By: bring_it_on
- 25th September 2006 at 17:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I dont see anyone who is ahead in any way , i mean TVC isnt really all that complex or expensive to develop like stealth , or super aerodynamic effeceincy which takes a lot of time and money in Wind tunnels and RCS measuring labs etc etc , both russia and USA have had plenty of research in this regard and the production has been in focus of internal technology needs and demands . The Mig-29OVT is a perfect example of this , the Mig have offered the All access 3d system - the first of its kind i believe in russia as the su-35 had a pitch yaw system rather then one which does in all possible angles , the US industry team lead by Lockheed martin also had the AVEN which was basically a 360 degrees axis demonstrated about a decade ago with the MATV/VISTA and the main purpose was to come up with a production ready version for he 110 which could do 27 degrees in any one direction , the program was an overwhelming success and tested the nozzle , came up with integration software etc etc and the aircraft flew over 100 sorties against F-15's , F-16's and F-18's etc etc . The nozzle was offered to UAE initially as part of the blk 60 deal with the radical setup of the F-16 with the delta wing etc etc before LMA decided to go in with the more conventional setup as it saved money and UAE did not want a system to radical which the US didnt use . Furthermore the F-15ACTIVE also used 3d tvc ( all direction not only pitch yaw) and it had a production version nozzle ( just not the paddles like the X-31) which tested TVC upto mach 2 speeds. Now russia has also had similar experiences with the su-35 and su-37 and have gone on to offer these technologies , both industries have atleast 1 aircraft type operational with TVC in the F-22A and the Su-30mki . Talking about future TVC you have the Fluid TVC which is being currently developed for the N-UCAV which will provide yaw only TVC deflection ( they didnt want pitch because it aint a fighter) without actually any moving nozzle , i' sure russia also has something similar in the pipleline so i really dont see the big thing here with TVC.
By: sferrin
- 25th September 2006 at 20:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I dont see anyone who is ahead in any way , i mean TVC isnt really all that complex or expensive to develop like stealth , or super aerodynamic effeceincy which takes a lot of time and money in Wind tunnels and RCS measuring labs etc etc , both russia and USA have had plenty of research in this regard and the production has been in focus of internal technology needs and demands . The Mig-29OVT is a perfect example of this , the Mig have offered the All access 3d system - the first of its kind i believe in russia as the su-35 had a pitch yaw system rather then one which does in all possible angles , the US industry team lead by Lockheed martin also had the AVEN which was basically a 360 degrees axis demonstrated about a decade ago with the MATV/VISTA and the main purpose was to come up with a production ready version for he 110 which could do 27 degrees in any one direction , the program was an overwhelming success and tested the nozzle , came up with integration software etc etc and the aircraft flew over 100 sorties against F-15's , F-16's and F-18's etc etc . The nozzle was offered to UAE initially as part of the blk 60 deal with the radical setup of the F-16 with the delta wing etc etc before LMA decided to go in with the more conventional setup as it saved money and UAE did not want a system to radical which the US didnt use . Furthermore the F-15ACTIVE also used 3d tvc ( all direction not only pitch yaw) and it had a production version nozzle ( just not the paddles like the X-31) which tested TVC upto mach 2 speeds. Now russia has also had similar experiences with the su-35 and su-37 and have gone on to offer these technologies , both industries have atleast 1 aircraft type operational with TVC in the F-22A and the Su-30mki . Talking about future TVC you have the Fluid TVC which is being currently developed for the N-UCAV which will provide yaw only TVC deflection ( they didnt want pitch because it aint a fighter) without actually any moving nozzle , i' sure russia also has something similar in the pipleline so i really dont see the big thing here with TVC.
Fluid TVC has actually been used as far back as the X-36 IIRC. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the X-45 and BoP had it too.
