Su39 carrier landing capabilities in 1.1 ?

[IKG200 Swierczek]

Hi all! :)

I would like to address in-game Su39 carrier landing capabilities.

As all of you know, in LOMAC 1.02 Su39 (which is an export version of Su25TM) is able to land on the Kuzniecow's deck, despite it has no arrestor hook.

 

What is even more unrealistic, arrestor cables behave like there would be arrestor hook in the aircraft's equipment. I mean it catches the plane and stretches while stopping it (screens on demand :) )

 

Well ... the only one existing carrier Su25 version is Su25UBK, while Su25K project was terminated ...

 

So the question arises ... will Su39 be able to land on CV in 1.1 or it is corrected, according to the real-world data?

 

Yes I know there was short in-game video footage from 1.1 showing carrier landing in su25T ... but this was more stuntman's feat than real-like carrier landing :D

 

well..?

 

another question is whether su39 should be represented in game, if it is not in service ... :roll:

[Alfa]

Hi,

 

The Su-39/Su-25TM will not be able to land on carriers in Lock-on 1.1. It will be represented the way it should be - as a further developed version of the Su-25T anti-tank aircraft equipped with the Kopyo-25 radar pod. :)

 

The sceneario you describe with streching of arrestor cables has nothing to do with the Su-39 as such, but with how the sim engine works - you can get any AI aircraft to land on carriers in that way simply by changing a few lines in the MEinit.xml.....and remove the capability again by removing those lines ;) .

 

Well ... the only one existing carrier Su25 version is Su25UBK, while Su25K project was terminated ...

 

Incorrect. The only existing carrier capable Su-25 version is called Su-25UTG("Uchebno-Trenirovochnyi Gakovyi"), which is an unarmed two-seat version for carrier training.

 

"Su-25K" is an export designation for the "baseline" Su-25, while "Su-25UBK" is an export designation for the Su-25UB combat trainer version.

 

...another question is whether su39 should be represented in game, if it is not in service

 

The answer to that question is yes :D

[IKG200 Swierczek]

That's it :D

 

I was not aware of other planes carrier landing capabilities :wink:

 

of course you are right as for abbreviations (I mean present abbreviations) - I made it ad hoc in my head as carrier (K) version of training (UB) aircraft :D

But this was correct for the '70ties.

 

This "K" in russian abbreviations is pretty tricky as it stands for "naval" sometimes (e.g. MiG29K), but also for "commercial" :D

 

So Su25K currently stands for export version of Su 25 I agree. But initially (mid '70ties) this was the designation for planned ship-based version (factory designation T8-K). UBK was the abbreviation standing for planned training version of the plane then. But after the idea of Su25K (naval) was abandoned, the abbreviations gained other meanings. That's the story :D

 

Does Su39 is used in any AFs at the moment? i dont know to be honest

[Alfa]

This "K" in russian abbreviations is pretty tricky as it stands for "naval" sometimes (e.g. MiG29K), but also for "commercial"

 

Yes thats correct, but you will find that the position of the "K" in the suffix is different ...e.g. for the MiG-29K, the planned two-seat version of this(9-47) is called "MiG-29KUB" :) .

 

Another example..

 

Export version of Su-27UB = "Su-27UBK"

 

Two-seat combat trainer version of Su-27K(Su-33) = "Su-27KUB"

 

:)

 

The Su-25TM(Su-39) is not in service yet.

[Yo-Yo]

Re: Su39 carrier landing capabilities in 1.1 ?

 

Hi all! :)

I would like to address in-game Su39 carrier landing capabilities.

As all of you know, in LOMAC 1.02 Su39 (which is an export version of Su25TM) is able to land on the Kuzniecow's deck, despite it has no arrestor hook.

 

What is even more unrealistic, arrestor cables behave like there would be arrestor hook in the aircraft's equipment. I mean it catches the plane and stretches while stopping it (screens on demand :) )

 

Well ... the only one existing carrier Su25 version is Su25UBK, while Su25K project was terminated ...

