By: Vnomad
- 30th November 2013 at 19:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
by contrast the 2 Yak141 prototypes flew many times and the design was fully sucssesfull and performance was as good or better than expected and the Yak141 was a generation ahead of the Harrier.
Hardly. It was capable of supersonic flight but otherwise its advantages were a lot less stark. The Harrier II had a lower top speed but a much higher payload, longer range, lower wing-loading, superior avionics and probably greater reliability. Rate of climb and flight ceiling was comparable.
By: ClanWarrior
- 1st December 2013 at 13:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hardly. It was capable of supersonic flight but otherwise its advantages were a lot less stark. The Harrier II had a lower top speed but a much higher payload, longer range, lower wing-loading, superior avionics and probably greater reliability. Rate of climb and flight ceiling was comparable.
And the Harrier would have been supersonic if the RAF had chosen the P1154 over the P1127.
By: Flanker_man
- 1st December 2013 at 14:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You've also ignored the roll posts, which stabilise the F-35B in VL & provide a little lift. There is no equivalent on Yak-141, AFAIK.
If you mean the reaction control 'puffers'.......... the Yak-141 had them.
There were twin jet nozzles in the wingtip fairings for low-speed roll control.
For yaw control, the first prototype had ejectors at the ends of the tail booms, the second prototype had a two-way nose-mounted puffer (which also provided lift in the neutral position).
Pitch control in the hover was achieved through differential thrust from the three engines in jet lift mode.
One advantage of the F-35's lift fan is that it is 'cold' - but it has a complex drive shaft and clutch - more things to go wrong.
The Yak-141's lift jets are 'hot' - with consequent problems of ground erosion - although both design have a 'hot' rear nozzle.
In both cases though, the fan/lift jets are just so much 'dead weight' in conventional flight - a penalty carried by most multi-engined VSTOL designs.
By: Vortex
- 1st December 2013 at 19:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are major differences in the engineering & the solutions to the problems of STOVL. The only real similarity is the swivelling nozzle of the main engine.
Can you guys elaborate on exactly how the main nozzle functions between the two different engines? I used to think they are very similar and didn't bother looking closely at them, but it seems like the nozzle for the Yak's engine can ONLY go up and down. It can't do side motions and thus is not a true multi-degree of freedom swiveling. Looking at any F35B videos on take-off can see what I mean. There's a huge difference here in the intent of the design. I once asked someone here who seems to follow the F35 a lot on the possibility of using the swivel for vectored thrust during flight but they poster indicates that it's only for non-AB transition/vertical flight. I wonder why that is...mechanically, I can only think of the problems with the seals during AB or perhaps pressure disturbance inside the pipe...Regarding the roll post, Harriers and earlier Yaks all have the small reaction nozzles, but the F35B's designers probably wanted a much higher efficiency (being more stability). Recall, in earlier days the potential of how much vertical lift was a huge deciding factor in JSF designs. No, a fan is not a jet. The fan's efficiency is significantly higher than a jet at near zero speeds. On Wiki, there's a limit on the thermal endurance of the Yak in vertical mode, is there such a limit for the F35B...I would like to think no since I've never heard of it.
By: flateric
- 1st December 2013 at 22:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yep. just 20 years after RR put their stuff on test bench and successfully tested
it was not RR problem with swiveling nozzle, but death of AVS program
do you think that Yakovlev and Soyuz didn't study RR papers and patents while making own stuff?
if Soyuz was studying such a nozzle in late 60s and UK has lifted its own Yak-141 in late 80s, now some would be claiming that RR has stolen Soyuz design, huh
By: RadDisconnect
- 8th August 2016 at 02:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 8th August 2016 at 03:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The fact that the biggest military project by the US of all time is a rip off (actually they paid for the blueprints) of a piece of Russian hardware is worthy of a thread bump
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 8th August 2016 at 03:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: FBW
- 8th August 2016 at 03:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The fact that the biggest military project by the US of all time is a rip off (actually they paid for the blueprints) of a piece of Russian hardware is worthy of a thread bump
Spread the word, that makes you and five other delusional posters that believe that. Of course, patents prove you wrong, but hey! Who needs the truth, it's the Internet.
By: KGB
- 8th August 2016 at 05:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Spread the word, that makes you and five other delusional posters that believe that. Of course, patents prove you wrong, but hey! Who needs the truth, it's the Internet.
By: MigL
- 8th August 2016 at 06:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russia gets flack all the time because you're trying to take credit for the Rolls Royce RB-153, 3 bearing, swivel afterburner, nozzle of approx. 7000 lbst dry and 11000 lbst with reheat, that was planned for the EWR VJ-101E and later collaborative AVS projects with Faichild-Republic.
Maybe someone can post a 3-view of the VJ-101E along with the Yak-141 and F-35.
