Did this actually happen or is it just propaganda nonsense?

[cichlidfan]

Need more popcorn!

[Kuky]

Clearly you don't understand the concept of "energy."

erm... you couldn't be more wrong ... and as a fact I am talking about KE ;) If you get slow you lose airflow over surfaces that are the only thing helping you move the nose around... you lose that airflow you can't move the nose... this is where TVC helps to overcome this issue of loss of KE and loss of airflow over wing surfaces.

 

Look at the post I was replying to: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1540854&postcount=34

 

Kuky was talking about cobra-like maneuvers, unless I am greatly mistaken. He's talking about losing too much energy from using the VT, and that won't occur from your VT roll boost example--only from things like the crazy maneuvers you see at air shows. I can't stress enough that I'm not saying that VT isn't useful, and I'm not even saying that it isn't useful in air combat--I'm only saying that it isn't the Holy Grail of air combat maneuvering, the way some people are (e.g. Kuky saying that Russian VT aircraft are able to regain lost E after a cobra better than the Raptor can).

 

In short (and I'm hoping we can wrap this up, because it's starting to look less like an exchange of knowledge and more like a contest of some sort): vectored thrust has its uses, and these make it worthwhile for an aircraft to have vectored thrust, but over-using VTC in air combat can be a very bad idea. Some people do not realize this--for those who do, I apologize for preaching to the proverbial choir.

 

I WASN'T talking about cobra manouvers at all, I was talking about being able to move the nose around with help of engine nozzles (using force action-reaction). Cobra can be done without TVC and it's because the aerodynamic of airframe (we're talking regular Su-27 without TVC) allows for such manouvre simply by disabling AoA limiter and pulling on the stick all the way suddenly.

 

Bottom line is, TVC is designed for conditions where you cannot use convetional aerodynamics to turn the aircraft... it's equivalent to rocket boosters on space ships/shuttle (because there is no AIR in space, but there is always good ol' law of physics of action/reaction).

 

At high altitude TVC indeed can be useful where AGAING you don't have enough airflow (because of less denser air) which is equivalent to low and slow conditions. in such condition where you could pull max on the stick and not over-G airframe and/or pilot and still not being able to turn well, this is where TVC can help to move the nose around, but if you have lot of speed and you can pull max G, TVC is USELESS... end of story.

[VAOZoky]

Need more popcorn!

 

:drunk:

[wilky510]

PS - The F-35 is shit though. Dont let people fool you, 560 sq-ft wing area, 50,000+ lb aircraft, and ~35,000 lb thrust in burner... what happened?

 

For perspective, the F-16 is 10 times less loud than the F-35, weighs ~35,000lb in combat trim with ~29,000lb of thrust in burner, and has 300 sq-ft of wing. The relative size of the control surfaces is greater (we are talking % of surface area CS to % surface area total), and the F-16 can maintain its energy generally much better than the F-35 can as a result.

43,000 lb thrust in burner, and the F-135 is downrated from 51,000 lb (it's been pushed even higher) for parts lasting longer. the engine is 29,000-30,000 lb on dry thrust, the same thrust as the F-16 engines in BURNER. You're right the aircraft is overweight. But it's nothing in a few years that can be fixed. If they find parts, that last just as long in the near future allowing the engine to be ran at max thrust without hurting the parts lasting longer, the F-35 isn't such a bad aircraft.

 

It's the price they had to pay for fuel, just an example. With 50% fuel the aircraft is almost at 1.07 with full burner on. They tried to make an F-16 class aircraft with 19,000+lb of fuel and honestly that's too much.

 

This aircraft is far from shit, it actually has alot of advantages that an F-22A doesn't have... HOBs + AIM-9X combo, an advanced IRST; better electronic fusion... etc.

[EtherealN]

The closest we really get is fighting Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, etc. and getting to see their aircraft that way.

 

Germany does not operate any russian aircraft. I'f you're thinking about the migs inherited from the DDR, they were sold to Poland ~8 years ago. Also, though I'm not 100% on this, I believe Bulgaria and Romania has their Fulcrums in storage, and own no Flankers.

 

I'd say the most useful "practice" takes place with the Poles (for Fulcrums) and Indians (for Flankers).

[marcos]

PS - The F-35 is shit though. Dont let people fool you, 560 sq-ft wing area, 50,000+ lb aircraft, and ~35,000 lb thrust in burner... what happened?

