Thrust Vectoring Effect on Rate of Turn
Whoa yes! Thank you FDR, I actually never knew about decoupling thrust moments from bank angle to increase rate of turn. I do have access to a wonderful library, so I could definitely look at further reading.
I'm much more of a wing guy and not much of a propulsion guy other than aerothermodynamics of engines. , although lately, as far as teaching is concerned. I deal mainly with thermodynamics 1&2. I appreciate the time you took responding in detail. There are a couple of acronyms I don't know yet but I'll look them up.
Once again, many thanks
I'm much more of a wing guy and not much of a propulsion guy other than aerothermodynamics of engines. , although lately, as far as teaching is concerned. I deal mainly with thermodynamics 1&2. I appreciate the time you took responding in detail. There are a couple of acronyms I don't know yet but I'll look them up.
Once again, many thanks
The AV8 would have had intersting potential for extreme agility with a bi 'o (?) mixing of the nozzles,
Salute!
Great thread.
I go with Easy, Mog and FDR. In my limited A2A experience in the Viper, about the only advantage we could see with TV was nose-pointing ability. My Harrier buddy that also flew Slufs and Vipers and Thuds had the same view as Mog.
Secondly, once in the the fight, bank angle is only a biggie if the other guy is not turning in the same plane as you. So the equation needs to take out that factor. OTOH when at zero or close to zero bank angle, God's gee helps or hurts depending if inverted or not. The old "egg" they show you about tighter turn over the top and such. Once turning and going thru all the points on the protractor, you are mainly putting the lift vector where you need to to get a shot or close on the bandit. The F-22 uses TV primarily for nose-pointing from what I have heard. Mainly we could get a Raptor pilot to comment or someone who has engaged a Raptor.
Gums sends...
Great thread.
I go with Easy, Mog and FDR. In my limited A2A experience in the Viper, about the only advantage we could see with TV was nose-pointing ability. My Harrier buddy that also flew Slufs and Vipers and Thuds had the same view as Mog.
Secondly, once in the the fight, bank angle is only a biggie if the other guy is not turning in the same plane as you. So the equation needs to take out that factor. OTOH when at zero or close to zero bank angle, God's gee helps or hurts depending if inverted or not. The old "egg" they show you about tighter turn over the top and such. Once turning and going thru all the points on the protractor, you are mainly putting the lift vector where you need to to get a shot or close on the bandit. The F-22 uses TV primarily for nose-pointing from what I have heard. Mainly we could get a Raptor pilot to comment or someone who has engaged a Raptor.
Gums sends...
Salute!
Secondly, once in the the fight, bank angle is only a biggie if the other guy is not turning in the same plane as you. So the equation needs to take out that factor. OTOH when at zero or close to zero bank angle, God's gee helps or hurts depending if inverted or not. .... Once turning and going thru all the points on the protractor, you are mainly putting the lift vector where you need to to get a shot or close on the bandit. The F-22 uses TV primarily for nose-pointing from what I have heard.
Gums sends...
Secondly, once in the the fight, bank angle is only a biggie if the other guy is not turning in the same plane as you. So the equation needs to take out that factor. OTOH when at zero or close to zero bank angle, God's gee helps or hurts depending if inverted or not. .... Once turning and going thru all the points on the protractor, you are mainly putting the lift vector where you need to to get a shot or close on the bandit. The F-22 uses TV primarily for nose-pointing from what I have heard.
Gums sends...
- If you want higher roll rates, the Gums Special leading edge device is pretty effective... use once only and discard..
- Up in area where 3D maneuver is possible, each driver is trying to get out of plane with the other at the cost of energy loss. The start will have reasonable energy, and altitude permits recovery of energy loss from a bout of TV. Whatever your ride, you are going to be either forced or dragged down to the weeds over time, and then a TV may get the solution, at the cost of loss of energy.
- Gods g by pegasus is about the addition that the harrier had available, with a really large speed brake effect.
musings....