Posts: 2,661
By: Vnomad - 30th November 2013 at 19:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hardly. It was capable of supersonic flight but otherwise its advantages were a lot less stark. The Harrier II had a lower top speed but a much higher payload, longer range, lower wing-loading, superior avionics and probably greater reliability. Rate of climb and flight ceiling was comparable.
Posts: 305
By: ClanWarrior - 1st December 2013 at 13:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And the Harrier would have been supersonic if the RAF had chosen the P1154 over the P1127.
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 1st December 2013 at 14:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you mean the reaction control 'puffers'.......... the Yak-141 had them.
There were twin jet nozzles in the wingtip fairings for low-speed roll control.
For yaw control, the first prototype had ejectors at the ends of the tail booms, the second prototype had a two-way nose-mounted puffer (which also provided lift in the neutral position).
Pitch control in the hover was achieved through differential thrust from the three engines in jet lift mode.
One advantage of the F-35's lift fan is that it is 'cold' - but it has a complex drive shaft and clutch - more things to go wrong.
The Yak-141's lift jets are 'hot' - with consequent problems of ground erosion - although both design have a 'hot' rear nozzle.
In both cases though, the fan/lift jets are just so much 'dead weight' in conventional flight - a penalty carried by most multi-engined VSTOL designs.
Ken
Posts: 702
By: flateric - 1st December 2013 at 16:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RR did know enough of such nozzles way before R-79.
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 1st December 2013 at 19:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Can you guys elaborate on exactly how the main nozzle functions between the two different engines? I used to think they are very similar and didn't bother looking closely at them, but it seems like the nozzle for the Yak's engine can ONLY go up and down. It can't do side motions and thus is not a true multi-degree of freedom swiveling. Looking at any F35B videos on take-off can see what I mean. There's a huge difference here in the intent of the design. I once asked someone here who seems to follow the F35 a lot on the possibility of using the swivel for vectored thrust during flight but they poster indicates that it's only for non-AB transition/vertical flight. I wonder why that is...mechanically, I can only think of the problems with the seals during AB or perhaps pressure disturbance inside the pipe...Regarding the roll post, Harriers and earlier Yaks all have the small reaction nozzles, but the F35B's designers probably wanted a much higher efficiency (being more stability). Recall, in earlier days the potential of how much vertical lift was a huge deciding factor in JSF designs. No, a fan is not a jet. The fan's efficiency is significantly higher than a jet at near zero speeds. On Wiki, there's a limit on the thermal endurance of the Yak in vertical mode, is there such a limit for the F35B...I would like to think no since I've never heard of it.
Posts: 65
By: Geo - 1st December 2013 at 20:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dear Paralay, the "Super Yak" drawing is official? How old is it, please?
Thanks,
Geo
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 1st December 2013 at 21:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This Yak-201, the figure was published in the journal. Project nineties.
Posts: 702
By: flateric - 1st December 2013 at 21:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it's official, ca. 92-93
one of many Yak-41 development studies, preceeding Article 201 aka Yak-43. last one is still classified.
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 1st December 2013 at 21:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This picture, R-79-300 really fly : Р
Posts: 702
By: flateric - 1st December 2013 at 22:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yep. just 20 years after RR put their stuff on test bench and successfully tested
it was not RR problem with swiveling nozzle, but death of AVS program
do you think that Yakovlev and Soyuz didn't study RR papers and patents while making own stuff?
if Soyuz was studying such a nozzle in late 60s and UK has lifted its own Yak-141 in late 80s, now some would be claiming that RR has stolen Soyuz design, huh
Posts: 65
By: Geo - 1st December 2013 at 22:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thank you, Paralay & Flateric
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 7th August 2016 at 21:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wow the west is doing a good job of keeping this under wraps
Posts: 472
By: RadDisconnect - 8th August 2016 at 02:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 8th August 2016 at 03:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The fact that the biggest military project by the US of all time is a rip off (actually they paid for the blueprints) of a piece of Russian hardware is worthy of a thread bump
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 8th August 2016 at 03:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 8th August 2016 at 03:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Spread the word, that makes you and five other delusional posters that believe that. Of course, patents prove you wrong, but hey! Who needs the truth, it's the Internet.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 8th August 2016 at 05:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russia gets flack all the time for copying. Is it a big deal that one went the other way ?
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 8th August 2016 at 06:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Flight-technical characteristics of the aircraft on takeoff and landing modes
F-35B: http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?p=528154#p528154
Yak-141: http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?p=528411#p528411
[ATTACH=CONFIG]247436[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]247437[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]247438[/ATTACH]
Posts: 190
By: MigL - 8th August 2016 at 06:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russia gets flack all the time because you're trying to take credit for the Rolls Royce RB-153, 3 bearing, swivel afterburner, nozzle of approx. 7000 lbst dry and 11000 lbst with reheat, that was planned for the EWR VJ-101E and later collaborative AVS projects with Faichild-Republic.
Maybe someone can post a 3-view of the VJ-101E along with the Yak-141 and F-35.
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 8th August 2016 at 18:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]247440[/ATTACH]