Russian designs of the rotary nozzle

104



A lot of incorrect information has appeared on the Internet regarding the connection of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141) (according to NATO Freestyle classification) with the promising X-35 fighter and the rest of the JSF program (single strike fighter). The design of the Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle appeared before the Russian design. In fact, 3BSD was tested with a real engine nearly 12 years before the Yak's maiden flight.

In the 70s and 80s of the last century, the Soviet fleet wanted to get a supersonic fighter with a short take-off and a vertical landing to work on aircraft carriers with a flight deck with a springboard. From what moment Yakovlev Design Bureau became aware of the design of the rotary nozzle with multi-vector traction force is not known, but the engine company Soyuz created its own version of this nozzle. Of the published figures, the version of the nozzle for the Yak-41, apparently, is a rotary circuit on three supports with a significantly offset “bend”. Two RKBM RD-141 lifting engines were also installed on the Yak-41 aircraft - the layout is almost identical to the Convair Model 200 design. For the production version, the aircraft also received the new designation Yak-141, but from the Russian fleet there were no orders for its production.

The Yak-141 flew into the air at the Paris Airshow at 1991. The demonstration flights of the Yak were suspended when the hot air of the lifting engines began to smelt asphalt from the asphalt runway. At the Farnborough 1992, the Yak fighter jets were limited to traditional takeoffs and landings, and the hangs were performed at 500 feet above the runway to avoid repeated damage to the runway. But the Yak-141 fighter really deserves respect, as it became the first jet fighter with a three-bearing swivel nozzle - after 25 years after it was designed in the United States.


Convair Model 200, proposed in June 1972 by the US Navy as a fighter / light attack aircraft for light aircraft carriers.


At the beginning of work on the JAST unified strike aircraft program, Lockheed (together with representatives of the JAST program implementation department) visited the Yakovlev Design Bureau together with other suppliers of aviation equipment (including from the company that developed the K-36 Star ejection seat) to study the technologies and projects of this KB.

Yakovlev Design Bureau was looking for funds to maintain its program on a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, but did not receive a single order for its Yak-141 serial version. Lockheed provided limited funding in exchange for obtaining technical data and limited design data on the Yak-141. Representatives of the US government were allowed to inspect the aircraft. However, before these visits to the promising X-35 fighter, 3BSD nozzles had already been installed.

The 3BSD nozzle was invented in America in the 60s of the last century, proposed by Convair to the US Navy in the 70s, the first flight was carried out by the Russians in the late 80s, the Pratt & Whitney design of the 60s was modified specifically for the X-35 in the 90s and 2000s, production began for the F-35 fighter. Sometimes a good idea must wait for years not only for its material embodiment, but also for the coincidence of circumstances in order to appear in the real world. The moral of this stories lies in the fact that you can not throw around good ideas and works of the past. After all, they may well be needed later.

Funny enough, on the eve of the Farnborough air show, the F-35B faced the same problem as the Yak-141 in 1992. He, too, will only be allowed to hang and prohibit vertical landing.

According to the site http://sandrermakoff.livejournal.com
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

104 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    23 June 2014 10: 13
    In any case, RUSSIAN minds are much more effective, the most important thing is that the government understands this, and not the slurry.
    1. +2
      23 June 2014 11: 24
      Quote: pravednik
      In any case, RUSSIAN minds are much more effective, the most important thing is that the government understands this, and not the slurry.

      The Yakovlev Design Bureau tortured the Yak-141 for 18 years, repeatedly disrupting the deadlines. As a result, the Yak-141 failed tests and deprived our fleet of four aircraft-carrying cruisers. At the same time, the notorious "dashing 90s" have nothing to do with it.
      1. +7
        23 June 2014 12: 36
        Quote: Nayhas
        Design Bureau Yakovleva tormented the Yak-141 for 18 years repeatedly breaking the deadlines. As a result, the Yak-141 failed the test, depriving our fleet of four aircraft-carrying cruisers.

        and how many problems did the F-35 bring to the American taxpayer?
        Quote: Nayhas
        At the same time, the notorious "dashing 90s" have nothing to do with it.

        I do not agree with you, to recall how much good was ruined because of thieving officials?
        1. +2
          23 June 2014 13: 07
          Quote: 0255
          and how many problems did the F-35 bring to the American taxpayer?

          Well, Duc at the exit is not a fiction in the form of burnt debris, but a production machine with a large line of buyers.
          Quote: 0255
          I do not agree with you, to recall how much good was ruined because of thieving officials?

          What do the "thieving officials" have to do with the 70s and 80s of the last century when the Yakovlev Design Bureau worked on the Yak-141?
          Can you name at least one successful combat vehicle released by Yakovlev Design Bureau after 1945?
          1. +3
            23 June 2014 13: 17
            Quote: Nayhas
            What do the "thieving officials" have to do with the 70s and 80s of the last century when the Yakovlev Design Bureau worked on the Yak-141?

            tests occurred in the 1990s, when there was no money for defense
            Quote: Nayhas
            Can you name at least one successful combat vehicle released by Yakovlev Design Bureau after 1945?

