GollevainenWell 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…
GollevainenWell thats only what i’m asking for. It seems that this proves the Conway statement wrong. But just to be more certain could you awnser these few questions?
Even using the the station which afforded the shortest takeoff run of only 105m (344ft), the Su-27K could take of easily with a full fuel and weapons load.The ski jump was inclined 15deg; the normal glideslope angle during final approach was 4deg.”
Does this indicates that Su-33 can takeoff from stations nearest to the Ski-jump with MTOW? Then why is the longer distance station needed? As I was asked to provide the text in it’s contest, could you post little more quotes from that book and that specific paragrahp?
The ramp was nowhere near 15deg, but it does demonstrate that a non-STOL a/c (MiG-21UM) with a TWR of less than unity can do a ski ramp takeoff.
How long was the runway? Also MiG-21UMs normal takeoff weight is 17,636 lb and availble thrust is 14,307 lbs. That makes the TTW ratio about 0.8. But then again the Conway spoke only about 12 degree ski-jumps (like in Kuznetsovs) so I quess that example isen’t usable in this court 😉
GollevainenWell perhaps I should have phrasen my statement more properly, I just assumed that all of you knew that I was talking specificly about Kuznetsov, weren’t this thread about Su-33? Also the other sources that I mentioned were internet sites about kuznetsov and it may be that those sites got the same information form the same book.
What comes to the actual text that i quoted, with my 12+ years of studing english, I interprepated it as I have stated above. If i’m wrong with my reasonnig, perhaps I should study english bit more…And i’ve already quoted all that it was said on the matter so we both know exactly the same now.
But here’s my conclusion: Launching aircraft from Ski-jump (conventional aircrafts with no thrust-vectoring nozzles) isen’t similar than lauchnig them from normal lenght runways. Altough the Ski-jump greatly improves the lifting of, some sort of STOL factors are needed. Some one said that TTW ratio hasen’t got anything to do with it, i disagree. TTW ratio means that higher it is, the more thrust is given to the plane and rougly generalizing, the better performance the plane has. The STOL capapility is not just down to the thrust, but more the weight loaded, more the thrust is needed to order to sustain the same takeoff lenght. So what does the quote from the conway book ment? Perhaps it’s that normal fighter planes that doesen’t have any significant STOL features needs TTW ratio to be over one to take off from 12 degree ski-jump. Is there any compensating factors that can downgrade the needed ratio? I don’t know. Perhaps if the wind just under the ski-jump is strong enough (We finns sure do know the wind in ski-jumping…but thats completely different issue 😉 😀 ) more heavily loaded aircrafts could be launched, but like I said i don’t know fore certain.
But like i said above I belive that the TTW ratio ment only normal fighter planes. Planes like Harrier and Frogfoot are quite different from Su-33 or MiG-29 so it propaply wont aply to them. But then again I cannto be certain. I’m only saying what is written in highly reputated naval referance book and I seriously doupt they are wrong in tjis issue. No one haven’t provided any other sources to claim othervice so least I will stick to this for now. Also all the reports and rumours of Su-33 operations supports this claim and there haven’t been any pictocraphial evidence of heavily loaded Flankers taking of from the Kuznetsov (nor any other plane whatsoever)
About the contradictional evidence form other navyes and planemakers, I’d like to hear more about them. Sofar no other navy is using STOBAR technique so I guess it leaves it to trials that other countryes have made with thei planes. I’ve never heard about nay of them, but it would be nice if some one had any written data over this….
GollevainenAs for the cats, I would be tempted to try and fit two cats on the angled deck – allowing the angled deck to be kept clear for launches and take-offs. It also allows the bow to be used for parking, with a comfortable airwing of ~20 fighters, some lightweight AEW planes and a few helicopters.
But that means you cannot operate simultaneosly landing and takeoff operations. I would issue it so that there is one in the bow (which would intercept to the angled deck any means) and one in the Angled deck. Then you can either use it as you suggested or when it’s needed, to use both or launching from the bow and recover in the angled deck…
Gollevainendid read all that before my last reply, and I say, with complete confidence, that those words do NOT say that only aircraft with a T/W ratio of more than 1 can take off from a ski-jump. What they say is that in whatever particular set of circumstances are being discussed (presumably a carrier deck, but you’ve not quoted that bit), a 12 degree ski-jump enables aircraft with a T/W ratio better than 1 to take off. It says nothing whatsoever about ski-jumps in general, & the T/W ratio necessary to take off from them.