By: bring_it_on
- 25th September 2006 at 20:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I dont recall reading anything about the secret use of F-TVC on the BOP , the only thing that it is said to have experimented with was the use of material coating which makes it almost invisible to the naked eye by superimposing the surroundings etc etc however even that is not confirmed , Regarding the X-45A it needent have used it on the demonstrator but will eventually would have found its way into the J-UCAS , the X-45A was to show more of avionics maturity and prove the aerodynamic perfromances , the Yaw F-TVC was more as a substitute to conventional surfaces rather then in addition to them and the lack of deflection of aerodynamic surfaces meant lesser fluctuations in RCS.
By: sferrin
- 25th September 2006 at 20:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmmm. Not sure what to make of this but:
(a dead link)
Man in the loop-08/04/2003-Flight InternationalThe tailless X-45 is the first aircraft to use fluidic thrust-vectoring. This injects air at key locations within the nozzle to provide multi-axis thrust ... www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2003/04/08/163993/Man+in+the+loop.html - 37k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
and from a DOD paper:
"The X-36, is a tailless 28-percent scale, experimental aircraft that will dramatically change the design of future
stealth fighters. The remotely piloted X-36 has no vertical or horizontal tails, yet it is expected to be more
maneuverable and agile than today’s fighters. Its revolutionary design was built at a fraction of the cost and schedule
typical of other X-aircraft. The tailless design reduces the weight, drag, and RCS typically associated with
traditional fighter aircraft. It incorporates new flight control technologies in place of vertical and horizontal tails to
improve the maneuverability and survivability of future fighter aircraft. During flight, the X-36 uses new split
ailerons and a thrust vectoring nozzle for directional control."
But doesn't specify if it was a fluidic design. ISTR at the time though it was specified as being classified.
By: bring_it_on
- 25th September 2006 at 20:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I
Fluid TVC has actually been used as far back as the X-36 IIRC
dont think the X-36 used F-TVC it used new split ailerons to provide yaw and pitch directional control , i think the engine only churned some 700lb or thrust or something like that.
Vis a vi F-TVC guess who is paying the most money on research and development of F-TVC ?? It aint NASA , nor is it boeing or Pratt and whitney!!
By: bring_it_on
- 25th September 2006 at 20:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I found out the same info at NASA
Instead, a canard forward of the wing is utilized, in addition to split ailerons and an advanced thrust-vectoring nozzle for directional control. The X-36 is unstable in both the pitch and yaw axes; therefore, an advanced, single-channel digital fly-by-wire control system, developed with some commercially available components, stabilizes the aircraft.
Come to think of it , looking at this pic atleast one cant really see how the nozzle looks like a mechanical moving one unless the entire back end somehow goes down and sideways , it is posible in the pitch axis but i dont see how the heck the entire thing is going to move in the yaw axis -
By: BDF
- 25th September 2006 at 21:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Can I just make a point on the stupidity of saying something is "limited" in service.
Idon't think that he has any concept of what systematic testing is all about and what implications it has for operational envelope.
BDF
New
Posts: 12
By: Doggy
- 25th September 2006 at 21:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With lessons learned from the X-31, F18 HARV, VISTA, the Raptor and even the latest software in the Super Hornet and Hornet, have been better performance in the 'post stall' region. However, the Raptor takes it a notch or two above since it is still controllable at 60 degrees of Alpha while other planes are no longer in control once past their CLmax. That's the big difference.
Super Hornet and Hornet are comfortable around 35-40 Alphas - while descending like a brick! The Sus are probably in the same category as the F18s. While the F14 and F15 can do the same but they won't look pretty doing it - you can thank FBW for that. Remember I am talking about control in the post stall area not maximum alpha achieved past CLmax!
As for limits, IIRC, all USAF 'fighter' aircraft are treated at 7.33G planes regardless if they are rated up to 9G or not - during peacetime. However, when at war, the limits go out the window!
By: firebar
- 26th September 2006 at 15:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Isn't the Flanker limited to something like 30 degrees in service? Of course, service limitations dont stop the Flankers.
And in some videos you can see the 'FF' markings on the tail. afaik EMD Raptors are not cleared for full flight envelope anyway.
The Flanker has , so called, soft limit to about 30 degrees, but it can be pushed any time to 120 degrees, if need be. And that can be done with aerodynamic controls, which is truly amazing.
