is this real?

[KTLeth_61]

Is this a real foto?

[EtherealN]

Yes.

[Wags]

Actually, I got to fly the simulator for it when visiting Edwards AFB years ago.

[EtherealN]

I'm now officially envious of you. :)

[Avilator]

Add another to the envious list.:D

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_STOL/MTD

[Vekkinho]

too bad those 3d nozzles never got into active service with F-15...

[GGTharos]

Why too bad?

 

1. Additional cost to equip

2. A lot of additional maintenance

3. Additional weight (fuel use)

4. Never needed in actual combat so far

 

Nifty, but not useful for the time being - just an extra expense with no real benefit.

[Sov13t]

4. Never needed in actual combat so far

 

Nifty, but not useful for the time being - just an extra expense with no real benefit.

 

That particular reason comes up a lot in military tech... thrust vectoring is definitely not an iWin button... but with proper use and knowledge base it can prove to be "needed". The Indians at Red Flag abused vectoring so much that it was detrimental to the performance of their birds in dog fights... but as I understand it the F-22 pilots with proper and more training are able to utilize it quite nicely now in CAC.

[GGTharos]

Sort of. You can certainly do a lot in BFM with thrust vectoring, but you need to have the thrust to sustain your maneuvers - otherwise it can easily end up less than useful.

 

If you are referring to what I think you are referring - the actual point made was that the Raptor pilots went for their insane STR and the TVC was either not engaged or not operating at very high deflection (it is used to eliminate trim drag, but since we don't know the control laws, we don't know how/when). The Indian pilots apparently attempted to hang everything on a pull the stick back as far as it goes aproach instead - without airspeed, sitting there in front of another jet, no amount of TVC will save you (I know you know this Soviet, this is for our other readers ) since you are simply unable to move the aircraft out of the way of anything, be it cannon fire or missile.

 

'But but but Kulbit!' Great! Too bad you're STILL IN THE SAME PLACE IN SPACE! :)

Edited August 5, 2011 by GGTharos

[PeterP]

This is something similar what the Crazy Germans made in the 90s:

ROCKWELL X-31

http://astroaviator.com/2010/12/17/ten-most-famous-x-planes/

X-31 is a U.S-German research project designed to test fighter thrust vectoring technology. Thrust vectoring is technology which enables the aircraft to change it’s direction using the exhaust thrust thus increasing aircraft manoeuvrability. Advance flight control systems in X-31 also provide stable flight during high angle of attack where conventional aircrafts would stall. Two experimental aircrafts were built and the first first flight took place on October 11, 1990. In 1995 one of the two aircraft crashed during an experimental flight in Edwards AFB, CA.

[nscode]

 

'But but but Kulbit!' Great! Too bad you're STILL IN THE SAME PLACE IN SPACE! :)

 

Yeah.. maybe in the awfull slow mo way that F-22 try to do it :harhar: ;)

 

 

And can you actually quantify those additional maintenance, cost and weight if it's done like on 15ACTIVE or SU - essentially a modified variable geometry nossle? The biggest difference being that actuators can move indendantly. I can see what you're talking about if it's more like an addon, such this F-16 mod.

Edited August 5, 2011 by nscode

[aaron886]

Maybe in the way every airplane "tries to do it."

[GGTharos]

But for an F-15 you'd need a whole new flight control system probably.

 

When it's designed in from the start like you said - a bit different, but this is a problematic part. Notice for example how the F-15's had the turkey feathers removed because they added minimal benefit compared to having to replace them.

 

And can you actually quantify those additional maintenance, cost and weight if it's done like on 15ACTIVE or SU - essentially a modified variable geometry nossle? The biggest difference being that actuators can move indendantly. I can see what you're talking about if it's more like an addon, such this F-16 mod.

[nscode]

Yes.. in the end, it's on case by case basis. If you're already doing an upgrade, or a new aircraft, I don't see a reason not to include it. If you can't sqeese it in, and it seems you are loosing on other fields because of it, I guess that just makes you a bad designer :) And I don't consider it to be a cobra* either.

 

*from Latin

cobra, cobris : magic

;)

Edited August 5, 2011 by nscode

[mikoyan]

The vista modifications also had adverse effects on some parts of the performance of the eagle; like lower roll rate due to the canards; lower top speed, some stability decrease and increased cost; but what I can't understand why on earth the russians where able to do it on their su-30 and America can't.

I figure that boeing could add tvc without canards (since the short runway take off may not be needed ) to the silent eagle with more powerful engines.

Instead of buying more raptors they could build more vista eagles with the all the pertinent avionics updates; that way you would have a fighter capable of covering the gap created by the lack of raptors. Look at it this way; no one other than the US has operational stealth jets. Probably China is the the only country capable of building as many and provably more stealth jets than The US; but no matter how good they are; it will take them some time to accomplish that.

The problem with canceling programs like the raptor is that you loose the know how and you could get caught with your pants down like it happened in WWII; where several allied countries had less advanced weapons than the germans because no one though that a conflict could erupt.

[nscode]

If you look at big scale conflict scenarios (and ignore the fact that you probably won't need any weapons after the initial total destruction of the planet) than you have to have your planes in numbers before hand. Pulling people out of furniture bussiness to make airplanes just ain't gonna cut it with todays complex machines.

[Cupra]

The Grumman X-29 is also a funny jet looking quite strange... :thumbup:

[rextar]

Why too bad?

 

1. Additional cost to equip

2. A lot of additional maintenance

3. Additional weight (fuel use)

4. Never needed in actual combat so far

 

Nifty, but not useful for the time being - just an extra expense with no real benefit.

 

Of course its needed the f22 is unmatched.