 

For perspective, the F-16 is 10 times less loud than the F-35, weighs ~35,000lb in combat trim with ~29,000lb of thrust in burner, and has 300 sq-ft of wing. The relative size of the control surfaces is greater (we are talking % of surface area CS to % surface area total), and the F-16 can maintain its energy generally much better than the F-35 can as a result.

Where the hell did you get those figures? The only figures from proper sources suggest that 34,000lbf dry and 50,000lbf in burner is still the target spec. and 49,000lb is the weight with a collossal (relative to size) 20,000lb internal fuel load. The wing area is small but larger than that of a MiG-35 and wing loadings with 14,000lb of fuel each (max. internal fuel for MiG-35) are not too different. The slightly higher wing loading with equal fuel will probably make for slightly worse turning, before you factor in lift engines, but the climb rate will likely be better based on higher TTW with 14,000lb of fuel and less drag relative to thrust in climb (which is the one advantage of high wing loading).

Edited September 1, 2012 by marcos

[aaron886]

erm... you couldn't be more wrong ... and as a fact I am talking about KE ;) If you get slow you lose airflow over surfaces that are the only thing helping you move the nose around... you lose that airflow you can't move the nose... this is where TVC helps to overcome this issue of loss of KE and loss of airflow over wing surfaces.

 

No, you're still talking nonsense. Energy is a concept to quantify maneuvering potential, and as such it encompasses both kinetic and potential energy. An aircraft can convert altitude into airspeed, which is considered a transfer of energy. For a pilot, altitude is so intrinsically tied to airspeed that the distinction is blurry.

 

An aircraft turning at low Q by means of thrust vectoring would be said to have a low energy state. You've heard people say an aircraft in that situation is a sitting duck? That's why.

 

and 49,000lb is the weight with a collossal (relative to size) 20,000lb internal fuel load.

 

Can we just take a moment to appreciate how much stinkin gas that is? The Navy has been flying Hornets for decades that only pack 10,869 lb. (And with less efficient cruise ability)

 

And worth noting... wing loading is not the sole determining factor of turn performance. Just thought I'd get that out there. :D

[marcos]

Can we just take a moment to appreciate how much stinkin gas that is? The Navy has been flying Hornets for decades that only pack 10,869 lb. (And with less efficient cruise ability)

 

And worth noting... wing loading is not the sole determining factor of turn performance. Just thought I'd get that out there. :D

It's roughly the same amount of gas as the F-22 which has an empty weight about 50% more than the F-35 and 2 huge engines to feed.

 

True, wing loading does affect how fast you can sustain a turn at a given g-load without losing speed or altitude though.

[EtherealN]

Can we just take a moment to appreciate how much stinkin gas that is?

 

Had an argument with my visiting brother today about F-35 vs JAS-39, and I'll note that this is a greater weight in fuel than what the JAS-39 itself weighs... Truly colossal.

[marcos]

Had an argument with my visiting brother today about F-35 vs JAS-39, and I'll note that this is a greater weight in fuel than what the JAS-39 itself weighs... Truly colossal.

More than the empty weight of an F-16 too.

[aaron886]

Had an argument with my visiting brother today about F-35 vs JAS-39, and I'll note that this is a greater weight in fuel than what the JAS-39 itself weighs... Truly colossal.

 

Wow. Now that's an interesting statistic.

[marcos]

So the F-35 is carrying a Gripen.

 

That actually gives me an idea. Take a strategic bomber that needs a fighter escort but fighters are short range, so load the fighters on the bombers pylons and release when in trouble.

[aaron886]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_aircraft

 

:music_whistling:

[Pilotasso]

The JAS 39 has been around for almost 20 years and fulfills a totally different role. I have a book from 1991 with a chapter describing it already.

[EtherealN]

The JAS 39 has been around for almost 20 years and fulfills a totally different role. I have a book from 1991 with a chapter describing it already.

 

You should see the hype going on over here for the E/F upgrade. It's an F-22 killer I tell you! :P

[marcos]

You should see the hype going on over here for the E/F upgrade. It's an F-22 killer I tell you! :P

Well if you don't want to fork out for an F-22, the Typhoon is as good a fighter aircraft as you'll get.

[marcos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_aircraft

 

:music_whistling:

My invention foiled again.

[Kuky]

No, you're still talking nonsense. Energy is a concept to quantify maneuvering potential, and as such it encompasses both kinetic and potential energy. An aircraft can convert altitude into airspeed, which is considered a transfer of energy. For a pilot, altitude is so intrinsically tied to airspeed that the distinction is blurry.

 

An aircraft turning at low Q by means of thrust vectoring would be said to have a low energy state. You've heard people say an aircraft in that situation is a sitting duck? That's why.

 

Well to tell me I don't understand concept of energy is bit over the top, and you failed fully because you're still talking KE which with TVC aircraft DOESN'T NEED because TVC is used for when aircraft is no longer within conventional aerodynamic flight envelope. If you still don't get it I can't help you any more.

[marcos]

Well to tell me I don't understand concept of energy is bit over the top, and you failed fully because you're still talking KE which with TVC aircraft DOESN'T NEED because TVC is used for when aircraft is no longer within conventional aerodynamic flight envelope. If you still don't get it I can't help you any more.

Come on, it still needs KE in a dogfight irrelevant of TV. If it has no KE, its initial rate of climb will be lower for a start, so if its lost its energy in a TV stall turn then it won't be able to follow another aircraft that then climbs and will have to pick up KE before that aircraft dives back down.

 

You don't necessarily need KE to pivot about with TV but you sure still need it to climb and actually keep up with other aircraft. As I've said before, TV is useful for surviving if someone is very close, you can perform a very tight turn but you will lose KE as you do and you won't be able to follow the aircraft that was immediately behind you. You might get a quick shot, but that's it, and if another aircraft further away has you in their sights, you then have no KE to get away and you are essentially a sitting duck. After TV is used your ability to manoeuvre conventionally is deteriorated until you recoup your specific excess energy/power (Es/SEP), which is a measure indicative of an aircraft's available climb rate, acceleration and ability to maintain a level turn at altitude. If you lose KE at altitude, sure you can control the pitch of your aircraft for a while, but sooner or later you're going to have to either go down, or point your plane vertically upwards, because your wings will no longer lift you. So yes, TV is useful at altitude when you are no longer going fast enough to sustain lift, but it can also promote that situation and it's not a good situation that you want to promote too often.

Edited September 2, 2012 by marcos

[Kuky]

well you're talking about 2v1 here... what if its 2v2? In this case both aircraft with TVC can engage (and win) other 2 aircraft... and they don't need to keep up with them if they go high... the goal in CAC is to get a kill ASAP, not to prance around, so when aircraft with TVC can make 1 turn and get his nose on the enemy, even if enemy has more energy and goes into climb, it's been demonstrated that Russian TVC aircraft can keep their nose up even if having zero speed (your KE) and get a kill on that aircraft that is climbing away... and it's over for them.

 

You guys think KE is life, well it's not in this case... I keep mentioning that in dogfight (1v1) aircraft with TVC do not need to keep speed and KE in order to bring nose onto enemy... and you are still missing this point. If you want to talk 2v1 you give aircraft with TVC disadvantage in begining because everyone knows fighting 2 alone in CAC is normally bad outcome for the single guy... but even then the single aircraft can get a shot on one of the oponents and then it's 1v1... so I would want to bet my money on aircratf with TVC to be better in this regard any day.

 

Bottom line is... TVC gives control and authority to move the nose onto enemy even when you have no speed and airflow over wings, it gives control that aerodynamics can't... if you think being slow in dogfight is worse then being able to point nose into enemy and get a shot... you are wrong.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Kuky

[marcos]

well you're talking about 2v1 here... what if its 2v2? In this case both aircraft with TVC can engage (and win) other 2 aircraft... and they don't need to keep up with them if they go high... the goal in CAC is to get a kill ASAP, not to prance around, so when aircraft with TVC can make 1 turn and get his nose on the enemy, even if enemy has more energy and goes into climb, it's been demonstrated that Russian TVC aircraft can keep their nose up even if having zero speed (your KE) and get a kill on that aircraft that is climbing away... and it's over for them.

Never that straight forward, especially where large numbers of aircraft are involved. Aircraft do not split off into fighting couples in a gentlemanly fashion. Aircraft will go after the nearest enemy, and if one has their arse hanging in the breeze mid-TV, his arse won't be in the breeze for long. You're also underestimating how difficult it is to keep the nose pointed at a climbing and manoeuvring target during TV. By that assumption, something like an Su-37 with 2D TV could just sit in one spot, and point at one aircraft after another until they're all gone. Aircraft are not that stable or precise in TV. You have to provide thrust for lift and pivot because you're essentially in a stalled configuration and that isn't possible without dedicated lift engines and separate TV pivot engines. Something like a Harrier or F-35 is probably closer to this ability but still not completely there.