            Was the Yak-28 unsuccessful?

            or Yak-25

            Yakovlev's design bureau was further "switched" to civil aviation
            1. -2
              23 June 2014 13: 37
              Quote: 0255
              tests occurred in the 1990s, when there was no money for defense

              If anything, the tests began in 1987, by October 1991. have already carried out more than 100 flights and had to carry out tests on the ship, i.e. one of the last. So the history of the Yak-141 does not fit into the "terrible 90s".
              Quote: 0255
              Was the Yak-28 unsuccessful?

              Quote: 0255
              or Yak-25

              Of course, the unprofitable scheme "spied" on the Me-262 and which the Yakovlevites with wild stubbornness pushed into all the products (except for vertical units) put up for competitions of both fighters and attack aircraft.
              1. Kassandra
                +3
                23 June 2014 15: 49
                why unprofitable and why on the Me-262, and not on the Pe-2 or Mosquito?
            2. Kassandra
              +1
              23 June 2014 15: 54
              Why not Tupolev Design Bureau? Tu-160 is actually an aircraft from Myasishchev Design Bureau. Tupolevites "handed it over", just like the Yak-141 in America. bully
          2. 0
            23 June 2014 19: 32
            A lot of sports, even the civilian ms-21 and finally the yak-130.
            1. Fiero
              +4
              23 June 2014 22: 25
              The Yak-130 and the MC-21 aren’t fighting at all. In addition, the MC-21 is developing OAK
              1. Kassandra
                -1
                24 June 2014 08: 24
                Yak-130 combat training. They also made a supersonic version for China.
                Sechas in the entire KLA has less work for the people than Yakovlev did under the USSR.
          3. -1
            23 June 2014 22: 16
            Quote: Nayhas
            Well, Duc at the exit is not a fiction in the form of burnt debris, but a production machine with a large line of buyers.

            F-35 has not yet been adopted, and a small experimental series is a little different.
            1. +1
              23 June 2014 22: 40
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              F-35 has not yet been adopted, and a small experimental series is a little different.

              Small by their standards, such rates are not available to us, but purely formally, of course, you are right.
              1. -1
                24 June 2014 14: 02
                Quote: Nayhas
                Small by their standards, such rates are not available to us.

                Yes, at the moment, the pace in Russia is much lower, but in the USSR, at one time the release of the Mig-29 was also very impressive.
        2. -10
          23 June 2014 13: 24
          Quote: 0255
          and how many problems did the F-35 bring to the American taxpayer?

          And what are you so worried about the American taxpayer?
          The final result of the F-35 is important, but the Yak-141 is not.
          Quote: 0255
          I do not agree with you, to recall how much good was ruined because of thieving officials?

          And this does not play a role, no, and there is no trial.
          Quote: 0255
          tests occurred in the 1990s, when there was no money for defense

          Now they are, I think that they have remained, are there plans to create something like the F35?
          1. +3
            23 June 2014 14: 12
            atalef (4) IL Today, 13: 24 ↑ New
            The final result of the F-35 is important, but the Yak-141 is not.

            there would be funding, there would be aircraft carriers for the Yak-141 - maybe it would have flown
            Quote: atalef

            Now they are, I think that they have remained, are there plans to create something like the F35?

            if interested, read on paralay.com
            there are projects on the groundwork of the Yak-141
            1. Kassandra
              +3
              23 June 2014 15: 46
              he doesn’t need aircraft carriers (and he doesn’t need an airfield), he can safely fly from container ships converted in 3 days.
              unless someone where a powerful pionist lobby and a lot of aircraft carriers could allow the USSR to do without aircraft carriers and, in addition, all of its aviation at airfields could not be easily and quickly destroyed as in June 1941 or June 1967?
              Well, think for yourself, really ...
              1. 0
                23 June 2014 17: 50
                Quote: Kassandra
                he doesn’t need aircraft carriers (and he doesn’t need an airfield), he can safely fly from container ships converted in 3 days.


                F-35B - only a deck aircraft! No.
                1. Kassandra
                  +1
                  23 June 2014 17: 55
                  C why?
                  Italian Air Force and Italian Navy divide them 50/50
                  Can't he sit on the concrete? By the way, in the USA, their operation is now far from coastal airfields is prohibited.
                  1. 0
                    23 June 2014 19: 38
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    Italian Air Force and Italian Navy divide them 50/50


                    Only one Italy. The U.S. KMP will be used on decks, the British also buy the F-35B only for the Navy.
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      23 June 2014 19: 59
                      Well, they wrote about you about her. Its Air Force and Navy plan to share the F-35 50/50
                      what does the "F-35B - only carrier-based aircraft" have to do with it?
                      Royal Navy has already decided in favor of the F-35C.
                      Harrieres they used, too, not all, most of the RAF was.
                      1. 0
                        23 June 2014 20: 32
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        what does the "F-35B - only carrier-based aircraft" have to do with it?


                        Moreover, because it is only a deck aircraft.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Royal Navy has already decided in favor of the F-35C.


                        They planned to buy, but again switched to the F-35B, because. There are no suitable aircraft carriers for the F-35C.
                      2. Kassandra
                        0
                        23 June 2014 20: 45
                        Swiss F-18 is also only a deck aircraft?
                        one of the two aircraft carriers has already been redone for the F-35C.
                      3. -1
                        23 June 2014 20: 57
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Swiss F-18 is also only a deck aircraft?


