection handles the seat's rocket has fired and the seat is going up, the neckrest will fire and deploy the parachute .65 seconds after leaving the rails, so roughly after .85 seconds after pulling the ejection handles. In such a low speed situation, this can be considered a 0-0 ejection, so the pilot was hanging under a full chute in approximately 1.3 seconds.

 

This all goes for the basic k-36dm, not the now used k-36DM 3.5, which got an electronic sequencer with over 150 "ejection scenarios", rocket control (load limitation for lighter ejectees and some thrust vectoring and burn time control) and a newly designed headrest for faster parachute deployment.

[S77thFever]

I wonder if ED will model the failure of arrestor wires in 1.2, seems to be a real life attribute :icon_eek: .

[SwingKid]

oh oh, and the Russian navy want to destroy the aircraft, cause it apparently has some sensitive technology...

 

Probably one of the upgraded aircraft with new RWR.

 

I guess this should be the first mission for the new Russian Super Scorpios?

 

-SK

[Sealpup]

Question to our navy-ish folks:

 

Isn't it standard procedure to light the burners as soon as you crash onto the deck? Just incase something like that happens?

 

Or could the wire of slowed the plane down too much before it snapped?

[GGTharos]

It's standard procedure on US aircraft carriers anyway, AFAIK - that way if you miss the wire or if it snaps, you can pull the nose up coming off the deck and not end up swimming with the fishes.

[192nd_Erdem]

Well I don't think Russian Navy pilots are that stupid,that's a standart thing :)

 

Probably the wire broke,but changing the direction of the aircraft meanwhile.So it may end up skidding sideways probably.No one gives up an expensive aircraft that easily.

[Alfa]

Question to our navy-ish folks:

 

Isn't it standard procedure to light the burners as soon as you crash onto the deck? Just incase something like that happens?

 

Or could the wire of slowed the plane down too much before it snapped?

 

Yes it is standard procedure, but as you suggested, the aircraft might have been slowed down to the point where it no longer had the speed to take off again, yet not slowed down enough to stop it from going overboard.

 

Besides, there is no mention of the condition of the aircraft itself after the wire snapped - it could have been damaged in the process. At any rate the pilot would have only split seconds to make a decision on what to do in such a situation.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Sealpup]

Ok, I was just curious. Thanks for the answers!