Thrust vectoring on VF-1

[Lightning]

sweet paint scheme on that thing. anybody got a pic of the ATFI?

[hellohikaru]

Imagine what the F-2A could have been had it been canard equipped...at least it still has some CCV functions but not as many as it would have with canards.

Wonder why Japan would invest in a F-16 derivative rather than a more original design ?

Also purchasing/ license manufacturing block 50 F-16s would have given them the same level of expertise/experience rather than going through all the trouble like they did....but then i suppose the japanese are a proud people and national prestige is more important

[David Hingtgen]

VG wing plane with its wings swept isn't a delta, nor does it fly like one (though basic supersonic airflow over the plane is similar, which is the point in doing it--deltas are very good at flying fast). It simply has its wings very close to its tail when they're swept.

Also, if such a wing has ailerons, when the wing is swept back that far, they can't do anything, as they're sideways into the airflow. This is why nearly every VG-wing plane uses spoilers instead of ailerons for roll at low speed, and tailerons instead of ailerons at high speed (with wings swept back). So even if you wanted to use ailerons or something for pitch, you couldn't, as they'd be flying sideways into the wind.

A VG wing, swept back, can produce lift, nothing more. On an F-14, all functions are disabled when fully swept--no flaps, no slats, no spoilers. ALL control is from the tail. Same with a Tornado--tail only control when wings are swept. (I personally would like to see a VG plane with 45-degree canted stabs, so that you've got a back-up if something goes wrong--an F-14 at least has SLIGHT cant and twin-rudders if something goes wrong with the stabs, but a Tornado has a single fin with a small rudder--if its stabs have trouble when the wings are swept, it has almost no control until the wings are back out--which takes several seconds, and at 800+mph, that's a few seconds too long)

Finally: I'm always confusing the F-16AFTI and F-16 CCV---same idea, though. (intake-mounted movable ventral canards)

Here's the CCV, which is what I was actually thinking of: http://www.afwing.com/images/f16h/ccv.jpg

Here's the AFTI: http://www.voodoo.cz/falcon/old/f16148.jpg

Edited October 16, 2003 by David Hingtgen

[ewilen]

May also have had something to do with making some money (and/or some learning experience) for the local defense industry. I think something similar happened with Israel (the Lavi?)

Edit: I found the oddity I was referring to earlier--not a 50's jet, but a 40's pusher: the Northrop XP-56 had a bellows-operated rudder system in the wingtips (not thrusters). Another aircraft of the same era which had rudders on its wings was the Curtiss XP-55.

Edited October 16, 2003 by ewilen

[ewilen]

VG wing plane with its wings swept isn't a delta, nor does it fly like one (though basic supersonic airflow over the plane is similar, which is the point in doing it--deltas are very good at flying fast). It simply has its wings very close to its tail when they're swept.

Also, if such a wing has ailerons, when the wing is swept back that far, they can't do anything, as they're sideways into the airflow.

Basically, what I was thinking was, if you sweep the wings of a VF-1 all the way back, you have a configuration where if you could bend the tips of the wings up/down, you'd have something that resembles the elevons of a delta and you might conceivably achieve pitch/roll control that way. But this would do no good for the unswept configuration, since the wingtips would then be both pointing the wrong way and be near the center of gravity.

Also, this may be a stupid question, but for variable geometry planes where the horizontal tailplane and the wings are in the same plane, isn't a fully-swept configuration with tailerons similar to a delta with elevons?

[David Hingtgen]

re: delta wings and swept wings w/stabs

Inherent difference. Wing, vs tail+wing. No matter how swept, an F-14 or Tornado's tail isn't part of the wing, and thus acts very different than a delta winged plane. Elevons alter the wing's characteristics itself. A tailplane is an external, independent source of pitch (possibly roll) control. Deltas suck, IMHO. And canards are superior to tailplanes. (The BEST is to have canards AND tailplanes--see F-15ACTIVE, F-16 CCV)

Anyways--more controls are better. Cars with 4-wheel steering are rare, but they can turn better than any normal car ever will. Same with planes. A plane with canards and tailplanes will out-turn a *similar* delta. Yes, a modern Mirage will beat an F-4, but so will ANY plane that's 30 years newer. It's because it's new, not because it's a delta. A delta with canards (EF-2000, Grippen) should beat any non-canard delta there is. And to have canards and tailplanes--well that would be the F-15ACTIVE or Super Flanker, ungodly manueverable aircraft capable of moves which don't even have names yet. (Yes, vectoring's part of it, but it's mainly the canards+tailplanes--vectoring isn't amazingly wonderful, at least certainly not US-vectoring)

Basically--why have just one method of control (elevons) when you could have 2 or 3? And with 2 or 3, you can use them independently. Left canard down, left stab up, right aileron up, right stab neutral, right flaperon neutral, right canard up, left aileron down, and left flaperon up. I have no idea what that would do besides a left yaw, and you'd need FBW for sure, but combos like that is why a Super Flanker can do just about anything. Delta-winged planes have a LOT fewer combos available.

As for VF-1 pitch control: yes I guess that'd work in space if you used verniers, but in the air it'd be far less effective than vectoring or conventional controls.