 

So the question arises ... will Su39 be able to land on CV in 1.1 or it is corrected, according to the real-world data?

 

Yes I know there was short in-game video footage from 1.1 showing carrier landing in su25T ... but this was more stuntman's feat than real-like carrier landing :D

 

well..?

 

another question is whether su39 should be represented in game, if it is not in service ... :roll:

 

There is not only stuntman's trick - the AFM uses the same physics either for airbase/road/offroad or carrier landing. Making very simple calculations one can esimate if Su-25 that has 600 m landing run (chute+brakes) can land on Kuz flightdeck using the ramp for a final stop...

I only wanted to show that if Kuz without any tossing goes at 60 kph speed light weighted Su-25 or even Su-25T can safely land though it breaks the rules.

Realistic physics FM can be a good tool to answer the " what if" questions... :)

 

So my answer will be "Yes". But under some limitations.

[IKG200 Swierczek]

You are absolutely right Alfa. Current designations are developed exactly in the way you have described.

 

Yo-Yo => it's ok with me - this can be possible from the theoretical point of view. Great to be able to prove it in "practice" with physics model developed for 1.1. This throws me to my knees :P :P :P

 

Anybody tried it in real-life ...? :wink:

[Alfa]

Hehe Yo-yo..

 

Making very simple calculations one can esimate if Su-25 that has 600 m landing run (chute+brakes) can land on Kuz flightdeck using the ramp for a final stop

 

Full length of Admiral Kuznetsov from bow to stern is 300 m...

 

I only wanted to show that if Kuz without any tossing goes at 60 kph speed...

 

...and top speed is 29 knots ~ 52 km/h

 

.. light weighted Su-25 or even Su-25T can safely land..

 

Land safely? :shock:

 

...though it breaks the rules.

 

.....some rules have good reasons Yo-yo :twisted:

[Yo-Yo]

But it do lands! :)

 

Remember Galiley...

 

52... 60 - who cares?

 

Alfa, 600 m it's an immobile land for 230 kph landing speed. Use 170 kph for decelerating from but don't forget that chute braking force is produced witth 230 kph airstream. And then the ramp...

 

But you have not a second attempt if you misland.

[Alfa]

But it do lands! :)

 

Remember Galiley...

 

Alfa, 600 m it's an immobile land for 230 kph landing speed. Use 170 kph for decelerating from but don't forget that chute braking force is produced witth 230 kph airstream. And then the ramp...

 

Yo-yo I am not disputing that it is possible to land an Su-25 on the Kuz, but....

 

But you have not a second attempt if you misland.

 

...that it can be done "safely".

 

52... 60 - who cares?

 

The people with an interest in ships - thats who :twisted: .

 

The people who would like to see you reenforce the landing gear and put an arrestor hook on that Su-25T before declaring "safe landings" 8) .

 

...a tandem seat cockpit based on that of the standard Su-25 with the addition of an AOA indicator would be good too ;) .

[Yo-Yo]

Alfa, any guy can land WITH the hook... try to do it WITHOUT. :) Imagine that your hook have failed (or better to say: the hook of your plane) - what would you do? I'll prefer to land rather than bailed out. :)

[SUBS17]

You could land using the crash barrier, if the Kuz has one but then what? Are you going to take off again?

cheers

Subs

[Yo-Yo]

You could land using the crash barrier, if the Kuz has one but then what? Are you going to take off again?

cheers

Subs

 

I mean ramp the planes start from. I guess you haven't see the video :).

Next time I'll make it with the takeoff... :)

[IKG200 Swierczek]

Well ... naval, carrier based aircrafts have to have specific features which land based planes don't have ... the most obvious is arresting hook and reinforced gear, but there are many others ... look at the su33. It is not just flanker with an arresting hook. Basically, it's different aircraft.

