Thrust vector-more.

[Daube]

I didn't understand your last point about the aditionnal joystick axis needed. Do you mean for orienting the noozles or for controling their thrust ?

For orientation, you could use the keyboard or a gauge. I think that even in the Harrier, all the nozzles are oriented with one command only.

We could use anything, just like I don't know, the commands for the concorde noze for example.

Then for the thrust, a simple gauge that would read the input of the joke, and act on each engine accordingly. For example, if you push you joystick forward, then the gauge reduce the thrust of the two forward engines. If you push it forward-left, then reduce the thrust only of the forward left engine. This would cause the plane to dive in a direction or another.

[Ashton Lawson]

For FSXI, ACES I believe that ACES hav to concentrate on multiple, complicated propulsion types, including complex ones, like on VTOL aircraft.  Don't get me wrong, sort out the main physics first, but then add more propulsion types.


About the AV-8B Harrier.  There is a thrust lever, with detents for normal flight power, and Hovering power (with a cooling water supply which lasts 90 seconds during hover (otherwise the engine overheats)), and a nozzle lever, much like a flaps lever, which controls all of the nozzles at once.  The stabilization is done by 'bleeders' which have feeds from the engine thrust, where valves release rushing air which controls the aircraft during hover.  This is automated when the Harrier is hovering.

This is the information I know abot the harrier, when I once saw a documentary about it.

[x_jasper]

Striker.

Nozzles are not necessarily all controlled in unison. They can be vectored as forward or rear pairs. This is how the aircraft can be made to nose dip, amongst other things.

Interestingly, there was a brief documentary about the 'new' Harrier which is built here in the UK. The new version has flight controls very much computer-aided as opposed to the original systems. A press reporter with no flying experience was taken up in a two seater and was allowed, successfully!! to land the aircraft himself.

Now watch them give this aircraft away to other countries.

Jasper

[USMC_BEANS]

Now watch them give this aircraft away to other countries.

Nothing wrong with that!  It was impressive to watch the Harriers in action in Iraq.  The only thing that impressed me more was the AH-1W's that flew no more that 10 feet over the tops of our tanks!  I really hope you guys get this figured out, seems like you are all almost there!

[x_jasper]

"Nothing wrong with that!"

Everything wrong with that. Better not develop the damn thing in the first place if it means someone else will also have it.

They may aswell give our best to Iran or N.Korea, potentially our boys could find themselves on the receiving end of some of this high tech hardware.

Been going on for years I know, but still doesn't make it right.

[Daube]

I suggest we stay out of this sucking politics stuff.  :P

[cheesegrater]

Talk politics on simviation = instant ban.

Thrust vectoring? We already have that in the Cessna - propeller feather. What more do you want?

[Ivan]

Sounds like an Ekranoplan opportunity...

Engine 1 on the prop, 2 and 3 on the nose, kick it up with all engines, then adjust 2+3 for the needed lift and 'fly' with #1 only

[Daube]

Why do you want an engine lift for the ekranoplan ?
The real aircraft only use the ground effect at high speed, so I guess we could get something like that easilly...

[x_jasper]

Lmao!

why, on earth would you want one of those?

Cheered me up that has

Jasper

[cleobis]

alphasim already has an ekranoplane, it flys preaty well aroun 10 or 20 ft above water, and again, ekranoplanes only use ground effect to fly, so no need for thrust vectoring...

[Ivan]

How many engines does the alphasim one have in the FDE. Should be 3 as it is an A-90

[cleobis]

hmmm..don't quite remember and I don't have it installed at the moment, I'll look for it and then tell you:)

cheers