Proponents will continue arguing for it making up specific scenarios that dont happen 90% of the time. But Ive given up arguing on that, waste of time.
How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs
- Thread starter Major Shaitan Singh
- Start date
Proponents will continue arguing for it making up specific scenarios that dont happen 90% of the time. But Ive given up arguing on that, waste of time.
Kompromat
ADMINISTRATOR
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 40,366
- Reaction score
- 416
- Country
- Location
By the definition of internet trolls, anything that looks good must be effective in battle.
I would suggest you read the post first, specifically this part.
Above that speed the jet had enough g available and was maneuverable enough that thrust vectoring didn't add anything. Also, at high speeds, if the nozzles start to swing the jet violently around you're apt to induce unacceptable loads on the airframe.
MilSpec
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 12,931
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
Interesting to know the difference between the Prat and GE engines on the different variants. Also he places the Fulcrum above the Eagle and below the Viper, especially a P 9.12A variant, which did not field Adder but Alamo A.
As far as performance is concerned, the Early Pratts are easily outclassed by the GEs.. it was only till the 220 came out that the Pratts came equal. However, as far as maintenance and engine toughness goes.. the PWs are heaven compared to GE.
What is important is his preference for a HOBs over TVS any day, something which Ive heard from almost all western pilots and those that fly and fight like them.
Sri
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2010
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 0
I found this interesting:
Luftwaffe MiG-29 experience - positives and negatives
Luftwaffe MiG-29 experience - positives and negatives
Hey I just asked a question - Does TVC improve turn rates at high/low velocity ?
Is its usefulness only limited to low velocities ?
Also wouldn't digital fly by wire prevent nozzles form swinging violently during flight or make adjustments in other control surfaces accordingly, even if they do ?
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Clifton looked at both jets from a pure fighter's perspective, and I mean the human fighter, not the jet fighter. Clifton is essentially a warrior and as such, his opinion of the F-35 is going to be colored by his own biases developed from a fighter's basic instincts.
I have said it many times before on this forum: The F-35 is an inevitability.
A financial one.
If it is not a common airframe servicing THREE different needs, there would be a version where it is a common airframe servicing TWO different needs. The US Marines will insist on an S/VTOL fighter and they will not deviate from that based upon their experience with the Harrier. So either it is the F-35 and a Harrier replacement, or an F-35 common airframe for all three air forces: Air Force, Navy, and Marines.
My support for the CURRENT version of the F-35 is purely financial. If the US could afford it and if I was dictator, there would be at least 1,000 pure air-air Raptors and 3,000 dedicated air-ground versions of it.
Base upon Clifton's comments, the Raptor is more like the F-16 than to the F-15. That is what most people missed. And Clifton's love for the -16 is obvious. No different than mine and I dare say that if you talk to any Pakistani pilot who pulled gs in the Viper, he would rather castrate himself with a dull spoon than to voluntarily take another jet. I joke, of course. Plenty pilots left the -16 for various reasons, but the Viper is a mistress that you cannot leave -- at least not in your heart anyway. Ask any -16 pilot and he will tell you the best -16 is a clean A/C -16. No externals, not even on wing tips.
The -16 is as close to being a mythical angel as one can get. I have been in gliders to prop jobbers like the Cessnas and the Beechcrafts to the F-111 and finally to the F-16, and nothing make me nearly hate my human limitations like the F-16. When I was on the -111, sitting upright in the -111's capsule cockpit was like being at a work desk in an office. Reclining in a -16 made me feel like am being enveloped, or pulled in, or wrapped. Cliches as it sounds, you WILL feel more like a part of the -16 than any aircraft can make you feel.
Do not get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for you people here, but I feel I am apart from the rest of you guys simply because I know what it feels like to pull 9gs in a Viper. It will take only one flight in the -16 to know how seductive the jet really is. Seductive in the sense that you WILL quickly learn how easy it is to make a maneuver, then how to take that maneuver to the limits the jet allows you to make. I compare the -16 to being a kid with a bike: freedom. Freedom from your nagging parents, from your house, and finally from everybody else if you pedaled hard and long enough.
Flying is the only thing Man invented that He both love it and hate it at the same time while he is doing it. Gliding is not flying. Gliding is being at the mercy of the winds. True flying is powered flight and the -16 is unique among all flying machines. So unique that it make all others pales in comparison and they blends into each other like pureed stuff in a blender. You read comments about the -15 or other jets and they are about engine power or radar capabilities. But about the -16, it quickly falls into how easy it is to fly -- or as close to being free to fly as we can get.
Stephen Cohen
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2014
- Messages
- 8,456
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
Please Mate if you know the answer yourself kindly educate us about
the benefits of TVC
It is a tendency of some members to underrate and undervalue
both the Su 30 and thrust vectoring
At low velocity it does improve rates at the expense of the aircraft falling from the sky. At high velocities it offers no benefit unless the aircraft is to be torn apart.
Its usefulness is only limited to last ditch manoeuvres.
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
Isn't that logical? Why would you use TVC on your fighter to turn, if you can use TVC on the missile to turn? HOBS missiles do not only have improved seeker capability, but also to the improved agility! That's why AIM9X, Assram, MICA, IRST... added TVC after they learned about it from the R73. And just as at fighters, TVC or canards /additional control surfaces (Python V has no TVC but additional fins) adds turn capability.
Airframe stress limits on a fighter(and the human in it) are much less than a missile.
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
That only means that the missile can take more G's but not that TVC wouldn't add turn capability for the fighter too. Wasn't one of the reasons that the YF22 was chosen over the YF23, the advantage in agility that it had thanks to TVC? So it's hard to simply deny the benefits of TVC, when there are plenty of examples that shows otherwise, it's only a question against what you compare it. TVC on a fighter vs a modern gen highly agile missile, or against a canard fighter design, or if you compare it with a basic fighter design.
Similar threads