                        In the basic version, yes!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        one of the two aircraft carriers has already been redone for the F-35C.


                        So the British realized that a full-fledged deck aircraft is better than a UVP plane.
                      4. Kassandra
                        0
                        23 June 2014 22: 37
                        no. "only deck aircraft" does not exist.
                        there are deck and F-18 - deck. in the Alps ultra-short stripes and they sit clinging to a cable, like an aircraft carrier

                        the British - no, they don’t understand. they know that UVP is better than deck, just the F-35B project slowly but surely crashes
                      5. +1
                        23 June 2014 22: 53
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        no.

                        no, they don’t understand - they know that the UVP is better than the deck one, just the F-35B project slowly but surely crashes

                        If only in a parallel universe ....
                        Royal navy has already received at least 4 F-35B.

                        July 4 at the shipyard in Rosyth, Scotland, will be "baptized" the new ship of the British Royal Navy. Aircraft carrier “Queen Elizabeth” and he will probably be suddenly with a springboard for the F-35B ....
                      6. Kassandra
                        +1
                        24 June 2014 06: 47
                        Well, Admiral Kuznetsov, Vikramaditye and Liaoning also have a springboard (but F-35B - no), then what?
                        after receiving and using 4 pcs F-35B they decided on the F-35C
                        suddenly one of the Queen Elizabeth class got air finishers and for the other they are ready.
                      7. 0
                        24 June 2014 09: 41
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Well, Admiral Kuznetsov, Vikramaditye and Liaoning also have a springboard (but F-35B - no), then what? Here, having received and using 4 pcs of F-35B, they decided on the F-35 side. Suddenly, one of the Queen Elizabeth class received air finishers and for another they are ready.


                        You essentially moved away from the topic! fool
                      8. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 10: 47
                        It was written to the point.
                        write what you did not understand ...
                        aerofinishers that the "Prince of Whales" has already received are needed for landing on it deck F-35С
                        STOVL does not need an aerofinisher - he has nothing to cling to. when his systems fail, he sits in the emergency barrier.
                      9. +1
                        24 June 2014 11: 48
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        It was written to the point.
                        write what you did not understand ...
                        aerofinishers that the "Prince of Whales" has already received are needed for landing on it deck F-35С
                        STOVL does not need an aerofinisher - he has nothing to cling to. when his systems fail, he sits in the emergency barrier.


                        So what? The F-35B will be used for short take-off and landing on the deck. Any questions?
                      10. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 13: 37
                        and nitsche! aerofinisher then why? they need F-35C and not F-35B
                        it will not be used since it will be canceled.
                      11. +1
                        24 June 2014 12: 06
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        erofinishers that have already received "Prince of Whales" are needed for landing on it deck F-35С

                        England will not buy the F-35C - this has been officially announced so many times.
                        All of their aircraft carriers are not equipped with a catapult without it, the F-35C will not fly anywhere. Even the plans do not have a purchase of the F-35C, in this universe the least.
                        http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35jointstrikefighter.cfm
                      12. 0
                        24 June 2014 13: 11
                        Quote: iwind
                        England will not buy the F-35C - this has been officially announced so many times. All of their aircraft carriers are not equipped with a catapult without it, the F-35C will not fly anywhere. Even the plans do not have a purchase of the F-35C, in this universe the least. http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35jointstrikefighter.cfm


                        Hello iwind!
                        I suggest you not to argue or convince this visitor. It is important for him only to tilt the opponent, and nothing else. He himself is well aware that he is telling a lie.
                        hi
                      13. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 13: 37
                        write more about yourself ...
                      14. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 13: 53
                        write more about yourself ...
                        just add that you don't just need to troll, you fat-and-fat also need to twist people's brains. some "ONLY deck" aircraft are worth something.
                      15. 0
                        24 June 2014 16: 35
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        write more about yourself ...


                        You will not get it! tongue

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        just add that you don’t just need to troll, you fat-fat still need to unscrew the people’s brain.


                        Tell me at least one visitor (except you and the professor) whom I troll ??? Until you name, you continue to be a balabol!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        some "ONLY deck" aircraft are worth something.


                        I said this: "F-35B will only be used on deck." About "can only be used on deck," I did not say.
                      16. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 16: 46
                        Do you know what happens for trolling?
                        that is, even though you are a troll, but you are not the troll, and now you are not a balabol?
                        balabol will be too soft for you.

                        you wrote "ONLY deck".
                      17. 0
                        24 June 2014 17: 19
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Do you know what happens for trolling?


                        I know! This is evidenced by the number (2) between your login and IP-code.


                        Quote: Kassandra
                        that is, even though you are a troll, but you are not the troll, and now you are not a balabol? balabol will be too soft for you.


                        Kassandra, you didn’t bring me at least 2-3 visitors that I spoke about! Do not make excuses!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        you wrote "ONLY deck".


