Did this actually happen or is it just propaganda nonsense?

[Pilotasso]

SU-30MKI is V shaped TVC, as will be SU-35 (as an option for export), Su37 no longer exists. I believe the only true 3D TVC exists only as a demonstrator on the Mig-29 OVT, although this has been tried in Pratt&whitney engines once too.

[Kuky]

V shape? If you mean in pitch only that's not the case, nozles can move in any direction.

[Pilotasso]

V shape means they move in one direction that is not vertical but sloped, its not 3D.

[marcos]

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.

Where did I say that the F-22 had TV in yaw?

 

The military are not wasting their time with TV, I never said that either. Being able to evade an aircraft on your six that has superior conventional manoeuvrability, however temporarily, is still worth it. Just don't imagine it to be this virtual airbourne turret system, which it isn't by any stretch.

[marcos]

As far as I know the Su-30 was pitch only but the Su-35 and MiG-35 are pitch and yaw.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-35

 

RD-33OVT engine variant comes with thrust vectoring nozzles, and can direct thrust in two directions or planes. As of 2012, the only in-service, in-production fighter jet using this technology is Su-35. Other current thrust-vectoring aircraft, such as the Su-30MKI and the F-22, have nozzles that each vector in one plane.[3]

[Pilotasso]

Dont use wki, contains lots of mistakes.

[marcos]

Dont use wki, contains lots of mistakes.

Everywhere says the same:

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Su-35S-Flanker.html

 

New engines with all-aspect TVC nozzle

[Pilotasso]

My antivirus blocks that site :S

[Jona33]

:D, No body trusts carlo kopp... take heed.

[marcos]

Well everywhere else says the same anyway. Nowehere does it say the Su-35's TV is single direction.

 

Watch at 0:30, clearly has yaw TV:

 

 

1GdfnTLKcvM

 

Watch at 2:50 and 5:55:

 

Z-ilcodoppc

Edited September 2, 2012 by marcos

[HiJack]

The F-35 is invincible until proven otherwise! End of discussion :thumbup:

[marcos]

The F-35 is invincible until proven otherwise! End of discussion :thumbup:

I wouldn't go that far, but it's no clubbable baby seal.

[aaron886]

Kuky, you're scrambling. The definition of aircraft-specific energy isn't up for discussion. You can go look it up, I just double-checked in a textbook. It doesn't matter if it's "2v1" or if the aircraft has "TVC." Know when to cash in your chips.

[Pilotasso]

Well everywhere else says the same anyway. Nowehere does it say the Su-35's TV is single direction.

 

Watch at 0:30, clearly has yaw TV:

 

 

1GdfnTLKcvM

 

Watch at 2:50 and 5:55:

 

Z-ilcodoppc

 

V TVC also induces yaw movement, all it takes is one engine to vector thrust indpendent from the other. This is why it is V, not just up-down.

 

I cannot see the nozzles movement at all, there are no close-ups. Also the Su-37 was an old demonstrator that was axed with no chance of ever been offered for sales.

 

3D thrust vectoring nozzles are like shown here on the video below at 4:50 AFAIK this system is different than the one on the Su-30MKI.

 

TQ_7n7OKMXE

Edited September 2, 2012 by Pilotasso

[Exorcet]

Going back to TVC at high speed, TVC is useful for more than just getting around low density air. Trimming with TVC allows the aerodynamic control surfaces to be set for minimum drag, allowing quicker acceleration and higher speed.

 

Roll reversal is still a problem for fighters. It doesn't have to do with compressibility. At high speeds, the wing will twist itself when deflecting control surfaces. If you use the engines to roll instead, you can leave the wing in its default position.

 

Stall is also not related to speed. High speed stall can occur because of shockwaves. Adverse pressure gradients contribute to stall, and a shockwave is basically a very nasty adverse pressure gradient.

 

The F-22 probably has TVC for supercruise, and that is what I think is the best use for TVC, not low speed flying. I don't think the F-35 will find itself overly burdened if it found itself in a dogfight with the Su-35.

