Aerodynamics thread

[Air Force Brat]

Western design does not favour TVC? so take the F-22 and get rid of the thrust vectoring nozzles, same Harrier or F-35B

Surely you are bright enough to realize the Harrier and the F-35B are in NO way relevant to this discussion, so NO, we no longer worship at the altar of OVT.

I have stated for the record that if I were to build a Heavy Raptor, I would dispense with the OVT. So whether we are talking OVT or canards to enhance pitch transitions??? PPPPFFFFFFTTTTT! who cares?? the F-35 has ALL the pitch authority it needs, it really does!

 

[Air Force Brat]

You have to differentiate between TVC types, the Su-30Sm, PAKFA, MiG-29OVT, F-15MTD, F-22, X-31, and even Eurofighter have different systems.

Flat nozzles are much heavier, the F-22 has the heaviest while Eurofighter and MiG-29OVT have much lighter systems.

The latest Japanese fighter shows paddles are relatively light

TVC nozzles also require retrofitting thus they cost, the Eurofighter was deemed able to cope with most threats with IRIS-T or AIM-132 missiles cued by a HMS, post stall handling does not represent any drawback, in fact the Indians SU-30MKI proved to be on an equal foot to the Eurofighter.


The TVC nozzles do and always have increased STR and ITR, a gain is a gain, F-22 is a prove of that, it has been able to match the Rafale and Eurofighter despite having higher wing loading and lower TWR; PAKFA will even do better than F-22, with its LEVCONs and Thrust vectoring, and Su-35 the same, but contrary to F-22; Su-30SM, Su-35 and PAKFA do have HMS, so now they can easily boast to trash any euro canard in close combat.

Lets not get carried away, I am well aware of the aerodynamic/OVT equation, and you throwing the Harrier and the F-35B into this discussion is rather disengenous, PAK-FA has a long way to go before it is relevant in any combat scenario??? but lovely airplane.

 

[b787]

Surely you are bright enough to realize the Harrier and the F-35B are in NO way relevant to this discussion, so NO, we no longer worship at the altar of OVT.

I have stated for the record that if I were to build a Heavy Raptor, I would dispense with the OVT. So whether we are talking OVT or canards to enhance pitch transitions??? PPPPFFFFFFTTTTT! who cares?? the F-35 has ALL the pitch authority it needs, it really does!

Brat, sorry; the F-22 without TVC nozzles is not so good, you dispense of its TVC nozzles and add weight you will not get something better.

The flight characteristics of an F-22 without TVC nozzles and without external weapons are more or less like an F-16 and F-15.

The Su-35S without TVC nozzles is not better than your 1970s Su-27.

the Su-30SM without TVC nozzles is worst than a Su-35/Su-27M perhaps even worse than a Su-33.

without considering post stall, just keeping in mind ITR and STR, the Su-35S without TVC nozzles is not better than a Su-27 built in 1985, it has same aerodynamics and it is even heavier.

Now what do you think is cheaper, fitting a TVC nozzle to an F-15 or fitting a HMS and an AIM-9X?

In the case of the USA, the F-22 has no rival in terms of operational capability there is no need to fit TVC nozzles when the vast majority of PLAAF are old Su-27/J-11s variants wihout TVC nozzles, a few J-10 Gripen type jet and Russia has a token force of less than 200 MiG-29s and less than 150 Su-27s variants with TVC and the vast majority of Russian Flankers are old vintage 1980s made Su-27ss.

Do you think the vast majority of F-15s and F-16 have fuselages strong enough to handle TVC nozzles after 2 or 3 decades of flying?
If you have seen, Russia is building new aircraft with TVC nozzles, why? why not retrofitting the TVC nozzles to old aircraft?
answer the old aircraft have weaker fuselages.

HMS and highly off bored missiles do not require strong fuselages, so it makes more sense fitting AIM-9x to old F-16s than make F-16 active type aircraft with TVC nozzles.

So is not TVC nozzles are not good, the West is also cash strapped, so highly off bored missiles cued by HMS make more sense when the rivals have few really good fighters.

 

[b787]

Lets not get carried away, I am well aware of the aerodynamic/OVT equation, and you throwing the Harrier and the F-35B into this discussion is rather disengenous, PAK-FA has a long way to go before it is relevant in any combat scenario??? but lovely airplane.