                        If he wrote, then only by typo and not by not knowing.
                      18. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 17: 44
                        this is optional for trolling

                        no one is obliged to bring other people's names to you

                        you wrote this doggie at least twice only on this page! and arose as soon as it came to aaaero-aerodrome land based.
                        brazenly but primitively working, look, they’ll dismiss you from the Central District, where will you go? I’m not going to arrange you for a pull back there ...
                      19. 0
                        24 June 2014 17: 48
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        this is optional for trolling

                        no one is obliged to bring other people's names to you

                        you wrote this doggie at least twice only on this page! and arose as soon as it came to aaaero-aerodrome land based.
                        brazenly but primitively working, look, they’ll dismiss you from the Central District, where will you go? I’m not going to arrange you for a pull back there ...


                        Have you mixed me up with someone ?!
                      20. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 18: 14
                        Nein. (German) bully
                      21. 0
                        24 June 2014 20: 05
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Nein. (German)


                        I do not understand Deutsch, speak Russian.
                      22. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 22: 22
                        use google-translator
                      23. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 13: 46
                        have to...
                        and then why?
                        The electric catapult will be quickly equipped as well as with aerofinisher, or RATO will be used for the first time.
                        Is this your link to MOD Intranet?
                        they are no longer enthusiastic even about the F-35C since, unlike Harrier, he does not know how to do VIFFing. both aircraft carriers are planned to be completed only partially and immediately put into reserve. one is already looking for a buyer over the hill.
                    2. Kassandra
                      0
                      23 June 2014 20: 23
                      PS. sea ​​Harriers that the U.S. ILC that RN always flew to the coastal FOB as soon as possible, as it was in Aviano, Iraq and San Carlos in the Falklands.
                      1. 0
                        23 June 2014 20: 33
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        PS. sea ​​Harriers that the U.S. ILC that RN always flew to the coastal FOB as soon as possible, as it was in Aviano, Iraq and San Carlos in the Falklands.


                        Sea Harriers fought in the Falklands. Even the land GR.3 was used only from the deck.
                      2. Kassandra
                        +1
                        23 June 2014 20: 48
                        1. Do you understand what you write?
                        2.http: //www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/harrier-forward-operating-base-falkland-is
                        lands /
                      3. 0
                        23 June 2014 20: 55
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        1. Do you understand what you write?


                        Aha Yes

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        2.http: //www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/harrier-forward-operating-base-falkland-is
                        lands /


                        Your link contains the only thread on the topic "F-35B future" (an F-35B future). Yes, and I know English at the level between A2 and B1, so I don't understand it very well there. And we seemed to be talking about Harrier.
                      4. Kassandra
                        0
                        23 June 2014 22: 22
                        this is a link on the "topic" like
                        allegedly "Marine Harriers fought in the Falklands. Even ground GR.3s were used only from the deck."
                        there are many photographs of how they were used from a quickly made coastal base in the area of ​​San Carlos, the next day as a bridgehead was captured there.
                        only a few east of Port Stanley were used from decks

                        A2 and B1 do not "speak" to me, but in this case, even if the content of this article is not clear to you, why did you suddenly come to the conclusion that the "professor" understands English and GOS better?
                        Now I doubt very much that maybe he translates his articles from Hebrew by a Google translator (and there he had exactly the stupid Google translation in red).
                      5. 0
                        24 June 2014 09: 48
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        this is a link on the "topic" how allegedly "Marine Harriers fought in the Falklands. Even ground GR.3s were used only from the deck." There are many photos of them being used from a quickly taken coastal base in the San Carlos area, the next day there was bridgehead captured; only a few were used from decks east of Port Stanley


                        Sorry, I just didn’t find anything besides the thread with the title "an F-35B future". request So look for the link!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        A2 and B1 do not "speak" to me, but in this case, even if the content of this article is not clear to you, why did you suddenly come to the conclusion that the "professor" understands English and GOS better?


                        With a system of verbs in English, you were terribly taxed before him, especially with the past tense and its forms.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Now I doubt very much that maybe he translates his articles from Hebrew by a Google translator (and there he had exactly the stupid Google translation in red).


                        I agree on this! I argued with the professor for 3 days, proving that the F-15s were shot down. Now I am on his Black List.
                      6. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 10: 55
                        are you photographers in an article by reference, as well as the title of the article you see?
                        http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/harrier-forward-operating-base-falkland-is
                        lands /
                        if not, then what are you up to the verbs ...
                      7. 0
                        24 June 2014 11: 52
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        are you photographers in an article by reference, like the title of the article you see? http: //www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/harrier-forward-operating-base-falk
                        land-islands /


                        I do not see!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        if not, then what are you up to the verbs ...


                        Although in what time and person does the verb has be put know? fellow
                      8. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 13: 56
                        You do not see the headline of the article and the mass of photographs by link - or get treated.

                        With an English hire a tutor.
                      9. 0
                        24 June 2014 16: 38
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        You do not see the headline of the article and the mass of photographs by link - or get treated.


                        The diagnosis is made by doctors, not cave scientists. laughing

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        With an English hire a tutor.


                        You yourself learned to begin with than giving advice!
                      10. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 16: 53
                        and they’re sending you to doctors
                        you even troll mediocre.
                        the tutor will teach you, I have no time for bitches
                      11. 0
                        24 June 2014 17: 23
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        and they’re sending you to doctors


                        You are the first!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        you even troll mediocre.


