GollevainenWell if two guys both studying english in university levels say so, I guess I have to seddle to it.
…or what the hell, you wont beat finns that easily… :diablo:
So the both sentences are different. Modern jets can take off from the ski-jump. And Modern jets have TTW ratio better than 1. As the both sentences are in the same context (in my version of context) about launching aircrafts from kuznetsov, is my assumption actually so far fetched? Why would it mention that modern jets have TTW ratio better than 1 if it doesen’t have any meaning? there are modern jets with lower TTW ratio than 1. Why would it mention it in this specific text if those modern jets can takeoff from the carrier without TTW ratio to be over 1? There are much more proper term to discribe modern jets than TTW ratio, but why did the author use them? Why didn’t the author just said that the latest generation of soviet fighters like Su-27 and MiG-29 can take off from the Kuznetsov? I know this is just speculations, but as i’ve come agross this statement earlyer in other places, it makes me believe its true, or least that what the book ment.
One of you wondered my lack of comprehension. Well didn’t i just been shouting aloud that i’m a finn, speaking entirely different language than english as my nativespeach?
GollevainenAlrigt, I’m wrong, or at least i cannot fight my couse anymore due my limited english skills. I missunderstanded the text. You are happy now? But as you and others being so fine repersentant of english language and it’s inturperations, would you explain me the thing that you said also:
If you believe our interpretation doesn’t make sense in the context of the article, why won’t you supply us with that context? I’ve asked you for it several times.
I’ve given you the context several times. It’s from the text concerning Soviet carrier kuznetsov. The famous quote is the all that it says about the launching meathod of aircrafts form the carrier. In that context, would it be bit weird if the text only says: Modern jet fighters have TTW ratio better than 1.? If it were general reference book of aviation matters, then it could make sense, but the book is naval referance book and that specific quote is form technical commentary of Soviet carrier Kuznetsov. So excuse me if I made the inturperation that you need TTW ratio better than one when launching aircrafts from the kuznetsovs ski-jump. I always tough the writter was a sane person, but like you and aerospacetech have prooven, i’m lacking in english comprehensing so quess they let any lunatics write these books…
So again, what you think the quote means? You have all the time said i’m wrong, but what about your own inturperation? To educate us foreingers?
GollevainenThe s was my mistake i admitt it. What comes to the other parts of your reasoning, well you have some bathcelors degrees in english, so do I with only magna cu laude apropatur in english really have a change against you?
But i try….
Your suggestion:
That suffices to launch modern jet aircraft. Modern jet aircraft have thrust to weight ratios higher than 1″
This is extremely hard to me to try and explain, but isen’t the word which mean that the suplement sentence, in this case which enables… is related to the main sentence? The word “which” has two finnish translations, joka and mikä so perhaps you ment that i’ve made a mistake in basing of that difference. But i haven’t. You see your suggestion doesen’t make any sense in the contest of the article. There is a relation to the main sentence which means in this case that Modern jets with TTW ratio better than 1 can take off from the kuznetsovs ski-jump.
You can try to do it yourself by using the superior language than english, in this case finnish (this is not anyway offending those of you speaking english, just my subjetic wiev 😉 ) : The sentence quoted from the book is in finnish this: Se (ski-jump) mahdollistaa modernien suihkukoneiden, joiden työntövoima/paino- suhde on parempi kuin 1 lähettämisen ilmaan.
You can try to use some translation services and see what comes results. Then you would see that there is indeed a relation between the main sentence and supportive sentence and the most obvious conclusion is: Kuznetsovs ski-jump can launch modenr jets with TTW ratio better than one.
And to make my case completed, here’s the whole thing in finnish, you can trnaslate it too, but it’s just my reasonings of this whole case in my own language, merely just to help me….
Jotta ei kenellekään jäisi mitään hampaan koloon tehdään sama suomeksi.
Englannin sana which kääntyy suomeksi joka, tai mikä. Lause “That suffices to launch modern jet aircrafts, which have thrust-to-weight ratios better than 1” on suomeksi: Se (ski-jump) mahdollistaa modernien suihkukoneiden, joiden työntövoima/paino- suhde on parempi kuin 1 lähettämisen ilmaan. Se ei jätä mitään epäilystä siitä, etteikö se tarkoita juuri niin kuin olen väittänyt koko ajan: Kuznetsovista pystyy nousemaan ilman katapulttia hävittäjiä, joiden Työntövoima/paino- suhde on parempi kuin yksi. Loogisesti pääteltynä, esimerkiksi tämän keskustelun aiheena oleva Su-33 ei pysty nousemaan tukialuksen pinnalta hyppyramppia käyttäen valmistajan ilmoittavalla suurimmalla mahdollisella nousupainolla.