Sustained turn factors:
- stall speed
- L/D
- excess thrust
- structural g limit
- high aoa stability & control
Reducing stall speed and improving L/D is possible, even while retaining RCS. That gives a smaller turn radius as well as increased rates of turn which can. be helpful,
The 15, 16, and 18 testbeds had various methods of giving TV, but the petal style X-31 Type III system would suggest that upgrade could be done to existing variable nozzles, but they have some geometry issues for retrofitting. Going to Type IV fluidic type wake vectoring would fit within current variable nozzles, would be a relatively lightweight and cost-effective complication to the other team.
manoeuver capability is always going to remain a factor in force capability. Pre merge engagement does not have a sufficiently high Pk to avoid leakers, so as even just a defensive follow-up it will be important. The rate of turn capability is supplemented where the missiles onboard your ride have an over-the-shoulder capability, and if the red team has that, then that increases the importance of first kill, turn rate, IR suppression/ IR countermeasures, etc. If you find sustainer type boost sections being added to your AMRAAM/R-77 etc, then its time to retire, If the missile has a first stage that has gimbal and throttling or low specific impulse, then the ability to get a near 180 degree turn off the missile starts to be achievable, designated by a helmet-mounted sight, that would be a good time to become a drone pilot.
Salute!
Secondly, once in the the fight, bank angle is only a biggie if the other guy is not turning in the same plane as you. So the equation needs to take out that factor. OTOH when at zero or close to zero bank angle, God's gee helps or hurts depending if inverted or not. .... Once turning and going thru all the points on the protractor, you are mainly putting the lift vector where you need to to get a shot or close on the bandit. The F-22 uses TV primarily for nose-pointing from what I have heard.
Gums sends...
Secondly, once in the the fight, bank angle is only a biggie if the other guy is not turning in the same plane as you. So the equation needs to take out that factor. OTOH when at zero or close to zero bank angle, God's gee helps or hurts depending if inverted or not. .... Once turning and going thru all the points on the protractor, you are mainly putting the lift vector where you need to to get a shot or close on the bandit. The F-22 uses TV primarily for nose-pointing from what I have heard.
Gums sends...
- If you want higher roll rates, the Gums Special leading edge device is pretty effective... use once only and discard..
- Up in area where 3D maneuver is possible, each driver is trying to get out of plane with the other at the cost of energy loss. The start will have reasonable energy, and altitude permits recovery of energy loss from a bout of TV. Whatever your ride, you are going to be either forced or dragged down to the weeds over time, and then a TV may get the solution, at the cost of loss of energy.
- Gods g by pegasus is about the addition that the harrier had available, with a really large speed break effect.
musings....
Sustained turn factors:
- stall speed
- L/D
- excess thrust
- structural g limit
- high aoa stability & control
- G-LOC
Reducing stall speed and improving L/D is possible, even while retaining RCS. That gives a smaller turn radius as well as increased rates of turn which can. be helpful,
The 15, 16, and 18 testbeds had various methods of giving TV, but the petal style X-31 Type III system would suggest that upgrade could be done to existing variable nozzles, but they have some geometry issues for retrofitting. Going to Type IV fluidic type wake vectoring would fit within current variable nozzles, would be a relatively lightweight and cost-effective complication to the other team.
manoeuver capability is always going to remain a factor in force capability. Pre merge engagement does not have a sufficiently high Pk to avoid leakers, so as even just a defensive follow-up it will be important. The rate of turn capability is supplemented where the missiles onboard your ride have an over-the-shoulder capability, and if the red team has that, then that increases the importance of first kill, turn rate, IR suppression/ IR countermeasures, etc. If you find sustainer type boost sections being added to your AMRAAM/R-77 etc, then its time to retire, If the missile has a first stage that has gimbal and throttling or low specific impulse, then the ability to get a near 180 degree turn off the missile starts to be achievable, designated by a helmet-mounted sight, that would be a good time to become a drone pilot.
Salute!
Good points, FDR.
When you do the Boyd type equations and tactics, then try to fly them, I found that the turn rates and some of the nose pointing was better in the Viper due to the stabilators increasing lift toward the center of your turn regardless of bank angle. Let's face it, no body fights in a bandit gathering level turn regardless of how many gees you can pull or your turn rate. So more lift toward the center helps you, and my rule of thumb equation is decent.
gee=vee^2/radius where radius can be derived using speed and turn rate radius=vee/rate
You can see that the converse can be used to get either radius or rate. And guess what? The more gee you can pull without stalling has a good effect on rate or radius.
I first noticed the nose pointing issue when flying versus the Eagle at slow speed. Stall was not a limit for either of us, but our AoA limiter was a biggie. Ditto versus the Hornet or Tomcat.