 

So even if landing in su25T on the Kuz's deck is theoretically possible from physical point of view (taking into consideration only landing speed/carrier speed/landing run/wind speed/impact of chute, brakes, ramp etc.), this is not naval aircraft definitely.

 

So let's treat this landing (BTW it's perfect 8) ) as the demonstration of advanced physics modelling. I think we all agree nobody would even think about it in real-life.

 

On forums dedicated to other sim there was a little bit similar discussion after demonstration of landing in TB3 and, later, of me262 on carrier's deck :lol: :lol: :lol:

I do hope we'll not discusse MiG31 carrier landing some day :wink: :wink: :wink:

[Yo-Yo]

Well ... naval, carrier based aircrafts have to have specific features which land based planes don't have ... the most obvious is arresting hook and reinforced gear, but there are many others ... look at the su33. It is not just flanker with an arresting hook. Basically, it's different aircraft.

 

So even if landing in su25T on the Kuz's deck is theoretically possible from physical point of view (taking into consideration only landing speed/carrier speed/landing run/wind speed/impact of chute, brakes, ramp etc.), this is not naval aircraft definitely.

 

So let's treat this landing (BTW it's perfect 8) ) as the demonstration of advanced physics modelling. I think we all agree nobody would even think about it in real-life.

 

On forums dedicated to other sim there was a little bit similar discussion after demonstration of landing in TB3 and, later, of me262 on carrier's deck :lol: :lol: :lol:

I do hope we'll not discusse MiG31 carrier landing some day :wink: :wink: :wink:

 

I think you are right... no practice use. But nobody considered B-25 as a naval plane... in real-life.

Besides the undercarriage of Su-25 AFM is modelled within the real plane limitations...

[Kula66]

Have the brakes of the Su-25 been improved? Is it me, or is it difficult to stop on the runway? Also, when you deploy the chute, it seems to have little effect ... I would have thougt it would have slowed the a/c dramtically.

 

James

[IKG200 Swierczek]

"nobody considered B-25 as a naval plane... in real-life"

 

ok ... one single case, start only - no carrier landing planned, with no armour/armament and several other things :wink:

You know the story behind

 

"Besides the undercarriage of Su-25 AFM is modelled within the real plane limitations..."

 

That's great. Really impressive strength 8)

 

I admire the way gear works in 1.1 videos. Stunning modelling indeed

[SUBS17]

I mean ramp the planes start from. I guess you haven't see the video :).

Next time I'll make it with the takeoff... :)

 

Yep I've seen the video, I'm talking in real life!

[RvETito]

Land an Su-25 on the ship? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

That's for ladies :oops: :oops: :oops:

 

What about landing a damn Su-27 on the Kuz? I've done this in Flanker 2.51(there's a track if someone is interested).

 

But I agree with Alfa- this is insane and against any flight safety. After crashing a dozen of Flankers and finaly made it in one piece I was not happy :?: :!: :?:

I was just angry to myself for doing something so foolish and pointless. But I was in a bad period :D :D :D

[Yo-Yo]

Land an Su-25 on the ship? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

That's for ladies :oops: :oops: :oops:

 

What about landing a damn Su-27 on the Kuz? I've done this in Flanker 2.51(there's a track if someone is interested).

 

But I agree with Alfa- this is insane and against any flight safety. After crashing a dozen of Flankers and finaly made it in one piece I was not happy :?: :!: :?:

I was just angry to myself for doing something so foolish and pointless. But I was in a bad period :D :D :D

 

Don't consider Su-27 2.51 as good physic model though... can you do it in 1.02? :) With new data?

[Alfa]

Well ... naval, carrier based aircrafts have to have specific features which land based planes don't have ... the most obvious is arresting hook and reinforced gear, but there are many others ... look at the su33. It is not just flanker with an arresting hook. Basically, it's different aircraft.