                        This is the answer to your trolling! By the way, you also taught me!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        I have no time for bitches


                        But this is a violation of the Criminal Code. Read:
                        The site is strictly prohibited:

                        a) mate in any form (open and veiled), swearing curses; insult and threats against the opponent;
                      12. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 19: 52
                        are you sure you never tried to offend anyone?
                      13. 0
                        24 June 2014 20: 07
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        are you sure you never tried to offend anyone?


                        There was some friction with the professor, but no!
                      14. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 20: 47
                        well, then let him do your upbringing ...
                      15. 0
                        24 June 2014 21: 06
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        well, then let him do your upbringing ...


                        How? He does not see my posts, I do not see his posts!
                      16. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 22: 26
                        somehow.
                      17. -1
                        25 June 2014 13: 19


                        The professor is your friend and comrade in trolling, and it’s up to you how he will educate you! Is that all? hi
                      18. Kassandra
                        0
                        27 June 2014 18: 02
                        No. And you were not ashamed in front of the moderator here
                        http://topwar.ru/51608-70-let-nazad-nemcy-vpervye-ispolzovali-samolet-snaryad-fa
                        u-1.html # comment-id-2908189
                        so wag your tail?
                2. Kassandra
                  0
                  23 June 2014 20: 25
                  and the F-35C is only a deck aircraft?
                  and Finnish or Swiss (horror - a country without access to decks!) F-18?

                  I’m just sick ...
                  1. 0
                    23 June 2014 20: 36
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    and the F-35C is only a deck aircraft?


                    What are you confusing letters? We are talking about the F-35B.

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    and Finnish or Swiss (horror - a country without access to decks!) F-18?


                    And where does Hornet? request

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    in my opinion you are just sick ..


                    I will find out the diagnosis from the doctor! hi
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      23 June 2014 21: 04
                      oh, already "talking" ... find out, find out.
                      1. 0
                        23 June 2014 21: 15
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        oh, already "talking"


                        We are discussing in a letter! Is that more correct?

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        know-know.


                        Yes, I found out! He says that he is healthy! smile
                      2. Kassandra
                        0
                        23 June 2014 21: 56
                        so fast? find out again, because you are clearly their client. maybe he will explain to you at the same time that

                        1. there is no "only deck" aircraft, there are deck
                        2. F-35B is not a deck, deck is an F-35C (as well as F-18)
                        3. F-35B is not a deck but a STOVL

                        decked, this means that the samoliot can take off from- and land horizontally on the deck.

                        Where are you talking about the fact that the F-35B ONLY read the deck?

                        Are you here "busy with psychology" or is it really like that?
                      3. 0
                        24 June 2014 09: 55
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        2. F-35B is not a deck, deck is an F-35C (as well as F-18)


                        They are both decked.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        3. F-35B is not a deck but a STOVL


                        Both that and another in one.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        decked, this means that the samoliot can take off from- and land horizontally on the deck.


                        F-35B will be used just "horizontally", only the takeoff and landing are shortened.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Where are you talking about the fact that the F-35B ONLY read the deck?


                        From Wikipedia in all languages, as well as from at least 20 sources.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Are you here "busy with psychology" or is it really like that?


                        Uzbagysya troll! It’s normal to argue when you don’t get personal?
                      4. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 11: 05
                        Oh well

                        STOVL means vertical landing.

                        what do you mean by "ONLY deck"?
                        there are ONLY carrier-based aircraft, any carrier can fly from the airfield, and in the Gulf War, almost all of them flew from bases in Saudi Arabia, and during the bombing of Yugoslavia from the base in Aviano because aircraft carriers are too vulnerable - one hit by a fan-fired Zuni and no aircraft carrier (or UDC) and all aircraft on it.
                        it is not decked at all; it’s decked F-35C. see p. 2 and understand the terms

                        Wikipedia just says that 50% of the Italian F-35B is planned to be transferred to the Air Force and not to the Navy.

                        then you’re doing it ... look for trolls among your friends.

                        any pilot will choose a vertical landing on an aircraft carrier and not shortened into an arrestor, or even more so without it, because vertical "helicopter landing" is safer, and less often to consult doctors for spinal hernias, micro-strokes and possible fundus detachment, as pilots regularly do - deck-boats on CATOBAR aircraft carriers.
                      5. 0
                        24 June 2014 11: 59
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        STOVL means vertical landing.


                        It means! But this is a theory, in practice only short take-off and landing will be used.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        what do you mean by "ONLY deck"? one hit by a fan-fired "Zuni" and there is no aircraft carrier (or UDC) and all the aircraft on it. It is not a carrier-based aircraft at all, it is a carrier-based F-35C. see item 2 and figure it out in terms


                        Read carefully! F-35B will be used only on decks, because on land they have nothing to do (where modification "A" dominates).

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        then you’re doing it ... look for trolls among your friends


                        Only with you! I communicate normally with normal, I communicate with trolls trollly!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        any pilot will choose a vertical landing on an aircraft carrier and not shortened into an arrestor, or even more so without it, because vertical "helicopter landing" is safer, and less often to consult doctors for spinal hernias, micro-strokes and possible fundus detachment, as pilots regularly do - deck-boats on CATOBAR aircraft carriers.