 

You guys think KE is life, well it's not in this case... I keep mentioning that in dogfight (1v1) aircraft with TVC do not need to keep speed and KE in order to bring nose onto enemy... and you are still missing this point. If you want to talk 2v1 you give aircraft with TVC disadvantage in begining because everyone knows fighting 2 alone in CAC is normally bad outcome for the single guy... but even then the single aircraft can get a shot on one of the oponents and then it's 1v1... so I would want to bet my money on aircratf with TVC to be better in this regard any day.

This thinking is simplistic for the reasons mentioned already. The idea of an aircraft sitting stationary and pointing about like a Kashtan on amphetamine has no application in reality. It would be more helpful to think of it as a situation where, using TV, the enemy might temporarily flashing across in front of your sights, if you're lucky. After that they're gone, but you have at least temporarily escaped being killed yourself by performing the manoeuvre.

 

Bottom line is... TVC gives control and authority to move the nose onto enemy even when you have no speed and airflow over wings, it gives control that aerodynamics can't... if you think being slow in dogfight is worse then being able to point nose into enemy and get a shot... you are wrong.

It gives some control when aerodynamics can't, but it doesn't turn your aircraft into a airbourne turret. Both speed and directional control are important but if being able to point was more important than KE, all fighter jets would be helicopters.

[Pilotasso]

 

You guys think KE is life, well it's not in this case... I keep mentioning that in dogfight (1v1) aircraft with TVC do not need to keep speed and KE in order to bring nose onto enemy... and you are still missing this point. If you want to talk 2v1 you give aircraft with TVC disadvantage in begining because everyone knows fighting 2 alone in CAC is normally bad outcome for the single guy... but even then the single aircraft can get a shot on one of the oponents and then it's 1v1... so I would want to bet my money on aircratf with TVC to be better in this regard any day.

 

Wishfull thinking. One manuever doenst work equally well for 2 enemy opposing aircraft at the same time if they are in 2 different positions in a furball (angle off, aspect angle, altitude, speed). Even if you could get a shot off on the first, his wingman would almost certainly get you while recovering, from another direction.

 

when you use TVC past angle of attack limit, you sease to manuever, you are turning the nose around but direction of motion doesnt change much, worse you start dropping like a leaf.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Pilotasso

[Kuky]

So in your case in 2v1 scenario its BETTER to just keep turning and be fast and not use TVC to get a quick shot on 1 guy then fight the other in much more faviourable 1v1? Don't know about you buy in 2v1 you shouln't stand a chance as long as the guy you are charing and fighting in turns is good enough not to get shot, his wingman who you can't chase at the same time will get you :D I don't know how this precious little time you have before being smacked by the wingman while you keep your KE and turn, is better then getting a shot off at one in minimal time then have 1v1 against wingman... really, the thinking behind your arguments do not make sense. I guess TVC is useless and "smart" people that developed it wasted their time.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Kuky

[marcos]

So in your case in 2v1 scenario its BETTER to just keep turning and be fast and not use TVC to get a quick shot on 1 guy then fight the other in much more faviourable 1v1? Don't know about you buy in 2v1 you shouln't stand a chance as long as the guy you are charing and fighting in turns is good enough not to get shot, his wingman who you can't chase at the same time will get you :D I don't know how this precious little time you have before being smacked by the wingman while you keep your KE and turn, is better then getting a shot off at one in minimal time then have 1v1 against wingman... really, the thinking behind your arguments do not make sense. I guess TVC is useless and "smart" people that developed it wasted their time.

You need to try visualise what you're describing happening as you see it. You can't stabilise the aircraft pointing in one direction for any length of time during stall with TV and you sure as hell can't point it exactly where you want.

 

You can rotate it in the pitch direction but that's it. You can't stabilise at any given pitch in stall because (a) no lift, and (b) the engines would have to flick back and forth to stop rotation in one direction. Aerodynamic surfaces won't work well because you're either in stall or flying backwards or whatever, so roll control is limited, and you have no TV in the yaw direction but even if you did, the former would apply.

 

So the only advantage to TV is avoiding getting killed temporarily and maybe getting a brief chance at a gun shot. The idea that you can simply rotate your aircraft to focus on the enemy precisely at any time whilst you lock an AIM-9X only holds for Top Gun 2, which doesn't even exist.

Edited September 2, 2012 by marcos

[Kuky]

erm... the F-22 doesn't have TVC in yaw, the MiG-35, Su-30MKI, Su-35 and Su-37 do ;) Anyway, I think you should go and let military know they are wasting time with TVC since you know better.