Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Military Photos & Videos
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

-77689755705287080691.jpg

-7768975570528708069.jpg

Ural_Taifun_V-day_parade_Yekaterinburg.jpg

Kamaz_Taifun_at_trials.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Bad landing @ Kuzentzov - Su33 Abort

This is a discussion on Bad landing @ Kuzentzov - Su33 Abort within the Military Photos & Videos forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I just though of this... The Su-33 was able to pulls this off in part because of its proxmity to ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old March 11th, 2010   #16
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Kilo 2-3's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 288
Threads:
I just though of this...

The Su-33 was able to pulls this off in part because of its proxmity to the deck. Those massive engines were basically pushing agaisnt the hard barrier of the deck, giving the jet a very nice burst of added apparant thrust.

Had the pilot tried to do this maneuever at greater altitude, he probably would have fallen out of the sky.
Kilo 2-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2010   #17
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
It wouldn't have been necessary at altitude.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2010   #18
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
Haavarla's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 787
Threads:
Regardless of the Thrust on those AL-31F.
The Su-33 with those Carnards have even better low speed handeling vs a Su-27.
And the Su-27 have very good low speed handeling, this goes to show on those two vids here..
Hense, the Su-33 work nicly on Carrier
Too bad the Russian doesn't field a somewhat larger Carrier with larger deck.
That would fix the low weapon and fuel take-off weight on the Su-33.




Thanks

Last edited by Haavarla; March 25th, 2010 at 06:24 AM.
Haavarla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2010   #19
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Kilo 2-3's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 288
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
Too bad the Russian doesn't field a somewhat larger Carrier with larger a deck.
That would fix the low weapon and fuel weight on the Su-33.
Perhaps a better solution would be a proper CATOBAR carrier, although the extra deck space you propose would certainly be useful on Russian carriers.
Kilo 2-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:33 PM.