I will tell you what really happens, you are unwilling to accept F-35 is not a good flier, so you have a confusion, you think why F-22 has TVC nozzles and why F-35 has not it?
The answer is the HMS cued AIM-9X, it has been proven the F-16B can beat a F-35, even heavily ladden.

The Eurofighter will out fly a F-35, the AIM-9X is the only reason it might be able to fight back against the Eurofighter, F-22 struggled with the Eurofighter because it has higher wing loading than the European fighter aircraft, take out the TVC nozzles and the F-22 will be beaten each time it goes versus a Rafale or Eurofighter, and same will be the Su-35S if no HMS cued missile is used and if it get stripped of its TVC nozzles

 

[Air Force Brat]

Brat, sorry; the F-22 without TVC nozzles is not so good, you dispense of its TVC nozzles and add weight you will not get something better.

The flight characteristics of an F-22 without TVC nozzles and without external weapons are more or less like an F-16 and F-15.

The Su-35S without TVC nozzles is not better than your 1970s Su-27.

the Su-30SM without TVC nozzles is worst than a Su-35/Su-27M perhaps even worse than a Su-33.

without considering post stall, just keeping in mind ITR and STR, the Su-35S without TVC nozzles is not better than a Su-27 built in 1985, it has same aerodynamics and it is even heavier.

Now what do you think is cheaper, fitting a TVC nozzle to an F-15 or fitting a HMS and an AIM-9X?

In the case of the USA, the F-22 has no rival in terms of operational capability there is no need to fit TVC nozzles when the vast majority of PLAAF are old Su-27/J-11s variants wihout TVC nozzles, a few J-10 Gripen type jet and Russia has a token force of less than 200 MiG-29s and less than 150 Su-27s variants with TVC and the vast majority of Russian Flankers are old vintage 1980s made Su-27ss.

Do you think the vast majority of F-15s and F-16 have fuselages strong enough to handle TVC nozzles after 2 or 3 decades of flying?
If you have seen, Russia is building new aircraft with TVC nozzles, why? why not retrofitting the TVC nozzles to old aircraft?
answer the old aircraft have weaker fuselages.

HMS and highly off bored missiles do not require strong fuselages, so it makes more sense fitting AIM-9x to old F-16s than make F-16 active type aircraft with TVC nozzles.

So is not TVC nozzles are not good, the West is also cash strapped, so highly off bored missiles cued by HMS make more sense when the rivals have few really good fighters.

You continue to be confused by your own circular reasoning? I have never argued that the F-22 isn't awesome, but most of that awesome is due to a very high lift airframe, and very high thrust F-119s, the OVT is gravy, nice to have, but prolly not that good for you?? LOL

You set up your little "structural integrity straw man"? I have often noted that PAK-FA had/has some very serious structural issues on a brand new airframe, which you continue to deny, the truth is all airframes may have structural issues?? The F-15, and F-16 are very robust airframes, but they are "beat on" with lots of HIGH G maneuvering, all the time, but the SLEPs for each of these aircraft restore that integrity and add flight hours to those airframes.

Lockheed/USAF/Navy/Marines and our many partners have demonstrated their confidence in the basic maneuverability of the F-35, so I think we will leave this for the future, we shall see that the traditional approach taken is still viable, and continues to be very effective,

 

[Engineer]

Brat, sorry; the F-22 without TVC nozzles is not so good, you dispense of its TVC nozzles and add weight you will not get something better.

The flight characteristics of an F-22 without TVC nozzles and without external weapons are more or less like an F-16 and F-15.

The Su-35S without TVC nozzles is not better than your 1970s Su-27.

the Su-30SM without TVC nozzles is worst than a Su-35/Su-27M perhaps even worse than a Su-33.

without considering post stall, just keeping in mind ITR and STR, the Su-35S without TVC nozzles is not better than a Su-27 built in 1985, it has same aerodynamics and it is even heavier.

LMAO! The F-22 run circles around F-15 and F-16 even without TVC. That's because the F-22 has superior aerodynamics and engines. That has been proven in real-world exercises. In contrast, the Su-35 without TVC is no better than 1970's Su-27, because the Su-35 is merely a minor alteration to Su-27. Russia has made so little progress in aerodynamics and engine technology after the collapse of Soviet Union.