No, Its says THAT AIRCRAFTS WITH TTW RATIO BETTER THAN CAN TAKE OFF BY USING SKI-JUMP. The phrases i’ve quoted are from chapter which covers the Admiral Kuznetsov. So they doesen’t mean Ski-jumps in general but the Ski-jump in Kuznetsov. Isen’t that the issue in this whole thread?
Please, please, give us more to go on, & quote these other sources.
I didn’t invented that the TTW ratio must be over 1, I’m just saying that my sources says it’s required. Those sources are the Conways book, which is one hell of a naval referance book and i trust it more than to information said by some guy in some internet forum. About the other sources that i mentioned, those are various internet sites, (couple of them are russian sites) I will try find links to them but it may take a while.
I cannot give you more to go, I’ve already given all i got to give…It’s your turn…
If Janes can be wrong about stuff why can’t Conway?
Then again so can you or I or anyone else in this forum, Then who are we to belive? So you cannot overrule this source just saying it might be wrong…
They also use their nozzles to gain more lift when taking off from land… what is your point? If the Ski jump didn’t add to the amount of weight you can take off with why put it on the ship in the first place? If it means only aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio of better than one can use it then why not make the ski jump vertical… then aircraft with thrust to weight ratios of one or more can use them…
My point is that the V/STOL planes doesen’t need TTW ratio better than one becouse they can use their nozzles to generate more lift. They can take more playload by using this method (without Ski-jump) than when using the Vertical takeoff mode. The Ski-jump just adds even more the possipility to have heavier load. It’s quite simple and therefor i’m bit confused about your argumenting :confused: Non V/STOL planes however haven’t got the benefits of what Harrier have and therefore they need better TTW ratio. Ofcourse there is factors that surpasses the TTW ratio, it’s not the sole requrements and like it’s said, the Su-25 with it’s STOL performance can takeoff (without armaments) form the ski-jump without having TTW ratio better than 1.
The Russians have a portable ski jump that is used on damaged airfields so aircraft can takeoff over a shorter distances. The whole point of a ski jump is to change the vector of an object from pure horizontal to slightly upwards. The same for Su-25s, Su-33s and skiers on a ski jump. The difference is that while a ski jump throws a ski jumper into the air the main propulsion of a skier is gravity so when a skier gets airborne they lose power and fall back to earth. For an aircraft their propulsion goes with them and keeps accelerating them… as long as they have passed stall speed they will remain airborne. Thrust to weight ratio has nothing to do with it.
So stall speed has nothing to do with thrust? The take-off distance or required speed has nothing to do with thrusts? I admitt i’m quite noob when it comes to aerodynamics (exspecially their proper english terms) so can you enlighten me about the basic idea of getting things airbrone…cos I always tought it needs thrust… :confused:
Those who thinks Me and Conway are wrong, provide me evidence that Su-33 can take-off from the Kuznetsov with maxium playload (TTW ratio lower than 1).
Gollevainenwell Holopainen& co. are still looking for new (female) lead singer,…who knows perhaps they migth produce a hit and gain popularity over listeners not familar to their music otherwise…well it would mean big audience in UK or US…in here (where last two albums spend weeks in number one), their tale is over
but doing that, would require switch to more listener favorable direction, and that would mean more popish tunes, and less metal 🙁
Gollevainenwell Holopainen& co. are still looking for new (female) lead singer,…who knows perhaps they migth produce a hit and gain popularity over listeners not familar to their music otherwise…well it would mean big audience in UK or US…in here (where last two albums spend weeks in number one), their tale is over
but doing that, would require switch to more listener favorable direction, and that would mean more popish tunes, and less metal 🙁
GollevainenNow i haven’t misinturpreting what the Conway said, it clearly says ski-jump enables jets to take off with thrust-to-weight ratio better than one. Period.