                        Do not answer for the pilots, they prefer a shortened airspace.
                      6. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 14: 14
                        "only with me", you dog about any reason. absolutely. you have such a job. or service, since you periodically have an American flag popping up - to twist the Russian brains.

                        modification "A" "dominates" not on land but at the airfield.
                        modification "B" - STOVL (non-airfield based aircraft).

                        did you communicate with them (pilots)?
                        what else will you come up with? Pelots in practice sit like this: (0:20 - 0:55)
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu-egOq-dZ8
                        first, the approach is parallel to the ship’s heading and speed equalization with it, then starting from 0:30 take to the right to be above the deck, then vertically lower and land.
                      7. 0
                        24 June 2014 16: 48
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        "only with me", you dog about any reason. absolutely. you have such a job. or service, since you periodically have an American flag popping up - to twist the Russian brains.


                        Strange ... what The whole problem is that you will not be able to find at least 2-3 people who agree with you on this.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        modification "A" "dominates" not on land but at the airfield.


                        Only you can cling to small typos.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        what else will you come up with?


                        You have a parallel universe!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        first, the approach is parallel to the ship’s heading and speed equalization with it, then starting from 0:30 take to the right to be above the deck, then vertically lower and land.


                        Only when they sit down! But all the same, "shortening" is used much more often than "verticality".
                      8. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 16: 58
                        I don’t have such a problem because I’m not looking.

                        you can only compost people's brains, try something else, you might like it

                        when is "shortening" used more often, even when they sit down?
                      9. 0
                        24 June 2014 17: 27
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        I don’t have such a problem because I’m not looking.


                        Not looking because you're lying!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        you can only compost people's brains, try something else, you might like it


                        Do not make excuses!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        when is "shortening" used more often, even when they sit down?


                        Yes!
                      10. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 19: 57
                        you had a link about how they sit down, how, in life, harriers can also sit vertically, you can find it yourself.
                        We expect from you a unique video as they sit differently. and if so, with a comment on why they do this.

                        PS. it’s easier for the Penguin to sit in short than Harrier, because he does not have an outrigger chassis, but not a single pilot in his mind will board such a ship.
                        take off - yes.
                        such a landing is relatively safe only at a medium-sized airfield, where, in addition, in the immediate vicinity, a huge number of other aircraft, fuel and ammunition are not crowded.
                        there is absolutely no need to land shortened or with slipping - the plane comes back almost empty and the lifting force of the wing is not needed at the landing, you can disorderly sit down on land, but why?

                        so you’re lying here (they don’t stupid), and you’re lying with your friends systematically,
                        but no one will make excuses to you without guilt.
                      11. 0
                        24 June 2014 20: 12
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        you had a link about how they sit down, how, in life, harriers can also sit vertically, you can find it yourself. we are waiting for a unique video from you on how they sit differently. and if so, with a comment on why they do this.


                        You did not convince me, so you are trying in vain to continue the argument.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        such a landing is relatively safe only at a medium-sized aerodrome, which, in addition, in the immediate vicinity is not crowded with a huge number of other aircraft, fuel and ammunition. There is absolutely no need to land shortened or with slipping - the plane comes back almost empty and the wing's lifting force you don’t need to land, you can hooligan sitting on land so you can, but why?


                        I almost agree!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        therefore, you are lying here (they don’t stupid so), and you are lying systematically with your friends, and no one will justify yourself without fault.


                        Evidence that you allegedly lied?
                      12. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 22: 21
                        you do not understand - a link with a video that they seem to be "shortened" sit as you write, where?
                        about how they sit down vertically to you was.

                        to convince you of something the task is no longer worth it ...
                      13. 0
                        25 June 2014 13: 21
                        quote
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        you do not understand - a link with a video that they seem to be "shortened" sit as you write, where?
                        about how they sit down vertically to you was.

                        to convince you of something the task is no longer worth it ...


                        What is shown in your video is done only for the view. In practice (i.e. in battle), a short take-off and landing is used.
                      14. Kassandra
                        0
                        27 June 2014 17: 53
                        In practice, the F-35B has not yet been in a battle ... Where is your video of doing so (sitting upright) AV-8B or GR9?
                        Is this the case?
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toKh15FrgzE
                        Well, he sat there so because of combat damage to the systems responsible for vertical landing and the inability to make it.
                        Never mind - I’m supposedly the son of a mechanic, who then repaired this plane, hung noodles around your ears like you were here, that this is a normal, accident-free landing, only did it in English.
                        This landing was on land - to specifically beat the ship with its tail (in the case of the F35B in general, the nozzle) and make such a "goat" without the possibility of catching the landing hook (well, not on the F35B) on the aerofiner cable and not go as far as in this video there is overboard, in general, no pilot will ever do.
          2. +2
            23 June 2014 15: 28
            Quote: atalef
            The final result of the F-35 is important, but the Yak-141 is not.


