Talk:Thrust vectoring

Definition

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)

this is just confusion about how people think of it. If you have TV in only the pitch direction, then you can vector the thrust up or down, so that the potential areas where the exhaust goes describes a 2-D plane. Even though there's only one actual dimension the nozzle can move through. The thrust direction becomes a "vector" in that 2-d plane. 3D thrust vectoring is when the nozzle can move in both pitch and yaw, so that the exhaust can go anywhere in a 3D cone behind it. Someone was really confused about this and listed su30mki and su-35 as 2D thrust-vectored. They're 3D. I'm pretty sure the MiG29OVT is also. I'm fixing this for the sukhois right now.75.170.64.63 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

also, before someone gets an itch to reedit su-35 back, the su-35 STARTED with 2D vectoring nozzles each pointed slightly outwards on the yaw axis, with each one controlled independently and thrust differential, allowing a limited 3D vectoring effect when they were pointed in different directions with different thrust levels; but these engines have been replaced with full-orbital vectoring engines. The mig-29OVT has always had full 3D.75.170.64.63 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2010 (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 Please refer to the 7th paragraph of the article.--Hschantang (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Su-30mki does not feature 3D tvc. The nozzles are offset from the origin to improve maneuverability but are not capable of moving in three dimensions. Nem1yan (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2010 (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

Rockets

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)

J-11

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)

Eurofighter

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)

Nozzles section

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)

Yes, I agree the section is completely unsourced and hard to follow as it is currently written. It goes into a lot of detail that belongs in the other article. MarcusMaximus (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether it stays here or is moved it can be improved. I don't think it needs sources from a verifiability POV because it is not going to be challenged as it is standard propulsion engineering. I think it needs some sources to give the inquisitive reader places to go to learn in a more interesting context. As a first step in translating/enhancing this section I have selected one definition, which, as it stands, doesn't match the painful precision typical in this section. I have reworded it and added a good cite to test the water.Pieter1963 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with thrust vectoring, it is a quite different aspect of nozzle technology. It must surely already be treated better in the relevant article/s. IMHO it should just be deleted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Not sure what I read, but it must have been something else, my apologies for writing nonsense. Yes, there is plenty here that is relevant but needs intensive cleanup. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"must surely already be treated better in the relevant article/s" I think the content of this section is unique (although over-the-top for most)and is not addressed in any other article. If we delete it we deny the information to someone out there. The statements are indisputable although not of any interest to most people.

"nothing to do with thrust vectoring, it is a quite different aspect of nozzle technology" Even if that were the case (note, however, references to TVFC, vectoring angles, methods of nozzle control and thrust vectoring) I don't think it would matter. I don't think we should underestimate the wikipedia customer, or inquisitive reader. He can make that judgement for himself and is also able and willing to bypass stuff that is too simple, too difficult or already known. Also, he doesn't mind whether the stuff is in "vectored thrust", "vectoring nozzles", "propelling nozzles" as long as they are linked.

What is more important, perhaps even imperative, is to rid articles of statements that are misleading/incorrect/ambiguous/badly written. I think that's what we owe to the reader. After all they are expecting solid stuff and won't quibble about whether it's in a particular article. They will be only too pleased to find it.Pieter1963 (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's one of the core parts of thrust vectoring; I think it should be properly formatted and referenced, and COPIED to the main article and further expanded there. Without it, both articles are clearly incomplete; it's an article on thrust vectoring that doesn't cover... thrust vectoring.GliderMaven (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

At present the article on vectoring nozzles is so minimal that I don't see any point in maintaining separate articles. I'd suggest that any significant content there should be moved into the section here and the page made a redirect - unless and until the section grows unwieldly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"is so minimal" agreed. The 2 photos are already in vectored thrust. The Raptor and Su-30 are already covered there. That only leaves a little bit on the Harrier to transfer. So make it a redirect with no content.Pieter1963 (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any comments on the current state of this section? Thanks.Pieter1963 (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Add SU-57/T-50 to the 3d thrust vectoring section?

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!)

• No. All Sukhois' family had 2D TVC--XaHyMaH (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Strange double standard for thrust vectoring

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)

• They all in fact has same 2D TVC nozzle. But Sukhoi's FBW control system allows to imitate 3D TVC. --XaHyMaH (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

does it work on prop planes????

does tvc work on a turbo prop plane Mundaepog5 (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)