And as someone is too lazy to read my other posts, let me quote it once more…”The alternative chosen was a 12 degree ski-jump deck. That suffices to launch modern jet aircraft, which have thrust-to-weight ratio better than 1. Operations from such a deck broadly resemble those of pre-jet carriers, whose aircrafts frequently made rolling take-offs.”
The Su-25 issue has wondered me also, I’ve seen a film where the frogfoot takes of and it seems that the plane is airbrone even before it hits the actual ski-jump 😮 Only thing that have comed to my mind is the already existing STOL ability of the Frogfoot. I cannot be sure tough. But it seems the only reasonable option. That means that the TTW ratio doesen’t have to be better than 1 if the plane posses already some STOL ability, which however isen’t the Su-33s natural benefits.
You also must remember, that the SKi-jump isen’t fitted in Kuznetsov so that Su-33 or any other conventional jet can lift off. It was a result of political armwrestling which ended up to the V/STOL plane lobbers benefits. Orginally there was a plan that Kuznetsov would have a catabults, but the some partyes in soviet union leadership was very unkeen to field conventional carrier for various reasons. Added with overstatwed high hopes for the new Yak-41 V/STOL plane, soviets decided to select it as the main combat aircraft type and thus deleting the catabults (The abcent of catabults weren’t as it’s often tought, a unableness of soviets to produce one) and adding a Ski-jump so the new V/STOL plane could take-off with more weight.
It was only afterwards noticed that the newest conventional fighters could also operate from the carrier using the ski-jump due it’s long flight deck and the high thrust of the planes engines. So the ski-jump in general was a comfort solution not the ideal one for launching Su-33s.
And before you come and shout “where’s that based on..” I can say it’s from russian sources, more specificly from a book about kuznetsov, I try to find out it’s name later on today…
GollevainenDoesn’t this just say that modern jet have a t/w ratio better than one? I mean, it is not clear that this is required for t/o by ski-jump
Well the phrase before that was “Alternative chosen was a 12-degree Ski-jump deck. That suffices….”
That leaves no questions to me…anyway this required thrust-to-weight ratio is mentioned in other sources as well. Are you (or other unbelivers) stating that Conway has got it wrong? Basing on what?
The Sea Harrier uses a ski jump to take off with full fuel and full weapons instead of taking off vertically because it can’t take off vertically with a full fuel and weapons load. Doesn’t that suggest that a sea harrier can take off without a thrust ratio of less than 1 to 1?
Sea harriers, Forgers and Yak-41 when performing takeoffs with the maxium load from the ski-jump (or just normal rolling take-offs) uses it’s nozzles angled to gain more lift…
GollevainenEver heard of Sentenced?
Ofcourse…
I think that by throwing Tarja out of the group they got rid of one of the reasons they were so good.
exactly, remembering what happened to Van Halen after David Lee Roths departing…
GollevainenEver heard of Sentenced?
Ofcourse…
I think that by throwing Tarja out of the group they got rid of one of the reasons they were so good.
exactly, remembering what happened to Van Halen after David Lee Roths departing…
GollevainenI find that surprising. Can you give an exact quote?
“….That suffices to launch modern jet aircrafts, which have thrust-to-weight ratios better than 1” (Page 373)
You tought i was pulling that from the hat?
Gollevainentoo bad that nigthwish tale is over…it could have been our number one ‘export’ product….
Gollevainentoo bad that nigthwish tale is over…it could have been our number one ‘export’ product….
GollevainenI have read nothing that suggests to me that the Su-33 cannot take off at full weight from the rear launch postion on the Kunetsov. The fact that it has never been seen takig of with more than training missiles means nothing, it is not a strike aircraft… there are twelve strike aircraft on board the Kuznetsov and they are stored under the main deck in vertical launch tubes. The only Su-25s on board are for training pilots to land on a moving deck.
Acording to various sources including Conway’s all the worlds fighting ships 1947-1995 states that taking of from ski-jump needs thrust-to-weight ratio to be better than one. Now Su-33s MTW is 70,546 lb, and the maxium thrust with afterburners is around 55,114 lbs so here you go…
Sign In