So maybe the thread should emphasize body rate versus turn rate, as a delta like I flew early on could move that nose at obscene rates and I wasn't turning in space worth a hoot! And was rapidly becoming a strafe target for the bandit's wingman.
... Gums sends...
Good points, FDR.
When you do the Boyd type equations and tactics, then try to fly them, I found that the turn rates and some of the nose pointing was better in the Viper due to the stabilators increasing lift toward the center of your turn regardless of bank angle. Let's face it, no body fights in a bandit gathering level turn regardless of how many gees you can pull or your turn rate. So more lift toward the center helps you, and my rule of thumb equation is decent.
gee=vee^2/radius where radius can be derived using speed and turn rate radius=vee/rate
You can see that the converse can be used to get either radius or rate. And guess what? The more gee you can pull without stalling has a good effect on rate or radius.
I first noticed the nose pointing issue when flying versus the Eagle at slow speed. Stall was not a limit for either of us, but our AoA limiter was a biggie. Ditto versus the Hornet or Tomcat.
So maybe the thread should emphasize body rate versus turn rate, as a delta like I flew early on could move that nose at obscene rates and I wasn't turning in space worth a hoot! And was rapidly becoming a strafe target for the bandit's wingman.
... Gums sends...
Fair point.
(I'm in isolation during an engine change so my boredom may show through in the following)
background:
As the great gummed one will note this is one of the E-M graphs that he would have been familiar with, and that is for the small mouth, but lightweight plane, as Boyd fought for. This is for mid-levels. At lower levels, thrust increases... and the energy deficit region shifts to higher turn rates. Energy Maneuverability AD372287 (1966) from APG Eglin, FL (that's John Boyds, Tom Christie's, and James Gibson's handiwork) gives enough data to set out altitude effects. (The profound effect of wing loading is evident in the turn performance of the MiG21 v the F4C, as while the planform of the MiG-21 is a high drag form, and the installed thrust gives inferior level acceleration (forget about the pre -bis low altitude vertical stab buffet... ) it gives the mod delta of the F4 a run for its money in turn.
Your Typhoon has lots of thrust... the wing is a relatively high drag, but it is a low wing loading and lightly loaded it has spectacular performance and agility. the Rafale is close to the same down low. Either of these will give an F-16 a serious run for their money. If the F16 has to go past a merge, it will be losing height to maintain a position that doesn't go defensive promptly. The F-18 will want to be very careful to avoid a furball. The 15EX would be interesting to assess on available data. The F-22 will still give both the EFA and Rafale a hard time. The F-35 will be wanting to take out the targets before the merge on available data.
To achieve a high sustained rate of turn, the former gold standard will eventually start to trade altitude, or will drop some rate but will eventually bleed speed,
As for the start of a furball, tactics will determine engagement height but physics will guide the tactics. Missile range is dependent on density; potential energy affects options; (the question asked); altitude alters AAI radar detection range and air defense radar....; the presence of SAM, AAA, terrain all impact the likely fragged profile, along with logistics of range/AAR constraints. Lots of variables, even the profiles that various forces train for. Presumably, an algorithm can be put out to give a probability plot of the likely approaches, heights, and force compositions, but then Sun Tsu gets a nod on the impact of surprise, so, yeah, your question is quite fair.
A defensive manoeuver for missile defense where you are up in the blue is likely to incorporate a lateral manoeuver to force a turn rate on the missile, and a change of altitude to increase the drag of the missile to reduce its velocity post booster burnout. A descent will achieve the latter and retain the energy state of the defensive aircraft.
In 1964, Boyd & co put out these E-M charts.... gotta love their work
Comparison of Brand X v Brang Y:
BRAND X
BRAND Y
This matrix covers thrust vectoring solutions. I was thinking of adding the original equations that Boyd and Christie used, it is entertaining, but the quality is so bad of the copy that it need not have been declassified Heck, I couldn't resist... it's a bit of the minimum time to climb solution the boys from Eglin did using Bryson & Denholns optimal programming method. doctors handwriting...
Bryson and Denham, 1962. Bryson A.E., Denham W.F.A steepest-ascent method for solving optimum programming problems. J. Appl. Mech. (1962), pp. 247-257.
(I'm in isolation during an engine change so my boredom may show through in the following)
background:
- T/W gives a starting point for an E-M analysis, which is relatively straightforward although it is dependent on the loadout and fuel state.
- Excess thrust is variable to aoa and to wing planform, and load drag count.