Now what do you think is cheaper, fitting a TVC nozzle to an F-15 or fitting a HMS and an AIM-9X?

In the case of the USA, the F-22 has no rival in terms of operational capability there is no need to fit TVC nozzles when the vast majority of PLAAF are old Su-27/J-11s variants wihout TVC nozzles, a few J-10 Gripen type jet and Russia has a token force of less than 200 MiG-29s and less than 150 Su-27s variants with TVC and the vast majority of Russian Flankers are old vintage 1980s made Su-27ss.

You asked the wrong question. The real question is why won't Russia install thrust-vectoring on their legacy fighters like MiG-21s? If thrust-vectoring really brings such superior manoeuvre capability, then it should be much cheaper to retrofit old fighters with thrust-vectoring than to redesign a new aircraft. The answer is, even the Russian military doesn't believe the b.s. spurted out by Russian companies.

Do you think the vast majority of F-15s and F-16 have fuselages strong enough to handle TVC nozzles after 2 or 3 decades of flying?
If you have seen, Russia is building new aircraft with TVC nozzles, why? why not retrofitting the TVC nozzles to old aircraft?
answer the old aircraft have weaker fuselages.

Of course the F-15 and F-16 can handle the stress, only Russian made crap can't. The US have had thrust-vectoring for decades, and could have fitted thrust-vectoring to then new-built fighters decades ago. The US chose not to. Even today, the US chose not to fit thrust-vectoring to F-15E and F-18E/F, so the issue was never about old airframe.

It is also interesting why you would bring up the fact that thrust-vectoring imposes more stress on the aircraft. Is it because you are aware that post-stall manoeuvres impose very high drag? I think so.

HMS and highly off bored missiles do not require strong fuselages, so it makes more sense fitting AIM-9x to old F-16s than make F-16 active type aircraft with TVC nozzles.

So is not TVC nozzles are not good, the West is also cash strapped, so highly off bored missiles cued by HMS make more sense when the rivals have few really good fighters.

Actually, the reason is because thrust-vectoring is not good. The West being cash strapped and picky really highlights what has value, and thrust-vectoring does not have value.

 

[b787]

You continue to be confused by your own circular reasoning? I have never argued that the F-22 isn't awesome, but most of that awesome is due to a very high lift airframe, and very high thrust F-119s, the OVT is gravy, nice to have, but prolly not that good for you?? LOL

You set up your little "structural integrity straw man"? I have often noted that PAK-FA had/has some very serious structural issues on a brand new airframe, which you continue to deny, the truth is all airframes may have structural issues?? The F-15, and F-16 are very robust airframes, but they are "beat on" with lots of HIGH G maneuvering, all the time, but the SLEPs for each of these aircraft restore that integrity and add flight hours to those airframes.

Lockheed/USAF/Navy/Marines and our many partners have demonstrated their confidence in the basic maneuverability of the F-35, so I think we will leave this for the future, we shall see that the traditional approach taken is still viable, and continues to be very effective,

You note PAKFA has structural troubles, well give me a link from Sukhoi, Knaapo or Rostec that says so.


It is not gravy is the essence, an early reports showed it, thrust vectoring increases drastically its roll rate and therefore turn rates

 

[b787]

LMAO! The F-22 run circles around F-15 and F-16 even without TVC. That's because the F-22 has superior aerodynamics and engines. That has been proven in real-world exercises. In contrast, the Su-35 without TVC is no better than 1970's Su-27, because the Su-35 is merely a minor alteration to Su-27. Russia has made so little progress in aerodynamics and engine technology after the collapse of Soviet Union.


You asked the wrong question. The real question is why won't Russia install thrust-vectoring on their legacy fighters like MiG-21s? If thrust-vectoring really brings such superior manoeuvre capability, then it should be much cheaper to retrofit old fighters with thrust-vectoring than to redesign a new aircraft. The answer is, even the Russian military doesn't believe the b.s. spurted out by Russian companies.


Of course the F-15 and F-16 can handle the stress, only Russian made crap can't. The US have had thrust-vectoring for decades, and could have fitted thrust-vectoring to then new-built fighters decades ago. The US chose not to. Even today, the US chose not to fit thrust-vectoring to F-15E and F-18E/F, so the issue was never about old airframe.