Regarding F-22 limitations, I can not find any source which state that service aircraft can be pushed to more than 60 degrees.
By: sferrin
- 26th September 2006 at 15:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Flanker has , so called, soft limit to about 30 degrees, but it can be pushed any time to 120 degrees, if need be. And that can be done with aerodynamic controls, which is truly amazing.
Regarding F-22 limitations, I can not find any source which state that service aircraft can be pushed to more than 60 degrees.
By: JFrazier
- 26th September 2006 at 17:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 60 degrees sustained AoA is too much for F-22.
Wow, you really can't read can you?
There are no public numbers on the Raptor's transient AoA. From the video, in a normal service Raptor, the pilot was able to reach about 120 degrees AoA. It is not a test plane. This was at an airshow in a jet loaded with 8 missiles and almost full tanks.
The Raptor has no problem reaching a sustained 60 degrees AoA. It has been that way since the YF-22.
Raptor pilots say that they have no problem doing any of the post-stall manuevers of the Flanker series.
By: bring_it_on
- 26th September 2006 at 18:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess he doesnt want to believe what the raptor pilots have to say as compared to what the flanker pilots say about their jets furthermore the 60 degrees sustained was a requirment which the F-22 met and that is what is the truth.
Furthermore 60 degrees has been demonstrated plenty of times at airshows by dozer who is a combat pilot ( not a test pilot) and does his routines on a combat coded jet ( not one with an operational-Testing squadron) which carries enough fuel to fly to location , demonstrate and fly back to langley and he makes sure that the aircraft carries a full load . It helps if you understant what tail markings mean and the difference between a OT marking and a FF marking and then go and read what the pilot has to say about his jet being operational representative and carrying missiles and fuel . Ofcourse Firebar wont believe what the pilot has to say nor would he believe his own eyes when he sees the video posted in the very first post of this thread where the raptor clearly does a 115 degrees cobra ( Dozer likes to do it this way as he calls it his own version of the COBRA where he instead of snapping on and snapping off likes to hold that just a tad bit longer to demonstrate the capability of the raptor to hold and not swoop nose ) , there are also other videos where he is sustaining a 50-60 degrees hold and still maintaining path for the entire length of the circuit , obviously firebar wont beleive it until he flies the jet himself because he has probably verified the cobras on the flanker by flying them himself . I dont know why we need to make a case for it when on the face of it it is so evident.
By: sferrin
- 26th September 2006 at 19:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess he doesnt want to believe what the raptor pilots have to say as compared to what the flanker pilots say about their jets furthermore the 60 degrees sustained was a requirment which the F-22 met and that is what is the truth.
Furthermore 60 degrees has been demonstrated plenty of times at airshows by dozer who is a combat pilot ( not a test pilot) and does his routines on a combat coded jet ( not one with an operational-Testing squadron) which carries enough fuel to fly to location , demonstrate and fly back to langley and he makes sure that the aircraft carries a full load . It helps if you understant what tail markings mean and the difference between a OT marking and a FF marking and then go and read what the pilot has to say about his jet being operational representative and carrying missiles and fuel . Ofcourse Firebar wont believe what the pilot has to say nor would he believe his own eyes when he sees the video posted in the very first post of this thread where the raptor clearly does a 115 degrees cobra ( Dozer likes to do it this way as he calls it his own version of the COBRA where he instead of snapping on and snapping off likes to hold that just a tad bit longer to demonstrate the capability of the raptor to hold and not swoop nose ) , there are also other videos where he is sustaining a 50-60 degrees hold and still maintaining path for the entire length of the circuit , obviously firebar wont beleive it until he flies the jet himself because he has probably verified the cobras on the flanker by flying them himself . I dont know why we need to make a case for it when on the face of it it is so evident.
Yeah but you know how evil Americans are. They'd probably drug him so he thought it did a Cobra when in fact it really didn't :diablo: And his proof? Well the Raptor isn't Russian therefore it's impossible.
