Su-33 Arrestor hook (BUG?)

[bSr.LCsta]

Since v1.1 I can't believe how often I rec'v damage to my plane resulting in my hook not working :(

I can understand if it were to take direct fire it could be shot off, but it seems that almost any hits taken in the rear 1/2 of the plane will reslut in a hook failure.

Shouldn't this be one of the most fail-safe features of a plane operating off a carrier? If nothing more wouldn't gravity act a secondary method of deployment.

Can someone explain how this works IRL and what the emergency proceedures would be if there was a problem?

 

p.s. I know that ALL the naval aspects in LOMAC/successor need to be seriously upgraded, and am patiently waiting for that ;) However, the hook issue is new to v1.1 and might not be to hard to fix. I miss night traps on the Kuz in a storm with 1 wing and no engines :P

 

Any info would be appreciated.

[NEODARK]

The hook is probably part of the hydraulic system? -As in you have total hydraulic faliure it wont work (like the landing gear, flaps, airbrake)

 

Maybe its just an electric servo which can also go out if you have other faliures.

 

it doesnt matter, you can still land without it, its just hard and some good timming with the chute, heck if they land the SU-25T on the admiral, the SU-33 shouldn't be impossible. I'll try it later tonight.

[britgliderpilot]

doesnt matter, you can still land without it, its just hard and some good timming with the chute, heck if they land the SU-25T on the admiral, the SU-33 shouldn't be impossible. I'll try it later tonight.

 

 

Erm . . . . the Su33 doesn't have a chute ;)

 

 

Agreed, there should at least be a backup gravity deploy system.

 

Clarification of the DM and and update when we finally get our beloved Su27/Su33 upgrade . . . . in ten years' time . . . sigh . . .

[NEODARK]

Erm . . . . the Su33 doesn't have a chute ;)

 

 

Agreed, there should at least be a backup gravity deploy system.

 

Clarification of the DM and and update when we finally get our beloved Su27/Su33 upgrade . . . . in ten years' time . . . sigh . . .

 

Ok, SU27 :tongue: (but then that doesn't have a hook) haha. Ah well, thats explains why I would seemingly never see it come out when landing on airfields even after franticly pressing the button when landing "hot".

 

quick question: whats the fastest safe deploying speed for it on the 27?

[Cobra360]

Well the fastest I,ve landed the Su-27 at was around 370kph. Madness I know, I had the stick buried full foward to keep it on the ground and the chute worked fine. Fuel ran out and I was very high up at the time, hence the speed.

 

In Lomac I think it will deploy once weight is on the wheels.

[169th_Crusty]

I'm not sure about 33 but in the Hornet (and other US, tailhook equipped a/c)

the hook is dropped by releasing the latch mechanism. The downward pressure comes from the nitrogen charged tank (it`s pre-charged).

To raise it up though, you need hydro pressure.

[S77th-konkussion]

I'm not sure about 33 but in the Hornet (and other US, tailhook equipped a/c)

the hook is dropped by releasing the latch mechanism. The downward pressure comes from the nitrogen charged tank (it`s pre-charged).

To raise it up though, you need hydro pressure.

 

any type of backup to it? or maybe it's just easier to break out the net...

[169th_Crusty]

any type of backup to it? or maybe it's just easier to break out the net...

Well, if the tailhook got shot off :)/ripped off and you are in blue water ops -

I guess the barricade is the best option.

[britgliderpilot]

Well, if the tailhook got shot off :)/ripped off and you are in blue water ops -

I guess the barricade is the best option.

 

Assuming that you still have gear, you aren't leaking control system hydraulic fluid or fuel, and you aren't going to explode or foul the landing area when you land on deck.

 

In short . . . . . probably eject, it's safer for the pilots. Would be checked with a visual inspection from another aircraft if possible, of course.

 

Given we don't have the luxury of a barricade in Lomac . . . . ;)

[Gazehound]

Can someone confirm that it is impossible to belly-land on the Kuz?

[SUBS17]

Ok, SU27 :tongue: (but then that doesn't have a hook) haha. Ah well, thats explains why I would seemingly never see it come out when landing on airfields even after franticly pressing the button when landing "hot".

 

quick question: whats the fastest safe deploying speed for it on the 27?

 

The Su25/T chute will tear if you deploy over 270kph.

[SIX oclock]

... heck if they land the SU-25T on the admiral...

 

 

Did someone ever did it? I doubt! ;)

[S77th-konkussion]

Can someone confirm that it is impossible to belly-land on the Kuz?