- Wing loading trumps almost everything.
As the great gummed one will note this is one of the E-M graphs that he would have been familiar with, and that is for the small mouth, but lightweight plane, as Boyd fought for. This is for mid-levels. At lower levels, thrust increases... and the energy deficit region shifts to higher turn rates. Energy Maneuverability AD372287 (1966) from APG Eglin, FL (that's John Boyds, Tom Christie's, and James Gibson's handiwork) gives enough data to set out altitude effects. (The profound effect of wing loading is evident in the turn performance of the MiG21 v the F4C, as while the planform of the MiG-21 is a high drag form, and the installed thrust gives inferior level acceleration (forget about the pre -bis low altitude vertical stab buffet... ) it gives the mod delta of the F4 a run for its money in turn.
Your Typhoon has lots of thrust... the wing is a relatively high drag, but it is a low wing loading and lightly loaded it has spectacular performance and agility. the Rafale is close to the same down low. Either of these will give an F-16 a serious run for their money. If the F16 has to go past a merge, it will be losing height to maintain a position that doesn't go defensive promptly. The F-18 will want to be very careful to avoid a furball. The 15EX would be interesting to assess on available data. The F-22 will still give both the EFA and Rafale a hard time. The F-35 will be wanting to take out the targets before the merge on available data.
To achieve a high sustained rate of turn, the former gold standard will eventually start to trade altitude, or will drop some rate but will eventually bleed speed,
As for the start of a furball, tactics will determine engagement height but physics will guide the tactics. Missile range is dependent on density; potential energy affects options; (the question asked); altitude alters AAI radar detection range and air defense radar....; the presence of SAM, AAA, terrain all impact the likely fragged profile, along with logistics of range/AAR constraints. Lots of variables, even the profiles that various forces train for. Presumably, an algorithm can be put out to give a probability plot of the likely approaches, heights, and force compositions, but then Sun Tsu gets a nod on the impact of surprise, so, yeah, your question is quite fair.
A defensive manoeuver for missile defense where you are up in the blue is likely to incorporate a lateral manoeuver to force a turn rate on the missile, and a change of altitude to increase the drag of the missile to reduce its velocity post booster burnout. A descent will achieve the latter and retain the energy state of the defensive aircraft.
In 1964, Boyd & co put out these E-M charts.... gotta love their work
Comparison of Brand X v Brang Y:
BRAND X
BRAND Y
This matrix covers thrust vectoring solutions. I was thinking of adding the original equations that Boyd and Christie used, it is entertaining, but the quality is so bad of the copy that it need not have been declassified
Heck, I couldn't resist... it's a bit of the minimum time to climb solution the boys from Eglin did using Bryson & Denholns optimal programming method. doctors handwriting...Bryson and Denham, 1962. Bryson A.E., Denham W.F.A steepest-ascent method for solving optimum programming problems. J. Appl. Mech. (1962), pp. 247-257.
Last edited by fdr; 17th Feb 2021 at 13:19.
Salute!
Outstanding, FDR.
I resigned when the Block 15 was meanest mother in the valley, and it was the most produced best I can tell.
At flighthappens.....
Well based on actual encounters in several conflicts going back to when TopGun school came about and USAF upgraded their Weapons School training. Poof! We got two aces in 1972 before the war ended and turned the stats around. Then look at Desert Storm and Falklands and... and...
The main reason we wanted high E entering an engagememt was as FDR described. Yeah, my turn radius big, rate low, but if I am zooming up and he cannot match that, I can come back down and get my E back with another gee from God. Go see a Raptor demo.
Secondly, thanks to FDR for the graphics graphic.... I want all here to look at the Viper E-M graphic concerning rates, gees and energy. Note that we could maintain over 8 gees until running outta gas using max power and at 380 to 400 knots. For the bat turn, 350 knots better, but not good unless bandit already slow and floundering. Look at the obscene turn rates. Note we could have excess energy and climb while pulling 4 or 5 gees. Gotta tellya, first time others engaged they were impressed. That was us 40 years ago. At the Lossiemouth Bomp Comp back in early 80's, our team shot down 80 bandits upon ingress and exit while only losing one.
...Gums sends..
Outstanding, FDR.
I resigned when the Block 15 was meanest mother in the valley, and it was the most produced best I can tell.
At flighthappens.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdr View Post
Based on what?
