Re: J-20 The New Generation Fighter Thread IV
Who do you think you lie to? to start ITP says turn rates increased, you claimed it does not, do you think because you deny it you are right?
I am right, so it is not denial. I have logically stated explained why, but all you did was re-posting the ITP crap over and over again as if that would make a difference. The company is trying to make a sell, so of course they would claim their product to have all kinds of benefits. How else do you expect them to sell? You should use some critical thinking instead of blindly copying and pasting materials. Beside,
. Why didn't you mention that? You are in denial, that's why.
At these speeds,
TVC-equipped aircraft (lower one in animation) actually turns at same rate as non-TVC aircraft; however, TVC increases angle between aircraft and air flow around it (Angle of Attack, abbreviated AoA), resulting in increase in drag for no decrease in diameter of turn (that is, maneuverability), resulting in increased energy loss during maneuvers, leaving aircraft more and more vulnerable to missiles and gunfire as fight drags on. In short, aircraft does not fly in direction its nose is pointing at.
Biffing also proves you thrust vectoring increases turn rate
VIFFing is a capability that exists only on V/STOL aircraft.
said so itself, and it has nothing to do with aircraft that has nozzle(s) placed at the tail.
Aircraft that have no capability to hover cannot use their nozzle in such fashion. On the American side, aircraft having no such ability include F-16 MATV, F-15 MTAV, F-18 HARV, and F-22. On the Russian side, they include MiG-29OVT, Su-30MKI, Su-35, and the recent PAKFA.
missiles like AIM-9X also increase turn rate.
ROFL! A missile is not a fighter aircraft. This is no different than trying to misrepresent a Harrier as non-V/STOL aircraft.
You quoted from
thinking it was saying thrust vectoring produces lift to augment F-16's turn capability. However, in the paper it was said that the removal of AOA limiter that allowed the aircraft to attain higher AOA for maximum lift.
While the production F-16 is one of the world's most maneuverable fighters, directional stability is lost between 30 and 50 degrees AOA when most of the vertical tail is blocked by the fuselage. (The rudder losses effectiveness at 35 degrees AOA.) Flight control limiters help prevent departure/spins, but restrict commanded AOA to 25.5 degrees--well short of the 32 degrees angle required for maximum lift. With yaw stability provided through thrust vectoring, the 25.5 degree restriction is eliminated maximizing inherent aircraft aerodynamics.
Inherent aircraft aerodynamics mean the aerodynamics is built into the aircraft by design. At no time does thrust vectoring increases aerodynamics lift of that F-16 to increase turn rate.
You simple tactic is deny things, pitch up increases and the movement is up and down, however i know i won`t get from you to admit the turn rates increase.
I know perfectly like i said from the begining of this conversation, that you are not to communicate but to deny.
You just make noise, but i will say to you a reality you like it or not, Thrust vectoring does increase turn rate, you like it or not, pitch rate has a direction is up or down when is up is like lift on the same direction.
What a load of rubbish. Pitching is a rotational motion about the aircraft's center-of-gravity, not an "up and down" motion as you incorrectly stated. The pitch vector is horizontal, and pitching refers to rotation motion about that vector. It is even shown in the following diagram by NASA:
Your pseudoscience does not work in the real world. Additionally, by using terms randomly and interchangeably in an attempt to misrepresent, you are the one that is being disingenuous. Stop
your thoughts and attributes on to me.
The F-18 document i posted said the thrust vectoring is to create a nose up movement.
To end up this you will learn to disagree, you want to continue believing TVC nozzles do not increase turn rate, okay lieve in that, the evidence is not that, but believe it that is your right, lie to your self.
said vector up produces pitch up
moment, not movement. However, it simultaneously decreases lift coefficient. So, as the aircraft pitches up, no extra lift is generated by thrust vectoring in the process. Turn is dependent on the lift generated, and the lack of extra lift means turn rate does not increased in the fashion that your imagination depicted.
Vectoring was intended primarily as a moment-producing effector, so vectoring the plume up would cause a noseup pitching moment. But the exhaust plume Vectoring was intended primarily as a moment-producing effector, so vectoring the plume up would cause a noseup pitching moment. But the exhaust plume vectored up would decrease the lift coefficient in the adverse direction while increasing the pitching moment coefficient in the proverse direction. in the adverse direction while increasing the pitching moment coefficient in the proverse direction.
There is an apparent improvement in turn rate, only because aircraft is restricted in the AOA that they can achieve. This is explained in
:
While the production F-16 is one of the world's most maneuverable fighters, directional stability is lost between 30 and 50 degrees AOA when most of the vertical tail is blocked by the fuselage. (The rudder losses effectiveness at 35 degrees AOA.) Flight control limiters help prevent departure/spins, but restrict commanded AOA to 25.5 degrees--well short of the 32 degrees angle required for maximum lift. With yaw stability provided through thrust vectoring, the 25.5 degree restriction is eliminated maximizing inherent aircraft aerodynamics.
An aircraft's maximum AOA can be limited by other ways, such as the reduction in effectiveness of the tailplane under certain flight conditions. Regardless, whenever the maximum AOA is restricted, then the aircraft cannot attain maximum turn rate. Aside from using thrust vectoring as a work around,
:
In supersonic flight, aircraft becomes stable; moreover, classic tail control surfaces loose effectiveness in that area due to interaction with wing. There are solutions, however - delta wing, canards and thrust vectoring.
Close-coupled canards help energize the wing, allowing for better lift at high AoA; moreover, flow remains connected to wing for longer, allowing it to reach control surfaces at end of the wing (similar but weaker effect can be achieved via LERX).
Long-arm canards are positioned in front and above of the wing; thus, there is no interaction with wing, allowing them to remain effective at any speed.
Like I have said in the beginning, aircraft with canard layout is not handicapped by the tailplane, so has no need for thrust vectoring.
