I do in general agree with you, not just because I live in the same
country as Rolls Royce (and in one work placement years ago, did have
a peripheral involvement in Pegasus engine stuff).

Genuine VTOL not only eats into the fuel supply, but also tends to
limit payload (certainly the case for the Harrier - I presume the F-35
is pretty similar). Hence why it's the STOL capability which is made
most use of. If you were to dogfight, then vectored thrust also helps
a lot (reputedly Harriers are still the World's premier dog-fighters)
- of course nowadays dog-fighting isn't a normal thing to do!

Chris

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Russell McMahon <apptechnz@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>> > Assuming you're including the vectored thrust stuff as part of
>> > "engine", then that's quite a significant part of the control of the
>> > flight envelope!
>
>> > It all kind of gets a bit silly though, as you could argue that all
>> > aircraft are an Italian design if you want to go back far enough ;)
>
>> Yes let's do that.
>
>
> Anything can be viewed as silly if you don't like it's face enough.
>
> While one version is "conventional", to consider the "vectored thrust
> stuff", which is supplied by Rolls Royce, as less than pivotal to the
> whole VTOL concept is missing the central point of the design. Even in
> a STOL mode the vectored thrust allows use of real world 'battlefield'
> strips such as random pieces of highway, and the true VTOL which it is
> capable of (which does rather eat into its fuel supply) allows you to
> use random pieces of eg forest. Removing loose ground cover prior to
> use is 'a good idea' [tm]. Anything that can fly, literally, backwards
> if it really really has to, is 'somewhat' different than about any
> other real-world jet fighter in existence (except its predecessors).
>
> Seeing a Harrier fall vertically and noisily into the sky from close
> range (as I've had the privilege of doing on one only occasion, here
> in NZ) is an exciting and impressive experience.
>
> For shipboard operation the STOL capability, with or without "ski
> jump" allows shorter decks and heavier payloads. Arguably it also
> allows arrestor-less recovery, but the fuel penalty may make this less
> attractive, and the article specifically notes the 'beefing up' of the
> C version mechanicals for carrier (arrestor?) use.
>
> And, if you really want to claim a single actually-flown source for
> all heavier than air craft powered craft (as opposed to various glider
> implementations which have a far longer and ultimately unknown
> provenance)(I'm not aware of any claimed practical Roman
> implementations) (although some later paper designs from the Vinci
> area are extant) then you'd ((very) arguably) have to say that all
> such derived from a New Zealand design, the mouldering remains of
> which reside in a glass cabinet about 10 kilometres from here. [Flame
> shields still up].
>
>
>
> =A0 =A0 Russell
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist