- #1
EngTechno
- 72
- 0
What is 3D thrust-vectoring and Supercruise ? I frequently see this terms in Military Fighter Aircraft data. I know nothing about it. Can you explain me in detail? Any website for it?
enigma said:According to this page, supercruise means the "ability to... fly at supersonic speeds without using afterburners" (2nd paragraph).
DM said:To some extent this is right.
Supersonic cruise requires the help of afterburners, no matter what.
DM said:Enigma, (sorry if this isn't your real name)
I can see your point of view towards afterburners, I suppose that you, just like I am, are worried about our environment. It's indeed very worrying.
If you think about it, a plane reaching supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners takes a long time. This would be extremely concerning towards fighter planes that have the goal of arriving at a place as quick as possible.
Supercruise was a critereon for the design of the Advanced Tactical Fighter. I think that's where the term came from. The YF-23 was Northrup's entry into the design contest and Lockheed's was the YF-22. The YF-22 won and is now the F-22. It has supercruise and single axis (pitch) thrust vectoring.faust9 said:YF-23
Like enigma said, drag increases quickly in the transonic reason - this means that acceleration is pretty good right up until you get to mach 1.If you think about it, a plane reaching supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners takes a long time.
There may be an exit velocity/nozzle shape issue with some engines.I still don't see why they'd need afterburners for supersonic flight.
Like enigma said, drag increases quickly in the transonic reason - this means that acceleration is pretty good right up until you get to mach 1.
Cool it, DM. We're all here to learn - even you.DM said:I think I explained why afterburners exist for supersonic flight. I'm sorry if you can't understand it.
Thrust vectoring is the use of flaps near the engine outlet to point the flow in a desired direction. This increases the possible turn and roll rates.
Supersonic cruise requires the help of afterburners, no matter what.
the emphasis of using afterburners is in order to reach supersonic speeds as fast as possible. Ever wondered why the concorde used them? the promised 2h15m from EGLL (Heathrow) to JKFK (John Kennedy) would be dragged to at least 6 hours if the integration of afterburners never took place.
KrazyIBKid said:...
trans-sonic speeds (above mach 1.5),
...
DM said:To some extent this is right.
Supersonic cruise requires the help of afterburners, no matter what.
Sh0t said:The airfore recently messed up the definition of what supercruise meant to cover up the failures of the F-22
So pretty much discard the current USAF pushed definition of supercruise, it was done to coverup the failures of the ATF/JSF projects.
You don't really know what you are talking about, basing information you read in the news is never a very good idea. The F/A-22 can supercruise, which means to fly above mach without the fuel-guzzeling afterburners. As far as failures, the real failure was in congress. The real reason the cost of the plane is so high is they cut orders from over 750 to under 280. The coast of the actual plan hasn't gone up much more than inflation. But when you include development costs in the cost per fighter, the reduction of aircraft really makes an impact on per plane cost.
That's really the only major problem with the aircraft, cost per plane.
red_fox77 said:That's really the only major problem with the aircraft, cost per plane.
I think you missed the point: the actual cost to manufacture a single plane is pretty low, but the R&D cost is high and fixed (its the same lump sum up front whether you buy 1 plane or 1000 planes), making the oft-cited "cost per plane" number highly misleading. Remember, the development of a plane takes upwards of 20 years and all of that is paid for before a single production aircraft is delivered.sigma said:The major problem? I'd say it's the only good and decent thing about it. That way, perhaps, they won't make so bloody many of them.
It is off topic, but I'll answer: if the US military didn't exist, there would be no AID drugs because Hitler would still rule the world. War and the need to defend the US and the world are a fact of life, whether you like it or not and that means weapons are a necessary evil.sigma said:Okay. Great to know. How much is a F-16? An Apache chopper?
Still I think it is a waste of money. I don't want to guess how much of those AIDS brake drugs you could get for the price of one kickass fighter jet... or how many mountain gorillas you could save (probably more than there is alive today). Hope you don't think I'm way too much out of topic.
cheers.
Could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean here.kurious said:Sometimes in photos of jet exhausts you can see dark and light vertical bands.
Is this a trick of the camera or sound waves or something else?
kurious said:Sometimes in photos of jet exhausts you can see dark and light vertical bands.
Is this a trick of the camera or sound waves or something else?
sigma said:Okay. Great to know. How much is a F-16? An Apache chopper?
Still I think it is a waste of money. I don't want to guess how much of those AIDS brake drugs you could get for the price of one kickass fighter jet... or how many mountain gorillas you could save (probably more than there is alive today). Hope you don't think I'm way too much out of topic.
cheers.
sigma said:The MiG 1.42 is still way cooler. And better, as it is very unlikley to ever fight in a real battle, thus saving hundreds or thousends of human lives. .
sigma said:As for the subject question i have two points:
1. I find it hard to believe that it would be impossible to construct a jet engine capable of supersonic flight without the use of an afterburner.
2. The mechanics of directing the thrust, may it be flaps or a moveable nozzle, is of no importance for the definition of "thrust vectoring".
sigma said:...and better, as it is very unlikley to ever fight in a real battle, thus saving hundreds or thousends of human lives. The main drawback with all machines of destruction is that they are nothing but machines of destruction, monuments of our evil and bloodthirsty souls. "If you don't want anyone to drop the bomb, don't build the bomb" is the way we should think, not "lets build the bomb before anyone else does" because maintaining the terror balance is the easiest way to put everything else out of balance. We waste far too much energy and money on increasingly advanced and ingenious ways to killing each other, instead of trying to live in harmony. And peace.
sigma said:Still I think it is a waste of money. I don't want to guess how much of those AIDS brake drugs you could get for the price of one kickass fighter jet... or how many mountain gorillas you could save (probably more than there is alive today).