 

So even if landing in su25T on the Kuz's deck is theoretically possible from physical point of view (taking into consideration only landing speed/carrier speed/landing run/wind speed/impact of chute, brakes, ramp etc.), this is not naval aircraft definitely.

 

So let's treat this landing (BTW it's perfect 8) ) as the demonstration of advanced physics modelling. I think we all agree nobody would even think about it in real-life.

 

On forums dedicated to other sim there was a little bit similar discussion after demonstration of landing in TB3 and, later, of me262 on carrier's deck :lol: :lol: :lol:

I do hope we'll not discusse MiG31 carrier landing some day :wink: :wink: :wink:

 

Thank you Swierczek!

 

My point exactly :)

[Alfa]

Yo-yo wrote:

Alfa, any guy can land WITH the hook...

 

Tell that to the guy in this video :lol:

 

http://forum.vif2.ru:2003/nvk/forum/files/Alexanderk/kuzneccov.avi

 

....try to do it WITHOUT. Imagine that your hook have failed (or better to say: the hook of your plane) - what would you do? I'll prefer to land rather than bailed out.

 

Yo-yo...

 

You dont bail out if the hook fails to deploy or grab a wire. Real carrier approaches are conducted in the way they are exactly to allow you to take off again if that situation occurs - i.e. engines are powered up to max at the point of hitting the deck to retain maximum momentum in case the hook fails to grab a wire - hence the reason why you need the hook to stop you from continiuing over the side of the ship.

 

What you do in your Su-25 landing is to cut power, apply full brakes and employ the chute once hitting the deck.....thats a "no-no" Yo-yo(lol) - and virtually the opposite of what you would do in a real carrier landing. So I fail to see how that can be used to train a "hook failure" in a realistic way :)

 

That is in fact my whole damn point. :D

 

The way real carrier approaches are conducted also means that the "touch down" is rather "violent"(hence the need for reencorced landing gear) as compared to what it would be if you had 3 km of landing strip available to set your aircraft down gently on the runway........i.e. in a way that wouldnt cause your landing gear to collapse and your tires to blow as you are skidding along sideways down the strip ;)....Yo-yo :twisted: .

 

Anyway, the topic of this thread was a question about whether the AI-only Su-39 entry in Lock-on 1.1 continiues to be incorrectly assigned with carrier landing capability.

 

The answer to that question is: no it isnt :) . Meaning that it is no longer possible to assign a carrier as a landing waypoint for it in the editor. And since it isnt player controllable, it isnt possible to do "a Yo-yo" with it either 8)

[Alfa]

Hi Tito - good to see you here mate :D

 

What about landing a damn Su-27 on the Kuz? I've done this in Flanker 2.51(there's a track if someone is interested).

 

Yes I remember that :D

 

But as Yo-yo mentioned, it probably wouldnt be possible, or at least considerably harder, in Lock-on :)

 

So for what it is worth, his Su-25 landing on the Kuz is quite impressive.... but then he should know the flight characteristics of it better than most people ;)

[Alfa]

Have the brakes of the Su-25 been improved? Is it me, or is it difficult to stop on the runway? Also, when you deploy the chute, it seems to have little effect ... I would have thougt it would have slowed the a/c dramtically.

 

James

 

Hi James,

 

The wheel brake of the Su-25 and Su-25T are quite "weak" on the real aircraft and have nowhere near the effect that you find on the MiG-29 or Su-27.

 

So increasing the effect of the Su-25/Su-25T wheel brake in the sim would not be an improvement in regards to realism.

 

Perhaps Yo-yo can elaborate further on this?

[Kula66]

Thanks Alpha, if that's how it is in real life, thats fine by me! What about the braking chute? I would have thought that would have a major effect - but I'm no pilot!

 

James

[SAM-Smasher]

But I agree with Alfa- this is insane and against any flight safety.

 

And that is why it is such a good laugh, but my good friends try an approach from the front of a carrier that is insanity in itself and not very safe to boot. :twisted: :D