You rest your case on someone elses potted figures?

Ofcourse, cos they make sense, I checked them myself and got the same results.

Maximum take off weight is the maximum weight an aircraft can take off with. If it was MTOW for the Su-27 then there would be a question about what the MTOW of the Su-33 is. The Su-33 is not designed to operate from land, it is specifically designed to operate from the Kuznetsov… its MTOW would be from a carrier.

You cannot be sure about that. I think the MTOW of Su-33 is the theoretical maxium take off weight. It supports the facts…

Might just make the above part of my signature as you don’t seem to understand anything that isn’t repeated a dozen times

You can repeat your statements as much as you like, i don’t care

the proplem is that you blindly asumpt by mere reasoning that the given MTOW of Su-33 has to be on carrier operations, where I consider it as MTOW of normal land based take-offs. Meaning the theoretical MTOW, not operational MTOW from the ski-jump equiped carrier, couse it just cannot take of whit those weigths

The above calculations proved that it needs T/W ration more than 1 in order to take off from Kuznetsov, so the MTOW of carrier operations HAS to be par whit that equation.
If i make that as my singature, would it get better into your head? 😉 :rolleyes: 😀

Just trying to get a T/W for the carrier moving and take off run…

If the boat is going at 30 kts = 15 m/s approx working through (and leaving out ski-ramp effects).

For a deck length (take-off run) of 300m a T/W of around 0.8 is needed.

Ok, the engines of the SU-33 put out about 12,500 Kg of thrust each = 25,000 kg

Divide that by 0.8 gives 31 tonnes TOW… allowing for the ski ramp and yeah, it should be able to get off with 33 tonnes ok.

Thanks for the calculations, but you got one mistake, the runway lenght isen’t 300 meters but like i said either 110 meters or 205 meters…so could you do it once again with those proper runway numbers so that we are finaly getting this over with?

:rolleyes: (don’t ask…)

Thats simply incorrect.

You say a T/W of 1, that means the aircraft is accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2.

Neglecting drag, as compared to the thrust of the engines at full afterburner its virtually negligible as such slow speeds:

V^2 = 2*a*s

where;

V = take off speed (well, rotation, which is usually a little more than minimum unstick or stall speed)
a = acceleration
s = take-off run

V is around 140 kts, or 188 km/hr or 52 m/s

a = 9.81 as per your T/W = 1

Giving a take off run of 138 metres.

This is all without a ski-jump (which will shorten the take off run required by a good bit).

Now, the deck length of the kuznetsov is 304 metres…. go figure it out yourself

So if i understand correctly (which is higly unlike, knowing my maths skills 😎 ) You calculated the required take-off lenght to the aircraft if it’s TTW ratio would be better than 1? And you got the result of 138m…?

Now as you seem to know the math better than me, so lets dig this out once and for all…Can you calculate the maxium load that Su-33 can take when launching it from Kuznetsov? You know the thrusts of the engines, lenght of the runway (~110m from the first positions, ~205 meters from the third), angle of the Ski-jump (12 degrees)??

Why are we still going around in circles ???

Beats me 😉 but least now we are getting to point instead of just troughing statements around…

What?
You are not going to believe the word of the maker of the plane and you want the word of someone impartial?

So if they are lying why don’t they also lie about their other aircraft? The side by side seat Flanker could be said to take off at full weight from a carrier at 38.8 tons. In fact why state that its max TOW is 33 tons from a carrier, which is the maximum weight of the Su-33, which has the same engines and same wings and slightly less structural weight being a single seat aircraft…

Nahh, they are commies so they must be lying. Its advertising so it can’t be true. If they don’t know the truth how the hell can this Conways org know? Have they ever flown an aircraft off the Kuznestov? Or have they done the mathematical calculations to prove it? Or have they just watched the Russians operate the Kuznetsov and just assumed based on the loads they have seen the Su-33 carry to date?

This is getting silly…Did I say the Sukhoi is lying? No, but however always if you want to have truly inpartial wiev on any matters, you cannot only settle to words of someone’s involveld. Has Sukhoi said without any circeling that Su-33 can take-off form the Kuznetsovs with full load? If it had, can you please post it so that we can get over this?

Thanks Dees01 that was the most clarifying anwser sofar. It opens the Conway statement in new light. Perhaps the book (or more properly the guys writing it) estimated that modern fighter aircrafts with their definite structual model needs TTW ratio to be over 1 to order to get them airbrone from the Kuznetsovs ski-jump. It said “That suffices launch MODERN JET AIRCRFATS with...” Perhaps it meanted to say that modern fighter type of aircrafts needs TTW ratio better than 1 to take off. Or more properly the MiG-29 and SU-27 type aircrafts needs to have the TTW ratio better than one in order to take off from the Kuznetsovs ski-jump, as they don’t have other ways of achive the needed IAS.

When it comes to the “short-run-station” and MTW for the Su-33, we keep in mind if I remember well, that no data were given about “wind-over-deck conditions”.
Over the sea one will seldom find zero-wind conditions at all. To this you can add the speed of the ship in full power against such wind. For the Kuznetsov this is 60-80 km/h alone! Under less favourable conditions the “long-run-station” is in need for MTW.

Actually the Conway book discuss something about this matter also…let me quote it once more: ” The disavantage of of the ski-jump is that it requires considerable wind over deck to function, that it may not support heavily loaded aircrafts, and that aircrafts are not under positive control as they are launched (Which may be significant in heavy seas).”

Ah…Shine On. Sounds familliar!

i must be sole pink floyd fan who doesn’t like shine on that much…I mean its a great song, but in most moments it sounds rather dull…best Pink floyd opener is defianetly In The Flesh? from the wall or One Of These Days from Meddle

Well nothing beats Whole Lotta Love in Led Zeppelin II tough in every single Zeps album, the opener is a blast…First time i heard Achiles Last Stand from the precence…wow…i didn’t remember any other song from that album after the first listening, and those songs are good….

But ofcourse there is other fantastic albums than just Zeps…The Who’s Nexts Baba O’riley is also just awesome, that synthetisazor sound is just wicked, wonder what people tough back in th ’71 to hear such a things in first time….And when talking about The Who, you eventually end up to the rock opera scene…and where can opener be more important than in opera? The Overture in Tommy is definetly one of the greatest moments in popular music, It brings tears to my eyes (orhmm mean something sticked to my eyes ofcourse… 😮 😉 ) everytime i listen to it…and The Real Me in Quadrophenia isen’t bad either…

You know i could go on and on trough my entire record collection so i just rest now…