Su-33 Arrestor hook (BUG?)

[Yo-Yo]

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.

 

The arrestor hook of Su-33 is hydraulically driven so the hits taken in its rear part are presumed causing hydraulics failure.

It's also presumed that the hook security lock (if it exists :) ) is also inoperable as a result of the hit... :)

You can also perform belly landing on Kuznetsov... but only in Su-25/25T though.

[bSr.LCsta]

The arrestor hook of Su-33 is hydraulically driven so the hits taken in its rear part are presumed causing hydraulics failure.

It's also presumed that the hook security lock (if it exists :) ) is also inoperable as a result of the hit... :)

You can also perform belly landing on Kuznetsov... but only in Su-25/25T though.

 

Thanks for the reply Yo-Yo :) !!!

 

This seems strange too me? Are there any RL cases of Su-33 hook failures, and what they did as a result?

[Yo-Yo]

Thanks for the reply Yo-Yo :) !!!

 

This seems strange too me? Are there any RL cases of Su-33 hook failures, and what they did as a result?

 

I don't know... but was any Sy-33 shot at? :)

[bSr.LCsta]

I don't know... but was any Sy-33 shot at? :)

 

Hehe good point :P, I meant ANY RL hook failures not necessarily combat related.

[britgliderpilot]

Thanks for the reply Yo-Yo :) !!!

 

This seems strange too me? Are there any RL cases of Su-33 hook failures, and what they did as a result?

 

Yes, very recently . . . . although that was on landing.

 

It fell off the edge of the deck without enough flying speed and sank. Very fast.

 

Apparently the Russian Navy don't think it's worthwhile to recover it . . . . which is fair enough.

[Trident]

I think that was an arrestor-wire failure though ;)

[bSr.LCsta]

I think that was an arrestor-wire failure though ;)

right, I don't think it was hook related.

 

I am wondering about the senerio of a Su-33 coming in for a landing on the Kuz and not being able to deploy arrestor hook for WHATEVER reason.

 

If they are low on fuel, damaged, or too far out to reach another airfield, do they:

 

a) Send another plane up to refuel (33 to 33 refuel like in the video) and escort back to a land base.

 

b) Have some sort of net set up on the deck to catch the plane.

 

C) Belly land w/o gear.

 

D) Eject and lose the A/C.

 

E) Something else???

[Alfa]

right, I don't think it was hook related.

 

No it was snapped wire :)

 

I am wondering about the senerio of a Su-33 coming in for a landing on the Kuz and not being able to deploy arrestor hook for WHATEVER reason.

 

If they are low on fuel, damaged, or too far out to reach another airfield, do they:

 

a) Send another plane up to refuel (33 to 33 refuel like in the video) and escort back to a land base.

 

A solution depending on the nature of damage and how far out at sea they are.

 

b) Have some sort of net set up on the deck to catch the plane.

 

It would take one hell of a net to catch 20 + tons of aircraft at 250 + Km/h ;) - the onboard arrestor gear used for absorbing this kind of force, is a HUGE and very complex system.

 

C) Belly land w/o gear.

 

Only in flight sims :biggrin: .

 

We are talking about ~ $3 billion worth of ship(airwing excluded) with around 2000 people onboard.....doing a 9-11 on it is probably not considered a viable option ;)

 

D) Eject and lose the A/C.

 

Yup - if a) isnt an option that is :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Maverick-90]

It would take one hell of a net to catch 20 + tons of aircraft at 250 + Km/h ;)

Thats right, but the US-Navy actually uses Nets to recover planes, which are unable to deploy their hook or having other difficulties making an arrested landing w/ Hook impossible

RF-4 in Net Barrier:

[Trident]

What he said. Actually I seem to remember an article mentioning that the Kuz also has a net barrier.

[SwingKid]

The arrestor hook of Su-33 is hydraulically driven so the hits taken in its rear part are presumed causing hydraulics failure.

It's also presumed that the hook security lock (if it exists :) ) is also inoperable as a result of the hit... :)

You can also perform belly landing on Kuznetsov... but only in Su-25/25T though.

 

JonTex and bSr.L()CSta are correct, according to Andrei Fomin's excellent book about Su-33, both the landing gear and the arrestor hook have a pneumatic back-up in case of hydraulics failure:

 

 

-SK

[Alfa]

Thats right, but the US-Navy actually uses Nets to recover planes, which are unable to deploy their hook or having other difficulties making an arrested landing w/ Hook impossible

RF-4 in Net Barrier:

 

Yes I know that it is a possibility in some circumstances, but it is risky business and there is both the safety of the pilot as well as that of the ship as such to take into consideration, so the question is with what level of aircraft damage something like that would be attempted/allowed :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[bSr.LCsta]

The arrestor hook of Su-33 is hydraulically driven so the hits taken in its rear part are presumed causing hydraulics failure.

It's also presumed that the hook security lock (if it exists :) ) is also inoperable as a result of the hit... :)

You can also perform belly landing on Kuznetsov... but only in Su-25/25T though.

 

Is the landing gear also part of these hydrolics? If so why does the gear always drop anyway? I can understand not being able to retract with a hydrolics failure.

[SwingKid]

What he said. Actually I seem to remember an article mentioning that the Kuz also has a net barrier.

 

From the same book - yes. It is located parallel to the fourth wire, and is named "Nadezhda" ("Hope").

 

-SK

[169th_Crusty]

Is the landing gear also part of these hydrolics? If so why does the gear always drop anyway? I can understand not being able to retract with a hydrolics failure.

 

In US jets there are 2 hyd systems with 4 circuits...

Yes, when you pull emergency land. gear handle, it mechanically opens the

valve from hydro accumulators (APU) (This pressure is needed to open the

gear doors and release the uplock mechanism) and the gear drops. (aided

by downlock actuators)

[Trident]

From the same book - yes. It is located parallel to the fourth wire, and is named "Nadezhda" ("Hope").

 

Pretty ominous name :D This would make a rather cool feature for LOMAC, come to think of it.

[169th_Crusty]

SwingKid, is there a description in that book how they rig this barricade?

When they raise the stanchions and stretch the nylon webbing - what is

used for absorbing energy? Is it 4 wire (bottom of the webbing hooked to it)

being raised by the webbing when the plane hits and engaging the gear struts?

[SwingKid]

SwingKid, is there a description in that book how they rig this barricade?

When they raise the stanchions and stretch the nylon webbing - what is

used for absorbing energy? Is it 4 wire (bottom of the webbing hooked to it)

being raised by the webbing when the plane hits and engaging the gear struts?

 

Good question, it doesn't say. It does mention that during testing, the Su-27 was stopped, but an An-26 broke through the nylon mesh and "would have gone overboard" if it were tested on the ship instead of the ground.

 

-SK

[169th_Crusty]

Good question, it doesn't say. It does mention that during testing, the Su-27 was stopped, but an An-26 broke through the nylon mesh and "would have gone overboard" if it were tested on the ship instead of the ground.

 

-SK

 

Well, An-26 is a turboprop - the propeller would certaily be a "factor" in this.

[Maverick-90]

Well, An-26 is a turboprop - the propeller would certaily be a "factor" in this.

what do we learn from this?

Turn your props off when doing a Barrier net landing :cool:

[Force_Feedback]

Interesting point, do jets turn off their engines (or at least one of the two) when attempting a net landing? I guess turning at least one engine will greatly reduce the chances of a fire. But then again, flying with one engine could end in a greater disaster than a barrier landing.

[Sealpup]

I would think they would 'T-handle' the engines just before smacking the net, at the least to prevent from FODing the engine (which could blow it up!).