            Iron logic) The Yak-141 simply turned out to be another victim of Humpback and Eb.nogo, and so this plane could still go to the troops. Yes and later it turned out that we practically did not need this plane, because. It doesn’t correspond to the Russian Navy. But the Americans needed the F-35B as Harrier’s heir to the American ILC. But the very use of the VTOL for the U.S. ILC has long remained and remains in doubt.
          3. Kassandra
            +5
            23 June 2014 15: 48
            Yeah ... Yak-141 flew to Farnborough back in 1992 and the F-35B is still not there, only the F-35C
            and the end result is yes, it’s important
            because if China had such a plane (or the USSR would have appeared on a mass scale), then America is definitely kirdyk.
          4. 0
            23 June 2014 20: 22
            That's right, you are right, there is a result, and even if there are problems with the United States, the United States will bring everything to mind. I’ll probably open up a secret for many, but thieving officials will not go anywhere, and this is the state’s problem. , it’s all very expensive and probably such a plane does not meet our new doctrine, we are not going to fight with everyone like the USSR (and we won’t pull like the USSR). The world has changed and the enemies have changed, but some of the old enemies are still the enemy.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              23 June 2014 20: 42
              will not be brought. and the Russian Federation does not have such problems - the Yak flied normally.
              going to fight with you. Ukraine is not even Syria - it is very close.
          5. 0
            23 June 2014 22: 40
            Quote: atalef
            The final result of the F-35 is important, but the Yak-141 is not.

            He flew 25 years ago.
          6. 0
            24 June 2014 02: 25
            And actually what for us something like f-35? Just to be?
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. 0
                24 June 2014 09: 57
                Quote: Kassandra
                and on land all the aircraft on the first day at large airfields were not gouged.


                F-35B - deck aircraft!
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  24 June 2014 11: 11
                  no. Deck is the F-35C.
                  F-35B is STOVL, a separate class of aircraft
                  1. 0
                    24 June 2014 12: 01
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    no. Deck is the F-35C.
                    F-35B is STOVL, a separate class of aircraft


                    Ground STOVL died out, so it is logical to call the F-35B deck.
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      24 June 2014 14: 32
                      with what fright? used in Afghanistan ...
                      "land" STOVL turns into a marine replacement of sealants, installation of a guidance system to the ship (if there is no GPS laughing , because over the sea it is bad with landmarks), and the installation of hooks for fastening to the deck in a strong pitching.

                      what land STOVL have died out in your barn - sorry, not in the know.
                      1. 0
                        24 June 2014 16: 52
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        with what fright? used in Afghanistan ...


                        Window dressing is not use! A-10 and AH-64 are more useful there.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        land in your barn died out STOVL - sorry, not in the know.


                        The last VTOL designed specifically for sushi was Harrier GR.3, all the rest of Kassandra’s invention.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. 0
                        24 June 2014 17: 52
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        at least because Harrier always arrives to the infantry support from the forward base faster. Faster than the A-10 with non-front because the forward base is closer, and faster than the AN-64 with the front because it flies faster. The AN-64 was only useful against tanks in Iraq because it was hiding from air defense behind terrain.


                        Links?

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        GR9 for RAF is also someone’s fabrications? Are you talking about the fact that GR3 was supposedly the last one written for the umpteenth time ...


                        This is a marine attack aircraft.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        doggie, take a pill and go before .. to the pillar!


                        Again violation of the Criminal Code.
                      4. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 19: 53
                        you are worth it ...
                      5. 0
                        24 June 2014 20: 13
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        you are worth it ...


                        And you deserve it!
                      6. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 20: 58
                        Oh really?
                      7. 0
                        24 June 2014 21: 09
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Oh really?


                        Your 5 warnings indicate this.
                      8. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 22: 27
                        This is what you thought up for yourself. actually you are far from the navel of the earth
                      9. 0
                        25 June 2014 13: 24
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        This is what you thought up for yourself. actually you are far from the navel of the earth


                        Kassandra, even after all those Internet sins that you committed against me, I still have some pity for you. For while arguing with me, your warning counter has reached 6.
                      10. Kassandra
                        0
                        27 June 2014 16: 24
                        maybe it’s that you just don’t see your own?
                      11. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 20: 01
                        do you eat them

                        see the English wiki about GR9,
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GR9
                        in the first paragraph, first comes RAF, about RN - then, both in text and in time:
                        "jet aircraft used previously by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and, between 2006 and 2010, the Royal Navy (RN)."
                        and in general, first find out what the letters "GR" mean, they refer exactly to modifications for the Air Force

                        are you a member of the board or just ... stopped by?
                      12. 0
                        24 June 2014 20: 15
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        are you a member of the board or just ... stopped by?


                        Again, violation of paragraph "A" of the Criminal Code of VO.
                      13. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 20: 55
                        I don’t know, I didn’t look, but it seemed to you ...
                        But on the merits of the question (GR9) what will happen?
                      14. 0
                        24 June 2014 21: 10
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        I don’t know, I didn’t look, but it seemed to you ...
                        But on the merits of the question (GR9) what will happen?