That's just full of Western propaganda. Funny though how the move the YF-17 Cobra did first is also called the Cobra by the Russians. It must be a nod to the YF-17 :diablo:
By: firebar
- 28th September 2006 at 14:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At the moment there are no limitations vis a vis service aircraft ( these are from my personal experience with talking to raptor maintaince guys and pilots aswell as going through dozer) they are allowed to do whatever they want within the ROE's of the engagement concerned .
There has to be limit to Raptors AoA. The only fighters which have no limit of AoA are SU-37 or SU-30 MKI, which have TVC and performed 360 degrees, full turn about lateral axis.
By: firebar
- 28th September 2006 at 14:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Can I just make a point on the stupidity of saying something is "limited" in service.
Do you really think a pilot is going to give 2 ****s about the manual when they has an R-77 or similar boring in? Get real!!!
In war, peacetime limits go out the window.
That is the point about high AoA flights. To have a control at very high AoA to evade missiles, hostile aircraft or to bring its weapons to enemy.
That is why the more AoA , the better. It is not airshow stunt only.
But every aircraft has its own limit beyond which it will departure from controlled flight.
For now, the Raptor has 60 degrees limit for service aircraft, if it is not lifted recently. The test pilot maneuvers do not account.
Is there any recent source to prove otherwise ?
By: firebar
- 28th September 2006 at 14:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No they are not a whole generation ahead. The Raptor's fly-by-wire system is far, far more advanced than of the any Flankers. I would say that the FBW system has even more to do with pointability than thrust vectoring.
Doing a 360 around a lateral axis deos not mean it's the ultimate, most manueverable jet.
The perfect aerodynamics is far more important than Fly-by-wire controls.
Look at F-16. It can not do more that 26 degrees because it aerodynamics do not allow it. Despite Fly-by-wire. This can not help.
Or look at Tornado ADV. The same applies to it.
With MiG-29 and SU-27, the Russians managed to built aerodynamicaly perfect fighters.
Even without TVC they are virtualy departure proof, and controllable to more that 90 degrees AoA. This is an outstanding feature.
The MiG-29 has demonstated, in Farnborough 1989, a Cobra maneuver with 6 missiles under wings !!!
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 25th September 2006 at 17:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I dont see anyone who is ahead in any way , i mean TVC isnt really all that complex or expensive to develop like stealth , or super aerodynamic effeceincy which takes a lot of time and money in Wind tunnels and RCS measuring labs etc etc , both russia and USA have had plenty of research in this regard and the production has been in focus of internal technology needs and demands . The Mig-29OVT is a perfect example of this , the Mig have offered the All access 3d system - the first of its kind i believe in russia as the su-35 had a pitch yaw system rather then one which does in all possible angles , the US industry team lead by Lockheed martin also had the AVEN which was basically a 360 degrees axis demonstrated about a decade ago with the MATV/VISTA and the main purpose was to come up with a production ready version for he 110 which could do 27 degrees in any one direction , the program was an overwhelming success and tested the nozzle , came up with integration software etc etc and the aircraft flew over 100 sorties against F-15's , F-16's and F-18's etc etc . The nozzle was offered to UAE initially as part of the blk 60 deal with the radical setup of the F-16 with the delta wing etc etc before LMA decided to go in with the more conventional setup as it saved money and UAE did not want a system to radical which the US didnt use . Furthermore the F-15ACTIVE also used 3d tvc ( all direction not only pitch yaw) and it had a production version nozzle ( just not the paddles like the X-31) which tested TVC upto mach 2 speeds. Now russia has also had similar experiences with the su-35 and su-37 and have gone on to offer these technologies , both industries have atleast 1 aircraft type operational with TVC in the F-22A and the Su-30mki . Talking about future TVC you have the Fluid TVC which is being currently developed for the N-UCAV which will provide yaw only TVC deflection ( they didnt want pitch because it aint a fighter) without actually any moving nozzle , i' sure russia also has something similar in the pipleline so i really dont see the big thing here with TVC.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 25th September 2006 at 20:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fluid TVC has actually been used as far back as the X-36 IIRC. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the X-45 and BoP had it too.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 25th September 2006 at 20:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I dont recall reading anything about the secret use of F-TVC on the BOP , the only thing that it is said to have experimented with was the use of material coating which makes it almost invisible to the naked eye by superimposing the surroundings etc etc however even that is not confirmed , Regarding the X-45A it needent have used it on the demonstrator but will eventually would have found its way into the J-UCAS , the X-45A was to show more of avionics maturity and prove the aerodynamic perfromances , the Yaw F-TVC was more as a substitute to conventional surfaces rather then in addition to them and the lack of deflection of aerodynamic surfaces meant lesser fluctuations in RCS.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 25th September 2006 at 20:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmmm. Not sure what to make of this but:
(a dead link)
Man in the loop-08/04/2003-Flight InternationalThe tailless X-45 is the first aircraft to use fluidic thrust-vectoring. This injects air at key locations within the nozzle to provide multi-axis thrust ...