[Pilotasso]

Didnt know that thx.

[marcos]

V TVC also induces yaw movement, all it takes is one engine to vector thrust indpendent from the other. This is why it is V, not just up-down.

Nah, that would induce role about the x-axis (parallel to length of aircraft), not yaw about the z-axis. You could affect the same rotation more slowly by rolling first then pitching but the aircraft in the videos are clearly yawing minus roll.

 

I cannot see the nozzles movement at all, there are no close-ups. Also the Su-37 was an old demonstrator that was axed with no chance of ever been offered for sales.

The 2nd video is an Su-35.

 

3D thrust vectoring nozzles are like shown here on the video below at 4:50 AFAIK this system is different than the one on the Su-30MKI.

Su-30 yes, but not Su-35 and MiG-35. It is the same as the manoeuvres in the videos I posted.

[marcos]

Going back to TVC at high speed, TVC is useful for more than just getting around low density air. Trimming with TVC allows the aerodynamic control surfaces to be set for minimum drag, allowing quicker acceleration and higher speed.

 

Roll reversal is still a problem for fighters. It doesn't have to do with compressibility. At high speeds, the wing will twist itself when deflecting control surfaces. If you use the engines to roll instead, you can leave the wing in its default position.

 

Stall is also not related to speed. High speed stall can occur because of shockwaves. Adverse pressure gradients contribute to stall, and a shockwave is basically a very nasty adverse pressure gradient.

 

The F-22 probably has TVC for supercruise, and that is what I think is the best use for TVC, not low speed flying. I don't think the F-35 will find itself overly burdened if it found itself in a dogfight with the Su-35.

From my limited knowledge of design for cruise, engines are usually fitted such that the thrust vector points upward at an angle to the horizontal such that the tangent of that angle = Drag/Lift at that design cruise speed and altitude.

 

The problem with TV is that it acts at the tail of the a/c not the centre of mass, so visualising exactly how you would trim with it in order to improve efficiency is not easy. Move the nozzles and thrust no longer points forwards, which doesn't sound efficient for high speed or cruising, and you change the AOA, which will in fact induce more drag than trimming, that's the whole point of trimming. I know there are some documents suggesting that it can reduce drag for experimental aircraft like the F-15 ACTIVE in off-design conditions but I'm still open on that idea. You've also got the weight of a TV system increasing fuel consumption (and maintenance costs).

 

Stall is related to speed but it can happen at local transonic mach numbers too but changing the thrust vector at such speeds will incur a loss of forward thrust, which could be significant because local transonic mach numbers can occur well above Mach 1.0 with swept wing profiles.

Edited September 2, 2012 by marcos

[mikoyan]

If you look at it, you see that he does something like a tail slide but instead of letting the jet slide back he gets on the burners and starts to climb! I haven't seen a su-30 do that! The su-35 pretty much fixes the problems on the su-30mki. Less weight, better TWR, better flight control system, Less drag etc.

Here you can see the v shape movement of the nozzle but also its differential movement.

I think this video is not just air stuns; it pretty much shows that you can trow the thing around without worrying about things like stalls and flat spins. Legacy fighters don't have that level of safety and controllability. I think that the su-35 and su-30 tvc could be also useful on rolling scissors maneuvers or in circumstances when you want your enemy to overshoot you. The su-30 has tvc but lacks the power the su+35 has; that is why the indians are working now on what they call super su-30mki; they are going to make a two seat version of the su-35 by modifying their mkis.

 

The russian had a 360tvc engine for the flanker, but apparently its development got stopped. Some speculate that it is due to lack of funds and that the 360 tvc nozzle deforms the jet-stream thus making it less effective than the solution used on the su-30 mki and su-35.

See it here:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=47848

 

Now one advantage of the raptor is its wing area. That I think could give it a better chance against a su-35 at high altitudes. Of course; there is also the stealth. That is why the russians are still working on their t-50. The 35 is like a stop gap while they get their t-50 ready; and it looks like a very good measure even when compared with new fighters like eurofighters, rafales; f-22s and f-35.

