Thrust Vectoring

[Joe_D]

[quote]Does anyone remember the POGO tailstander X-plane of the 1950's?

[Ashton Lawson]

I'd like MS to put VTOLs in FSXI, with a V-22 Osprey.  (cuz it ain't military, keeping the non-lethal side of FS clean)

What I really hope tho, is that ACES hav already put in thrust vectoring, and want to surprise us. (highly unlikely tho )

[Katahu]

What I really hope tho, is that ACES hav already put in thrust vectoring, and want to surprise us.  (highly unlikely tho )

The ACES team surprised everybody when they:

1. Announced the release of the demo.

2. Mentioned that they will release the beta [which is different from the demo].

3. Were allowed to post the progress of FSX in their own personal blogs.

4. When they allowed more people [particularly the press like AvSim] than usual to test out product.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they are hiding something that will make us all jump with joy at the last moment.

[Ashton Lawson]

I hope ur right.

[x_jasper]

What is it with you guys and thrust vectoring

Besides, this is meant as a genuine observation but have you noticed MS sims do seem to conveniently forget British aircraft. VTOL being one of ours

This trend was also noticed in CFS3 where, there is no Meteor despite it's active service during WWII.

Strangely a P80 was put in, although it saw no service in WWII.

Conversely a number of German aircraft were included which never even flew.

In-fact the entire sim was dated 1943 on, which is why you don't get a MkI Spitfire.

So, basically unless it's something which the mass U.S. market identifies with, it won't be included. Which is also why you guys don't get thrust vectoring, because it is always associated with the Harrier.

If it was down to me I'd give you thrust vector tomorrow, complain to MS.

Jasper

[swordfish1227]

I fly a pogo on a regular basis from small pads(oil rigs) because the model is easier to land than a helo or harier or v-22. The model uses the flap function with a special guage to make vtol possible.

[Daube]

I fly a pogo on a regular basis from small pads(oil rigs) because the model is easier to land than a helo or harier or v-22. The model uses the flap function with a special guage to make vtol possible.

Possible AND ridiculous. This gauge is nice but it's not real VTOL at all.

[Daube]

What is it with you guys and thrust vectoring

Modelling thrust vectoring in a physical engine means modelling correct effect of the engine power on the airframe behaviour. A correctly modelled thrust-vectoring system is not just about being able to "rotate" an engine, it's also about computing the effect of a given force applied at this or this position, relative to the center of gravity of the plane, computing the associated moments of forces etc... to get the final movement the aircraft would do.

This is not only usefull for modelling the flight of a Harrier, an Osprey, a Raptor, Super Flanker or X-29, it would also allow much more precise computation on the effect of the motor thrust on a propeller aircraft like the Extra 300 (suspended to its motor almost like an helicopter) or a mutli motor plane with some motors OFF etc... this kind of effects, which you will admit are usefull for civil flight as well

Besides, this is meant as a genuine observation but have you noticed MS sims do seem to conveniently forget British aircraft. VTOL being one of ours

This trend was also noticed in CFS3 where, there is no Meteor despite it's active service during WWII.

Strangely a P80 was put in, although it saw no service in WWII.

Conversely a number of German aircraft were included which never even flew.

In-fact the entire sim was dated 1943 on, which is why you don't get a MkI Spitfire.

CFS3 was known to have a crappy selection of planes, and was flammed immediately for its historical issues as well as diving bombers  ;D CFS3 is NOT a reference. Think about CFS1 instead, which offered both Marine and normal Spits

So, basically unless it's something which the mass U.S. market identifies with, it won't be included. Which is also why you guys don't get thrust vectoring, because it is always associated with the Harrier.

US use the Harrier, and the Osprey, and the Raptor, and the X-35, and they made the X-29, the Hornet with thrust vectoring, and much more about this technology.

If it was down to me I'd give you thrust vector tomorrow.

You're definitely categorized as a real friend !!  ;D

[swordfish1227]

This pogo is perfectly real vtol because its forward movement is up, so fs doesn't care. the plane goes straight up with enough throttle.

[hypostomus2000]

The Harrier was flown by the US Marines and may still be for all I know. The Meteor Mk 1 as flown during WW2 was seriously below par due to understrength engines. The official reason for not allowing it over enemy lines was in case one got shot down giving the Germans access to the technology which I just don't buy into, seeing as the German technology was already far in advance of ours at the time. It just wasn't as good as the piston aircraft it would have to fight most of the time. In particular climb and rate of turn was particularly poor. If one came across an Me262 I wouldn't fancy the Meteor's chances.
At least one prototype P80 was flown under combat conditions in Italy in early 1945. Whether that means it saw combat or not I don't know.

[x_jasper]

The Harrier was flown by the US Marines and may still be for all I know. The Meteor Mk 1 as flown during WW2 was seriously below par due to understrength engines. The official reason for not allowing it over enemy lines was in case one got shot down giving the Germans access to the technology which I just don't buy into, seeing as the German technology was already far in advance of ours at the time. It just wasn't as good as the piston aircraft it would have to fight most of the time. In particular climb and rate of turn was particularly poor. If one came across an Me262 I wouldn't fancy the Meteor's chances.
At least one prototype P80 was flown under combat conditions in Italy in early 1945. Whether that means it saw combat or not I don't know.

I feel I should point out one or two facts on this:

The Meteor DID see action in WWII over occupied teritory, Holland to be exact.

In  duel against a 262, the Meteor would have been the victor without question. This is generally recognised as factual by many experts and for these reasons- Firstly, the 262 could not be flown in quite the same way by an enormous margin by virtue of the fact that axial flow turbines were still in their infancy. The 262 engine was seriously prone to cavitation in the inter stages. It was also seriously prone to bursting. The requirement to obtain power from the 262 engines very gently, and very slowly was a serious handicap. German pilots by this time were much below par.

The Whittle engine on the other hand was far more superior in terms of reliability and strength. Power availability by comparison was instantaneous.

The 262's engine weakness was known and it certainly was recognised at the time that it could even be possible to down one without firing a shot. Just force a flame-out.

Most agree that German 'AXIAL' turbine technology was ahead of it's time, but then they didn't do much with centrifugal compressors either. If they had followed the same principles as Whittle the story might have been different since the Whittle engine was far simpler to manufacture and was an infinately better engine in service.

The 20 hour service life of the German engine really settles the argument of who had the better technology. Maybe also remember the whittle engine produced a third more thrust.

262's were generally destroyed on the ground, crashed because of cavitation induced flame outs, and even mid air engine explosions.

I am of the view (as are many others) that in a dogfight with something of a similar speed capability a 262 simply wouldn't be responsive enough or even safe ! Mustang's could, and did get them.

I think I am correct in the belief that three P80's went to italy, but saw no combat because one or two got damaged, another totally destroyed. Something along those lines but basically none flew.

You have Mr Tucker Hatfield to thank for the rather biassed and twisted portrayal of historical facts. His unbelievable explanations for the CFS3 line-up can still be found on the net.

Jasper