www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2003/04/08/163993/Man+in+the+loop.html - 37k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
and from a DOD paper:
"The X-36, is a tailless 28-percent scale, experimental aircraft that will dramatically change the design of future
stealth fighters. The remotely piloted X-36 has no vertical or horizontal tails, yet it is expected to be more
maneuverable and agile than today’s fighters. Its revolutionary design was built at a fraction of the cost and schedule
typical of other X-aircraft. The tailless design reduces the weight, drag, and RCS typically associated with
traditional fighter aircraft. It incorporates new flight control technologies in place of vertical and horizontal tails to
improve the maneuverability and survivability of future fighter aircraft. During flight, the X-36 uses new split
ailerons and a thrust vectoring nozzle for directional control."
But doesn't specify if it was a fluidic design. ISTR at the time though it was specified as being classified.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 25th September 2006 at 20:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I
dont think the X-36 used F-TVC it used new split ailerons to provide yaw and pitch directional control , i think the engine only churned some 700lb or thrust or something like that.
Vis a vi F-TVC guess who is paying the most money on research and development of F-TVC ?? It aint NASA , nor is it boeing or Pratt and whitney!!
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 25th September 2006 at 20:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I found out the same info at NASA
Instead, a canard forward of the wing is utilized, in addition to split ailerons and an advanced thrust-vectoring nozzle for directional control. The X-36 is unstable in both the pitch and yaw axes; therefore, an advanced, single-channel digital fly-by-wire control system, developed with some commercially available components, stabilizes the aircraft.
Come to think of it , looking at this pic atleast one cant really see how the nozzle looks like a mechanical moving one unless the entire back end somehow goes down and sideways , it is posible in the pitch axis but i dont see how the heck the entire thing is going to move in the yaw axis -
Posts: 43
By: BDF - 25th September 2006 at 21:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Idon't think that he has any concept of what systematic testing is all about and what implications it has for operational envelope.
BDF
Posts: 12
By: Doggy - 25th September 2006 at 21:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With lessons learned from the X-31, F18 HARV, VISTA, the Raptor and even the latest software in the Super Hornet and Hornet, have been better performance in the 'post stall' region. However, the Raptor takes it a notch or two above since it is still controllable at 60 degrees of Alpha while other planes are no longer in control once past their CLmax. That's the big difference.
Super Hornet and Hornet are comfortable around 35-40 Alphas - while descending like a brick! The Sus are probably in the same category as the F18s. While the F14 and F15 can do the same but they won't look pretty doing it - you can thank FBW for that. Remember I am talking about control in the post stall area not maximum alpha achieved past CLmax!
As for limits, IIRC, all USAF 'fighter' aircraft are treated at 7.33G planes regardless if they are rated up to 9G or not - during peacetime. However, when at war, the limits go out the window!
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 26th September 2006 at 15:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Flanker has , so called, soft limit to about 30 degrees, but it can be pushed any time to 120 degrees, if need be. And that can be done with aerodynamic controls, which is truly amazing.
Regarding F-22 limitations, I can not find any source which state that service aircraft can be pushed to more than 60 degrees.
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 26th September 2006 at 15:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 60 degrees sustained AoA is too much for F-22.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 26th September 2006 at 15:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Already been demonstrated.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 26th September 2006 at 15:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Go watch the video.