[BlueRidgeDx]

AFAlinebacker,

 

Sorry, but no one who actually "spends time in the vault" would be having the discussion you're having right now. Are you an officer in the Air Force? Or are you hoping to go to the Zoo someday?

[Kuky]

Kuky, you're scrambling. The definition of aircraft-specific energy isn't up for discussion. You can go look it up, I just double-checked in a textbook. It doesn't matter if it's "2v1" or if the aircraft has "TVC." Know when to cash in your chips.

Sorry but you are hopeless :music_whistling:

And by the way your last sentence proves my point but you don't seem to get it ;)

[Alfa]

As far as I know the Su-30 was pitch only but the Su-35 and MiG-35 are pitch and yaw.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-35

 

Initially TVC was introduced with the "Su-37" demonstrator(Su-27M/Su-35 prototypes modified for the purpose), which was fitted with an engine called "AL-31FU" - I cannot remember whether this was single axis only though.

 

The Su-30(baseline interceptor) had standard AL-31F engines(no TVC), while the Su-30MK multirole prototypes and subsequently the Su-30MKI were fitted with the AL-31FP, which has TVC in two planes.

 

The TVC engine for the MiG-29 is the Klimov RD-133 with "omnidirectional" nozzles. http://en.klimov.ru/production/aircraft/tvn/

 

The engine was fitted to a MiG-29M(9-15) prototype - the sixth(# 156) -from the late eighties in order to demonstrate TVC(under the name "MiG-29M OVT").

 

The "MiG-35" prototype was built on the fourth MiG-29M prototype(# 154) - first introduced as the "MiG-29M2" and then later renamed "MiG-35". AFAIK this currently doesn't have the RD-133 TVC engine, but a production version can be supplied with it on customer's request.

[marcos]

Initially TVC was introduced with the "Su-37" demonstrator(Su-27M/Su-35 prototypes modified for the purpose), which was fitted with an engine called "AL-31FU" - I cannot remember whether this was single axis only though.

 

The Su-30(baseline interceptor) had standard AL-31F engines(no TVC), while the Su-30MK multirole prototypes and subsequently the Su-30MKI were fitted with the AL-31FP, which has TVC in two planes.

 

The TVC engine for the MiG-29 is the Klimov RD-133 with "omnidirectional" nozzles. http://en.klimov.ru/production/aircraft/tvn/

 

The engine was fitted to a MiG-29M(9-15) prototype - the sixth(# 156) -from the late eighties in order to demonstrate TVC(under the name "MiG-29M OVT").

 

The "MiG-35" prototype was built on the fourth MiG-29M prototype(# 154) - first introduced as the "MiG-29M2" and then later renamed "MiG-35". AFAIK this currently doesn't have the RD-133 TVC engine, but a production version can be supplied with it on customer's request.

I think you're right, it's optional on both the MiG-35 and Su-35. The Su-30MKI does seem to have a diagonal, single-direction TV system that can perform pitch and yaw based on mikoyan's videos above.

[Exorcet]

The F35 is a heavy piece of shit that's been overdesigned, and although its not as bad as losing EVERY time to russians, it sure wont do as well as people generally make it out to.

 

So, you're arguing that because of near worthless numbers like static sea level TWR and wing loading that the F-35 isn't agile, even though TWR and WL suggest that it will fly like the F-16?

 

How about drag? One of the biggest factors in aircraft performance?

 

The F119 and F135 are failures, too, by the way. Dont try to play off like increasing part life and reliability will fix that. The cylce and frame are already defined, and its impossible to fix that now without a top down redesign.

Failures at what?

[midju]

Also, the F-22's primary mission is to kill it's enemy LONG before you get into a close/dogfight engagement with the enemy every knowing it's their...

 

+1

 

And a superior support from other systems on ground and air.