This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm curious as to the definitions of 2D and 3D thrust vectoring as used in this article. The SU-30 page describes it as having 2D thrust vectoring, while this article says 3D thrust vectoring. I'm not quite sure what 3D thrust vectoring exactly means. As this article says, it shows two axes, pitch and yaw, which would be 2D. Similarly, it should read "1D" instead of "2D".
Aflazmn ( talk) 04:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If you go to wikipedia's website for "aircraft pricipal axes" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_principal_axes<ref [1]</ref>, it will give you a good idea of the difference between 2D and 3D thrust vectoring (TV). I think there is a mistake on this site, 2D TV from my understanding should refer to aircrafts that can move along two of the three axes (pitch, roll, yaw). For example, aircrafts that have two engines that can go up and down, if both engines point in the same direction, the aircraft will "rotate" along the pitch axis. If the engines move in opposite directions (one points up, the other points down), the aircraft will "roll" along the roll axis, hence the 2D naming. Twin engines that can also move "sideways" will enable the aircraft to rotate along the yaw axis. The problem I have is that the F-16 VISTA and Rockwell X-31 being single engined aircraft, no matter how their respective engines move, the aircraft will only rotate along 2 axis (if you only use the engines, i.e. without the help of ailerons, they will be able to move along the pitch and yaw axes, but cannot rotate along the roll axis), so in my humble opinion these two aircrafts should still be considered as 2D TV aircrafts (pitch and yaw axis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hschantang ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is a reference that lends additional support to my statement: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2012/03/19/AW_03_19_2012_p64-434177.xml&headline=Fighters,%20Missiles%20For%20Countering%20Stealth&next=0 [1] Please refer to the 7th paragraph of the article.-- Hschantang ( talk) 00:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I read the part about the SU-30, quoting "dynamic aerobatics in negative speeds up to 200 km/h". What is the meaning of 'negative speeds' up to 200 km/h?
KorgBoy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC).
References
This article is almost entirely about air-breathing aircraft, for which thrust vectoring technology is just now becoming a reality. Rockets and missiles have used thrust vectoring as their primary means of control for decades. Shouldn't this article spend a little more time on them? MarcusMaximus ( talk) 13:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I took away whoever put the J-11 under the 3-D category of thrust vectoring... There is no proof or any evidence or even speculation that the J-11 and J-11B will be thrust vectoring... I hope they will, but we must not make absurb claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.50.156 ( talk) 04:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't i have thrust vectoring after 2010, too??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.234.19 ( talk) 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
They're testing it.
Victory in Germany ( talk) 21:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The "Nozzles" section is messy, unsourced, devoid of any link (wiki or otherwise) and unharmonious in this page - that level of detail would have a better home in the Vectoring nozzles page. What do you think ? -- Jean-Marc Liotier ( talk) 11:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding the SU-57 to the list of aircraft capable of 3d thrust vectoring, as it uses the same engines as the SU-35 models (AL-41F1 or -F1S) as interim engines for the izdeliye 30. Both engines are capable of TV and I was wondering if it would be a valid addition to the article. ( 12.187.245.16 ( talk) 15:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)) (Note that i don't have an account yet and will not be able to sign properly, sorry!)
The Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM use Saturn AL-31FP 3D vector thrust engines (or to clarify, up and down with a 15 degree pitch from vertical ).
The Su-35 uses the Saturn AL-41F1S, which has the same limitations in terms of thrust vectoring. The J-10 also uses the Saturn AL-31FN, which (in this example, I'm not 100%) seems to have similar limitations.
Why are the latter 2 represented as 3D vector thrust, and the others as 2D vector thrust? It's a strange double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling Saini ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
does tvc work on a turbo prop plane Mundaepog5 ( talk) 18:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm curious as to the definitions of 2D and 3D thrust vectoring as used in this article. The SU-30 page describes it as having 2D thrust vectoring, while this article says 3D thrust vectoring. I'm not quite sure what 3D thrust vectoring exactly means. As this article says, it shows two axes, pitch and yaw, which would be 2D. Similarly, it should read "1D" instead of "2D".
Aflazmn ( talk) 04:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If you go to wikipedia's website for "aircraft pricipal axes" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_principal_axes<ref [1]</ref>, it will give you a good idea of the difference between 2D and 3D thrust vectoring (TV). I think there is a mistake on this site, 2D TV from my understanding should refer to aircrafts that can move along two of the three axes (pitch, roll, yaw). For example, aircrafts that have two engines that can go up and down, if both engines point in the same direction, the aircraft will "rotate" along the pitch axis. If the engines move in opposite directions (one points up, the other points down), the aircraft will "roll" along the roll axis, hence the 2D naming. Twin engines that can also move "sideways" will enable the aircraft to rotate along the yaw axis. The problem I have is that the F-16 VISTA and Rockwell X-31 being single engined aircraft, no matter how their respective engines move, the aircraft will only rotate along 2 axis (if you only use the engines, i.e. without the help of ailerons, they will be able to move along the pitch and yaw axes, but cannot rotate along the roll axis), so in my humble opinion these two aircrafts should still be considered as 2D TV aircrafts (pitch and yaw axis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hschantang ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is a reference that lends additional support to my statement: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2012/03/19/AW_03_19_2012_p64-434177.xml&headline=Fighters,%20Missiles%20For%20Countering%20Stealth&next=0 [1] Please refer to the 7th paragraph of the article.-- Hschantang ( talk) 00:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I read the part about the SU-30, quoting "dynamic aerobatics in negative speeds up to 200 km/h". What is the meaning of 'negative speeds' up to 200 km/h?
KorgBoy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC).
References
This article is almost entirely about air-breathing aircraft, for which thrust vectoring technology is just now becoming a reality. Rockets and missiles have used thrust vectoring as their primary means of control for decades. Shouldn't this article spend a little more time on them? MarcusMaximus ( talk) 13:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I took away whoever put the J-11 under the 3-D category of thrust vectoring... There is no proof or any evidence or even speculation that the J-11 and J-11B will be thrust vectoring... I hope they will, but we must not make absurb claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.50.156 ( talk) 04:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't i have thrust vectoring after 2010, too??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.234.19 ( talk) 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
They're testing it.
Victory in Germany ( talk) 21:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The "Nozzles" section is messy, unsourced, devoid of any link (wiki or otherwise) and unharmonious in this page - that level of detail would have a better home in the Vectoring nozzles page. What do you think ? -- Jean-Marc Liotier ( talk) 11:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding the SU-57 to the list of aircraft capable of 3d thrust vectoring, as it uses the same engines as the SU-35 models (AL-41F1 or -F1S) as interim engines for the izdeliye 30. Both engines are capable of TV and I was wondering if it would be a valid addition to the article. ( 12.187.245.16 ( talk) 15:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)) (Note that i don't have an account yet and will not be able to sign properly, sorry!)
The Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM use Saturn AL-31FP 3D vector thrust engines (or to clarify, up and down with a 15 degree pitch from vertical ).
The Su-35 uses the Saturn AL-41F1S, which has the same limitations in terms of thrust vectoring. The J-10 also uses the Saturn AL-31FN, which (in this example, I'm not 100%) seems to have similar limitations.
Why are the latter 2 represented as 3D vector thrust, and the others as 2D vector thrust? It's a strange double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling Saini ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
does tvc work on a turbo prop plane Mundaepog5 ( talk) 18:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)