Posts: 278
By: JFrazier - 26th September 2006 at 17:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wow, you really can't read can you?
There are no public numbers on the Raptor's transient AoA. From the video, in a normal service Raptor, the pilot was able to reach about 120 degrees AoA. It is not a test plane. This was at an airshow in a jet loaded with 8 missiles and almost full tanks.
The Raptor has no problem reaching a sustained 60 degrees AoA. It has been that way since the YF-22.
Raptor pilots say that they have no problem doing any of the post-stall manuevers of the Flanker series.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 26th September 2006 at 18:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess he doesnt want to believe what the raptor pilots have to say as compared to what the flanker pilots say about their jets furthermore the 60 degrees sustained was a requirment which the F-22 met and that is what is the truth.
Furthermore 60 degrees has been demonstrated plenty of times at airshows by dozer who is a combat pilot ( not a test pilot) and does his routines on a combat coded jet ( not one with an operational-Testing squadron) which carries enough fuel to fly to location , demonstrate and fly back to langley and he makes sure that the aircraft carries a full load . It helps if you understant what tail markings mean and the difference between a OT marking and a FF marking and then go and read what the pilot has to say about his jet being operational representative and carrying missiles and fuel . Ofcourse Firebar wont believe what the pilot has to say nor would he believe his own eyes when he sees the video posted in the very first post of this thread where the raptor clearly does a 115 degrees cobra ( Dozer likes to do it this way as he calls it his own version of the COBRA where he instead of snapping on and snapping off likes to hold that just a tad bit longer to demonstrate the capability of the raptor to hold and not swoop nose ) , there are also other videos where he is sustaining a 50-60 degrees hold and still maintaining path for the entire length of the circuit , obviously firebar wont beleive it until he flies the jet himself because he has probably verified the cobras on the flanker by flying them himself . I dont know why we need to make a case for it when on the face of it it is so evident.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 26th September 2006 at 19:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah but you know how evil Americans are. They'd probably drug him so he thought it did a Cobra when in fact it really didn't :diablo: And his proof? Well the Raptor isn't Russian therefore it's impossible.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 27th September 2006 at 02:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Haven't we been through this before? Anyway, all the info you need is here:
http://www.amazon.com/Northrops-Yf-17-Cobra-Pictorial-Aviation/dp/0887409105/sr=1-2/qid=1159319269/ref=sr_1_2/104-3673871-1802322?ie=UTF8&s=books
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 27th September 2006 at 05:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's just full of Western propaganda. Funny though how the move the YF-17 Cobra did first is also called the Cobra by the Russians. It must be a nod to the YF-17 :diablo:
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 28th September 2006 at 14:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There has to be limit to Raptors AoA. The only fighters which have no limit of AoA are SU-37 or SU-30 MKI, which have TVC and performed 360 degrees, full turn about lateral axis.
The Raptor can not do it despite TVC.
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 28th September 2006 at 14:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is the point about high AoA flights. To have a control at very high AoA to evade missiles, hostile aircraft or to bring its weapons to enemy.
That is why the more AoA , the better. It is not airshow stunt only.
But every aircraft has its own limit beyond which it will departure from controlled flight.
For now, the Raptor has 60 degrees limit for service aircraft, if it is not lifted recently. The test pilot maneuvers do not account.
Is there any recent source to prove otherwise ?
Posts: 875
By: firebar - 28th September 2006 at 14:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The perfect aerodynamics is far more important than Fly-by-wire controls.
Look at F-16. It can not do more that 26 degrees because it aerodynamics do not allow it. Despite Fly-by-wire. This can not help.
Or look at Tornado ADV. The same applies to it.
With MiG-29 and SU-27, the Russians managed to built aerodynamicaly perfect fighters.
Even without TVC they are virtualy departure proof, and controllable to more that 90 degrees AoA. This is an outstanding feature.
The MiG-29 has demonstated, in Farnborough 1989, a Cobra maneuver with 6 missiles under wings !!!