Originally Posted by fdr View Post
- Up in area where 3D maneuver is possible, each driver is trying to get out of plane with the other at the cost of energy loss. The start will have reasonable energy, and altitude permits recovery of energy loss from a bout of TV...
Based on what?
The main reason we wanted high E entering an engagememt was as FDR described. Yeah, my turn radius big, rate low, but if I am zooming up and he cannot match that, I can come back down and get my E back with another gee from God. Go see a Raptor demo.
Secondly, thanks to FDR for the graphics graphic.... I want all here to look at the Viper E-M graphic concerning rates, gees and energy. Note that we could maintain over 8 gees until running outta gas using max power and at 380 to 400 knots. For the bat turn, 350 knots better, but not good unless bandit already slow and floundering. Look at the obscene turn rates. Note we could have excess energy and climb while pulling 4 or 5 gees. Gotta tellya, first time others engaged they were impressed. That was us 40 years ago. At the Lossiemouth Bomp Comp back in early 80's, our team shot down 80 bandits upon ingress and exit while only losing one.
...Gums sends..
Fascinating to look at the detailed nuts and bolts of thrust vectoring. As an aside, I used to HATE linear algebra class and I only got a B, but now I use it all the time...I should go back to school and take it again for an A
Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 18th Feb 2021 at 17:17.
Just one more thing, those matrices and all of those graphs were probably drawn by a female human computer. The sloppy looking integration was most likely written out by engineers.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Bucks
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One other way to think of the Sukhoi/F22 etc. TVC is by drawing a vector diagram.
To pitch the nose up, the donks alter their axis of thrust giving a vertical component. Say, a 20 degree offset. Take an F22 at altitude producing 50,000lb combined thrust, that gives a vertical component of thrust (down) of about 17,000 lb which is countering lift, so is an extra "weight" to be borne by the wings. As far as the wings are concerned, the aicraft suddenly "weighs" 17,000 lb more.
50,000 lb gross weight, at corner velocity pulling 9G the airframe was producing 450,000 lb of lift. Add in TVC and it is now being asked to produce 467,000 lb of lift so something has to give - either G has to reduce (reducing turn rate) or the plane has to accelerate to produce the extra lift (also reducing turn rate). (Both in steady state, suddenly chucking in TVC would probably bend things!).
TVC also offloads the tail aero surfaces, reducing their trim drag and downforce... so it may end up all just cancelling out.
That's what thinking back to my Aero Eng tells me anyway!
To pitch the nose up, the donks alter their axis of thrust giving a vertical component. Say, a 20 degree offset. Take an F22 at altitude producing 50,000lb combined thrust, that gives a vertical component of thrust (down) of about 17,000 lb which is countering lift, so is an extra "weight" to be borne by the wings. As far as the wings are concerned, the aicraft suddenly "weighs" 17,000 lb more.
50,000 lb gross weight, at corner velocity pulling 9G the airframe was producing 450,000 lb of lift. Add in TVC and it is now being asked to produce 467,000 lb of lift so something has to give - either G has to reduce (reducing turn rate) or the plane has to accelerate to produce the extra lift (also reducing turn rate). (Both in steady state, suddenly chucking in TVC would probably bend things!).
TVC also offloads the tail aero surfaces, reducing their trim drag and downforce... so it may end up all just cancelling out.
That's what thinking back to my Aero Eng tells me anyway!
Last edited by Deskscribbler; 18th Feb 2021 at 12:04.
Salute!
Great point, Desk.
From watching the F-22 demos, seems the best use of the nozzles is at very slow speed and high AoA condiitons, not at corner velocity.
The new F-35 puts on an eye-watering demo and does not use TV, just great aero and a humongous motor.
''Gums sends...
Great point, Desk.
From watching the F-22 demos, seems the best use of the nozzles is at very slow speed and high AoA condiitons, not at corner velocity.
The new F-35 puts on an eye-watering demo and does not use TV, just great aero and a humongous motor.
''Gums sends...
I used Thrust Vectoring in the Harrier - and it did make the nose do some amazing things.
Some of them were what I wanted, to get a quick shot off, but the loss of energy was a problem.
Many of them were way different from what I wanted, and a "loss of control"- or something close - was often the sequel..........
Probably due to my incompetence.............
I don't know if MOG or anyone else actually utilised Harrier Thrust Vectoring in '82 in the air-to air environment - I suspect not as it was a relatively benign environment.