It is also interesting why you would bring up the fact that thrust-vectoring imposes more stress on the aircraft. Is it because you are aware that post-stall manoeuvres impose very high drag? I think so.


Actually, the reason is because thrust-vectoring is not good. The West being cash strapped and picky really highlights what has value, and thrust-vectoring does not have value.

 

[Inst]

I don't have time for this, but Engineer should rather be named Lawyer for his style of argumentation; it's sophistic par excellence.

@AFB:

There's the X-44 Manta that was mulled as the basis for an F-22 bomber. No control surfaces at all, just 3D TVC control. Removal of TVC doesn't really benefit the F-22, because it was designed with square nozzles to begin with and it's the square nozzles that reduce thrust, not the TVC paddles.

The thing you have to understand is that I'm not taking the extreme position; i.e, TVC benefits all aircraft. The technology simply wasn't even mooted for the Rafale, like it was for the Eurofighter, because its pure aerodynamics were sufficient that TVC wasn't worth researching. On the other hand, if TVC is useless, as Engineer argues, why is the WS-10B a TVC engine? Why is the PLAAF even trying to experiment with a TVC engine for the J-11Ds?

About the J-10 nixing TVC; that's perfectly understandable. As I've mentioned before, TVC crippled InAF Su-30MKIs because the damn thing kept on failing all the time. The historical problem with TVC has been reliability and cost, not weight. There would have been no benefit to stick on Russian 250 MTBO TVC nozzles onto the J-10, simply because it would have made the Russians a bundle in terms of spares and wrecked the J-10 project due to ridiculous maintenance requirements.

However, since China is now is possession of superlative TVC technology, such as the recent coating breakthrough, it is now viable to start throwing TVC around willy-nilly, even for aircraft that have relatively small benefits from them, like the J-10.

Also, another thing to note, TVC does not merely allow the aircraft to rapidly pitch its direction. By its very definition, TVC allows the aircraft to vector its thrust, so that the thrust force acting on the aircraft changes from a direct linear line from the rear to something slanted on the Z-axis, enhancing turn rates slightly, beyond merely pitching the aircraft.

 

[Brumby]

I don't have time for this, but Engineer should rather be named Lawyer for his style of argumentation; it's sophistic par excellence.

@AFB:

There's the X-44 Manta that was mulled as the basis for an F-22 bomber. No control surfaces at all, just 3D TVC control. Removal of TVC doesn't really benefit the F-22, because it was designed with square nozzles to begin with and it's the square nozzles that reduce thrust, not the TVC paddles.

The thing you have to understand is that I'm not taking the extreme position; i.e, TVC benefits all aircraft. The technology simply wasn't even mooted for the Rafale, like it was for the Eurofighter, because its pure aerodynamics were sufficient that TVC wasn't worth researching. On the other hand, if TVC is useless, as Engineer argues, why is the WS-10B a TVC engine? Why is the PLAAF even trying to experiment with a TVC engine for the J-11Ds?

About the J-10 nixing TVC; that's perfectly understandable. As I've mentioned before, TVC crippled InAF Su-30MKIs because the damn thing kept on failing all the time. The historical problem with TVC has been reliability and cost, not weight. There would have been no benefit to stick on Russian 250 MTBO TVC nozzles onto the J-10, simply because it would have made the Russians a bundle in terms of spares and wrecked the J-10 project due to ridiculous maintenance requirements.

However, since China is now is possession of superlative TVC technology, such as the recent coating breakthrough, it is now viable to start throwing TVC around willy-nilly, even for aircraft that have relatively small benefits from them, like the J-10.

Also, another thing to note, TVC does not merely allow the aircraft to rapidly pitch its direction. By its very definition, TVC allows the aircraft to vector its thrust, so that the thrust force acting on the aircraft changes from a direct linear line from the rear to something slanted on the Z-axis, enhancing turn rates slightly, beyond merely pitching the aircraft.

You are the one that generated the TVC discussion. So far the discussions appear to me to be like post stall maneuvering : avoidable, unnecessary, and of questionable value. There are probably a few dozen post generated but I failed to see where this is going because it looks to me to be a topic looking for a purpose. So for the benefit of everyone, can you please outline what is the nature and scope of your intended discussion and what conclusions you want to get out f it.