Chindenathus Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 I found the image below the other day and It got me to wondering. Was the YF-21(22) the first design to have the "Tri spade" thrust vectoring assembly? (I mean in real life, not in the Macross continuity, That would be the SV: 51 series.) Quote
yellowlightman Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Would probably be better suited for the Aircraft Vs Thread in Other Scifi & Anime. Quote
Phyrox Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) I found the image below the other day and It got me to wondering. Was the YF-21(22) the first design to have the "Tri spade" thrust vectoring assembly? (I mean in real life, not in the Macross continuity, That would be the SV: 51 series.) off the top of my head I know the X-31 had a similar thrust-vectoring arrangement, and it was doing testing before M+ Edited August 30, 2007 by Phyrox Quote
IAD Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Maybe OT, but the WWII V2 ballastic missile had a four-way spade thrust-vector system, as I recall. Definitely, the X-31 beat the YF-21, though. ~Luke Quote
Knight26 Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 The X-31 was the first single engine aircraft to be fitted with paddle type thrust vectoring vanes, the first twin engine was a test F-18 used by DARPA. Quote
sketchley Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 The Russian Vympel R-73 air-to-air missile also has thrust vectoring. It's significant because it's both the first (TVC A-to-A missile) and entered service in 1985! Though, it too is a 4 plate design. Quote
dizman Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Hey now, thats pretty cool looking on a F-16. What I want to know is if it actually worked well with only 1 engine. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 It works fine on one engine, the X-31 can do everything a Super Flanker can, and more, including the Herbst turn, Hook, and Mongoose. NASA has videos you can watch of it: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/X-31/index.html Specifically, the Mongoose with a ground reference--watch and be amazed: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/X-3...EM-0036-06.html (it's called the Mongoose as it's said to be the counter to the Cobra) Still, I don't know of any plane that really has YF-21-looking paddles. They're usually short and square, not long and triangular like the YF-21 or SV-51. The F-22 actually has the closest to that, shape-wise, but they're simply 2D, 2-piece ones. Quote
eugimon Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 holy crap, that mongoose manuever is amazing to watch. Quote
Chewie Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 holy crap, that mongoose manuever is amazing to watch. ^^^ Quote
Sumdumgai Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Woah, I didn't know that planes could pull stuff like the mongoose! Awesome stuff, thanks for posting the links to those vids David Hingtgen! Quote
IAD Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 David brings up a good point, regarding paddle shape. From my experience, the SV-51's paddle shape is pretty bad, in terms of vectoring efficiency. The paddles are very narrow, so they tend to 'spill' air rather badly, and the angles on the vectoring faces cause the exhaust to flow outwards, towards the tip of each paddle. This effectively makes the exhaust duct exit diameter larger, which reduces the efflux velocity. Of course, my experience is with a ducted fan, and not a turbine, but still, short, flat-inner-surface paddles (like those on the X-31, F-15S ACTIVE, F-22, as well as the YF-21 and VF-22.) seem to be more effective, and result in smaller thrust losses. ~Luke Quote
eugimon Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 David brings up a good point, regarding paddle shape. From my experience, the SV-51's paddle shape is pretty bad, in terms of vectoring efficiency. The paddles are very narrow, so they tend to 'spill' air rather badly, and the angles on the vectoring faces cause the exhaust to flow outwards, towards the tip of each paddle. This effectively makes the exhaust duct exit diameter larger, which reduces the efflux velocity. Of course, my experience is with a ducted fan, and not a turbine, but still, short, flat-inner-surface paddles (like those on the X-31, F-15S ACTIVE, F-22, as well as the YF-21 and VF-22.) seem to be more effective, and result in smaller thrust losses. ~Luke but they would be worthless as feet. Quote
VF-19 Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 It works fine on one engine, the X-31 can do everything a Super Flanker can, and more, including the Herbst turn, Hook, and Mongoose. NASA has videos you can watch of it: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/X-31/index.html Specifically, the Mongoose with a ground reference--watch and be amazed: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/X-3...EM-0036-06.html (it's called the Mongoose as it's said to be the counter to the Cobra) Still, I don't know of any plane that really has YF-21-looking paddles. They're usually short and square, not long and triangular like the YF-21 or SV-51. The F-22 actually has the closest to that, shape-wise, but they're simply 2D, 2-piece ones. Am I seeing that right? The X-31 is... Hovering? Quote
Apollo Leader Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 I found the image below the other day and It got me to wondering. Was the YF-21(22) the first design to have the "Tri spade" thrust vectoring assembly? (I mean in real life, not in the Macross continuity, That would be the SV: 51 series.) Was this Kawamori's F-16 design for Patlabor 2? Throughout the years there have been proposals to put 2D and 3D thrust vectoring nozzles on the F-16. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 I believe it should be basically hovering, the F-22 does something similar. Quote
Morpheus Posted September 2, 2007 Posted September 2, 2007 Wow, now we need Cobra vs Mongoose maneuver demonstration Quote
sketchley Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 Was this Kawamori's F-16 design for Patlabor 2? Yes. He also did an F-15 for that movie that mirrors the F-15 ACTIVE pretty closely; though with better colours. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.