I used it over Stanley for different reasons in '82, but it's use did not achieve the end results that we were looking for!!
The charts and graphs on preceding posts probably explain why it often didn't work for me - clearly I spent too much time looking out of the window, and not enough time confirming that I was meeting all the parameters to achieve the correct variables that would have made my life so much better.
Some of them were what I wanted, to get a quick shot off, but the loss of energy was a problem.
Many of them were way different from what I wanted, and a "loss of control"- or something close - was often the sequel..........
Probably due to my incompetence.............
I don't know if MOG or anyone else actually utilised Harrier Thrust Vectoring in '82 in the air-to air environment - I suspect not as it was a relatively benign environment.
I used it over Stanley for different reasons in '82, but it's use did not achieve the end results that we were looking for!!
The charts and graphs on preceding posts probably explain why it often didn't work for me - clearly I spent too much time looking out of the window, and not enough time confirming that I was meeting all the parameters to achieve the correct variables that would have made my life so much better.
Salute!
LOL, ex-fast...
You got it.
Back in early days of the Viper we also looked around and not at some EM display we had that nobody could figure except the test pilot that got it on our selection of displays. We soon traded that display's "bytes" for something else, and the Norwegians needed bytes for the Penguin.
What we had going for us was we could pull and yank and bank and 90% of the time we would not depart and the plane was giving us best we could ask of it. You knew you were losing E when the gees went down and you were at an obscene AoA and couldn't move the nose.
... Gums sends...
LOL, ex-fast...
You got it.
Back in early days of the Viper we also looked around and not at some EM display we had that nobody could figure except the test pilot that got it on our selection of displays. We soon traded that display's "bytes" for something else, and the Norwegians needed bytes for the Penguin.
What we had going for us was we could pull and yank and bank and 90% of the time we would not depart and the plane was giving us best we could ask of it. You knew you were losing E when the gees went down and you were at an obscene AoA and couldn't move the nose.
... Gums sends...
Stanley was protected by a Roland missile system with the ability to get you up to 14,500' but I thought that it might improve morale if I could splash this guy who was stooging around at low level, in front of the Upland Goose. I left my #2 at 25,000', avoiding the odd 35mm burst and entered a steep dive with full power, in the braking stop to stabilise my speed around 250kts. This gave me a fairly stable platform to boresight the Pucara and get a 9L lock. First dive - no lock, recovered at 16k. Second dive - good lock but he would have crashed into the cathedral (not good for morale!), recovered at 17k. Final attempt - good growl but only intermittent lock, so pressed on a bit too long and ended up well below 14k at 250 kts with 2 x Roland heading for my arse!
I pulled the nose up, slammed the nozzles aft, tripped the water and stood on 21,500lbs of thrust, feeling silly and watching the missiles tracking me beautifully. Luckily made it to14,500' just before the missiles and watched them fall away a few hundred feet below me!
Sometimes seems like yesterday!
Mog
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Suffolk
Age: 74
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read that bit in your book - a bloody good read, so thank you, not only for helping me pass time in lockdown, but for what you and the boys did nearly 40 years ago.
Mog; your welcome to the Pucara crew probably would have been less enthusiastically received by the Pucara crew.
Would have been interesting to see how a forward cold nozzle only deflection, would have worked on the Harrier. that would seem to act to reduce long stab which would be helpful for getting rates for a modicum of thrust loss. Would be fun unless it was overcooked.
the graphs below (or the differences at least) predate even the Harrier, (R.I.P.) At VNE, the Venetian blind loses half its V in 6 seconds of turn, Tommy's plane losses that in 15 seconds from the analysis. Cheating is winning, whatever the ride.
Flew a couple of times with Al Curtiss pre 82, sad end.
Would have been interesting to see how a forward cold nozzle only deflection, would have worked on the Harrier. that would seem to act to reduce long stab which would be helpful for getting rates for a modicum of thrust loss. Would be fun unless it was overcooked.
the graphs below (or the differences at least) predate even the Harrier, (R.I.P.) At VNE, the Venetian blind loses half its V in 6 seconds of turn, Tommy's plane losses that in 15 seconds from the analysis. Cheating is winning, whatever the ride.
Flew a couple of times with Al Curtiss pre 82, sad end.
The book is about to be released in Argentina - could be interesting! Also being released in UK as an audiobook next week, for those who can't be bothered to read it!!
Mog