 

I can confirm that it can be done- however unintentional it might be. I simply blew the approach and came in just a meter low I reckon- cause my gear was ripped off by the edge of the deck, and I kept goin lol.. Hooked a 3 wire though

[S77th-RYKE]

Good landing lol

 

now push that wreck off the boat

[Jester_159th]

Did someone ever did it? I doubt! ;)

 

 

Someone definately did. See if you can find the Flaming Cliffs promo trailers. In one of them you will indeed see an Su-25T being landed on the Kuz.

 

Never tried it myself though. I'm just not that good!!

[NEODARK]

the trick was to deploy the chute before landing, and yes there is a track here somewhere on the forums if i remember right :)

[Gazehound]

I can confirm that it can be done- however unintentional it might be. I simply blew the approach and came in just a meter low I reckon- cause my gear was ripped off by the edge of the deck, and I kept goin lol.. Hooked a 3 wire though

LOL

 

Cant be done without gear down though right? you seem to sink thru the deck and explode.

[Tracker]

...it doesnt matter, you can still land without it, its just hard and some good timming with the chute, heck if they land the SU-25T on the admiral, the SU-33 shouldn't be impossible. ...

 

We've done vertical landings with the F-15 on the carrier :)

 

(of course the headwind carrier speed combo was about 140knts) :D

I agree that if the hook is modeled to fail then the carrier should be modeled to have a barrier net. :cool:

[Kula66]

Did someone ever did it? I doubt! ;)

 

I've done it in the 25 & 25T a few times ... trick is minimal fuel, no weapons, get REAL slow 140mph and get the chute out quickly - as soon as you touch ... I even rolled right to the top of the ramp once, then rolled back down (if you apply the brakes you tip backwards!) and over the side!

 

I landed in the water just short once and you can see the Kuz's propellers under the water! Great!

[Cobra360]

I landed the Su-25T on the Kuz but the nose gear broke off when it rolled up the ramp and stopped just before it rolled off.

[bSr.LCsta]

hijackers!!! A video of the Su-25T landing on the carrier came out before the add-on did. That is nothing new.

 

You can NOT land the SU-33 on the carrier w/o gear and hook working properly. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong....

 

Can a dev respond to this issue of the hook?

[Kula66]

You can NOT land the SU-33 on the carrier w/o gear and hook working properly. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong....

 

Hmmm .. sounds like a challenge to me :)

[JonTex]

Since v1.1 I can't believe how often I rec'v damage to my plane resulting in my hook not working

I can understand if it were to take direct fire it could be shot off, but it seems that almost any hits taken in the rear 1/2 of the plane will reslut in a hook failure.

Shouldn't this be one of the most fail-safe features of a plane operating off a carrier? If nothing more wouldn't gravity act a secondary method of deployment.

Can someone explain how this works IRL and what the emergency proceedures would be if there was a problem?

 

I didnt read all the other post on this one so maybe someone answered you but I do have some info that is sort of helpful. On the F14 we have what is called dashpot pressure that acts independently of the hydraulic system and this would be what you would consider a fail safe feature for the hook. Not sure bout the 33 but when the F14 lifts its hook there is a bar that connects to a small hook attached to the underside of the aft section on the tomcat. This mechanism ensures that the tailhook is secure and that it will not drop prematurely.

 

 

Normally the combined side hyds will operate your hook but if that fails the dashpot comes into play to blow the hook down. If I remember correctly the dashpot was around 800 psi. On the hook lever in the cock pit you twist the tip of it like a knob and pull the lever down. That unlocks the hook and gravity and dashpot pressure (nitrogen pressure) push the hook down. The dashpot ensures the hook will stay down so that it will not bounce or cause the pilot to bolter. In the picture the hook handle is to the upper right just below the canopy jettison which is yellow and black rectangular looking thing.

 

 

Not sure but I would hope the Ruskies have something similar to that.

[britgliderpilot]

I'm sure I just wrote a post about how a dashpot isn't always a solution . . . . no sign of it. Huh . . . maybe I'm getting senile several decades early :p

 

 

Anyway - a dashpot is only really of use if you lose the pressure in the hydraulics. If you damage the line downstream of the dashpot, if you damage the dashpot, if you damage the control to the dashpot . . . . it's no good to you.

 

Combat damage to the rear of the fuselage hence puts you in a risky situation.

 

Not that I think Lomac models such intricacies, but just for the record.

 

 

Given that there should be a gravity drop anyway, it's not all that relevant.

Unless you've damaged the control to the gravity drop . . . . . ah, what the heck :p

[JonTex]

:confused: dude i so give up