Gollevainenyeah, but my book is going to be better than yours :p :rolleyes: 😎 😉 😀
…anyway
top ten things you wish to avoid in summer
10) work
Gollevainenyeah, but my book is going to be better than yours :p :rolleyes: 😎 😉 😀
…anyway
top ten things you wish to avoid in summer
10) work
GollevainenAside these 911 “supposed to be some sort of conspiracy” things, I think it’s bit naive to asume that Oil hasen’t got anything to do with it…
…tough if you are an american, then perhaps we can make an exeption…hell, I refuse to belive the suposed hidden agenda behind our governments relations in finno-ugrian minorities in Russia…. 😉
Gollevainenthanks…
GollevainenI think it was proven by now that under favorable conditions (ship at high speed with some head-wind, temperature at Russian average) the Su-33 can take off with close to full MTOW. the safety margin is unkwnon for these kind of operations.
Theoretically, perhaps, but does it mean it’s standart operational rutine? No. As you said the safety margins, I doupt they even train the flight crew to these sort of operations…So i’m more and more covincided that the actual operational maxium takeoff weight, which really is the one we should concerrate is far lighter than the ones stated by certain members in here.
GollevainenNice…May I ask, how is those profiles made? Do you use some spesific painting program or are they hand drawn?
Gollevainenyou should take this quote too serious and better see in a general sense.
should take it? Or do you mean should NOT take it? Im not native english speaker/reader so you should be carefull that i wouldn’t missinterpt 😀
Anyway I’m not taking the quote too seriosly, only stating that all solid counter arguments against it are the fact that the given MTOW of SU-33 exeeds the maxium thrust of the plane’s engines. As the general belive seems to ignore that statement which makes much sense and has been even proved accurate by amotoure calculations made by one of the posters, I just want to find the truth behind this thing. Im not hanging myself into it, and if some one is able to prove me or the book’s orginal author wrong, Im more than happy to accpet it. Sofar we have managed to just quarrel after the inturpration of the thesis. To my perfect sense, the idea of needing strong thurst to take off from carrier whitout catapult, makes a lot of it…sense I mean.
the Russian aircraft are the first aircraft ever that went from a land-based design to carrier based design. The other way round was very frequent.
prove me If Im wrong but didnt De Havilla Vampires were desinged orginally as RAF fighters, not FAA??? Also, werent Fury a naval aplication of Sabre??
GollevainenFlanker man, I think you just twist the orginal quote from Convays book to fit into your own logic, not finding the ultimate solution to this dilema. That is just anotherway to interprate the text. its not relevant whater the plane doing some serious ski-jumping is on MTOW or not, as long as the TWR is 1:1 or better. Clearly we have only one reported MTOW to Su-33, and by that the TWR is lower than one.
Where as aerospacetech, you seem to understand correctly what I orginally claimed. but still it doesent clear up the dilemma, why is there given MTOW to Su-33 by which the plane cannot take off from ski-jump as it seems 8in the ligth of the current evidence) require TWR better than 1:1
The Su-27KUB is basically the same aircraft and its MTOW from the Kuznetsov is given as 33 Tons. Land takeoff is given as 38.8 tons.
given you or by some little bit more reliable source?
Gollevainen8. to get my book finished
Gollevainen8. to get my book finished
GollevainenIts a hungarian Il-10….marrocoan Il-2, guess it goes in the same class as the famous Bolivian Il-28 :rolleyes: 🙂
GollevainenThe Su-33 is a carrier based plane. It doesn’t operate from land bases.
It might take off from a land base with a fuel load but never with a full load of weapons. Land based ops would be ferrying to or from the carrier… it doesn’t operate from a land base.The Su-27KUB is roughly the same weight with the same engines and it clearly states it can take off from carriers with a MTOW of 33 tons.
I am sure Conway probably made the same potted calculations. And I am sure when the Forger was operational the western experts also had lots of mathematical calculations to prove the Forger couldn’t take off from a rolling start and had to take off vertically, just like the mathematical calculations showed the Bear isn’t as fast as it actually is because it is only a propeller driven aircraft…
If Conway can’t be wrong and neither can you that basically means you are not real.
Well your logic isent just working. Su-33 isent build entirely on the sae and never taking off from normal land strips. Sure it is carrier based plane, but still it is completely capaple of taking off from ground fields. Then again, taking off whit that MTOW from ski jump isent possiple according to these recent calculations, and other evidence so the the mentioned MTOW cannot be anything else but the MTOW of land based, traditional take offs.
But if this doesent fit into your head, and no extra evidence is showing up, we can call it off. There is no need to repeat over and over again the same arguments. Atleast we know where the differences of our obinions goes….so lets wait until something new shows up and say the last words after that, ok?
Sign In