                        Once switched to personalities, go on!
                      15. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 22: 44
                        No, don’t you cry and answer objectively, otherwise you were somehow curiously interested in only one line out of many.
                      16. 0
                        25 June 2014 13: 28
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        no, don’t you cry


                        You would not cry! recourse

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        answer objectively


                        "Substantially" I have already answered. A normal person would accept and draw conclusions. But a troll man cannot take information seriously. Can he?
                      17. Kassandra
                        0
                        27 June 2014 16: 22
                        subjectively GR stands for Ground Reconaissance, and applies only to RAF modifications.
                        marine harriers were FRS in FA.
                        but do you really expect this ...
            2. Kassandra
              0
              27 June 2014 19: 43
              and all the others what for?
              "June 1941" and "June 1967" with the destruction of all Soviet and Arab aviation at the airfields says anything about?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. -1
        23 June 2014 22: 08
        Quote: Nayhas
        As a result, the Yak-141 failed the test, depriving our fleet of four aircraft-carrying cruisers.

        The project was sold to the Americans, to see soon their carrier fleet will also disappear, which means they worked for good reason.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          24 June 2014 08: 30
          if ... in theory, you should just be able to fly with UDC, but then what money will disappear!
    2. PRN
      +8
      23 June 2014 12: 26
      What are the Russian designs when the plane was flying in 1991? The author has at least a little honesty - this is a purely Soviet development !!! And this is a purely Soviet classic R27V-300 (Yak-38)! Article plus, change the title!
      1. Kassandra
        +2
        23 June 2014 16: 22
        it's not really that photo. that which you will not find anywhere else until now. and in the video, even the copy-wall node on the F35 is not shown,
        By the way, on a linden sketch this place is also drawn as if it is unclear because A.ff.tar, although it’s a zhzhot, but how it should be there –– never knows laughing
        and the Chinese here pushed around, pushed around and remade their J31 into an ordinary twin-engine plane
    3. Kassandra
      0
      24 June 2014 08: 22
      and the article should not be called "Russian designs of a rotary nozzle", but "Unsuccessful / fake American (?) sketches of a rotary nozzle"
      in iron, America made something on Rockwell XFV-12, there are no nozzles there at all, but some kind of crap is full which lifted less than half of its own weight

      the current name would be correct if the author told the world about the nozzles Yak-36/38, and Yak-41
      however, the pictures are not the same. content and even more so.
  2. +12
    23 June 2014 10: 14
    Work on a rotary nozzle for vertical take-off and landing aircraft has been carried out in the USSR since the beginning of the 70s after the government approved the program for the creation of aircraft-carrying ships. The idea, as well as the ways of its implementation, as well as the results of testing prototypes abroad were well known, as were the main problems arising from the use of such structures. The case concerned particulars, individual structural elements, materials, weight and strength characteristics, in a word, what often constitutes a "highlight" of design ideas. American experts did not just inspect the aircraft and engine. They bought a patent for the design of such a rotary nozzle and used the Soviet experience, and Russian officials, taking advantage of the opportunity and financial interest, sold it. This did not bring significant benefits and the harm from this is not great in comparison with the actions of those who in general sold their homeland and destroyed the Soviet Union.
    1. +4
      23 June 2014 10: 30
      I fully support rubin6286. Patent / license, you know, quite detailed information. Not only engines were taken, but also a gas-dynamic stabilization system and a lot of other interesting things, I think that this acquisition saved at least 10 years and it is unknown how much money amers have in working on the "penguin" ...
      1. -1
        23 June 2014 11: 30
        Quote: Argon
        I fully support rubin6286.

        What is it? What patent did the Americans acquire? Everywhere they write that LM allegedly acquired the design of a rotary nozzle from the Yakovlev Design Bureau, but what did it have to do with it if it was a product of the Soyuz MNTK? None, so the Yakovlevtsy could not convey anything on the topic of the rotary nozzle, all rights to the R79V-300 of which the rotary nozzle belongs to the Soyuz MNTK
        1. +2
          23 June 2014 12: 40
          Since Lockheed-Martin turned to Yakovlev Design Bureau, then not everything was so smooth with the American design.
          1. -4
            23 June 2014 13: 16
            Quote: 0255
            Since Lockheed-Martin turned to Yakovlev Design Bureau, then not everything was so smooth with the American design.

            This is only your assumption, the history of the creation of the F-35 has not yet been written, it is not known to anyone except the LM manual and the designers working on the machine whether they used the Yak-141 developments or not. If so, in what volume and in what place. This is not publicly available. I repeat, LM bought something from Yakovlev Design Bureau, but could not buy engine elements, because it belongs to MNTK Soyuz. What they bought was unknown used or put into the archive, and if used, what exactly and to what extent.
            1. Kassandra
              +2
              23 June 2014 15: 03
              it's just your insinuations because half of Americans already know that the F35 is a copycut with the Yak-141. before that they had absolutely no XFV-12 in development
              they themselves could not even create subsonic STOVL and skizdil it from the British, and it is produced in the United States not under license. bully
          2. -3
            23 June 2014 13: 19
            Quote: 0255
            Since Lockheed-Martin turned to Yakovlev Design Bureau, then not everything was so smooth with the American design

            But why did Yakovlev Design Bureau sell something (if it sold)? Or is it not clear where these rotary nozzles should go?
          3. -3
            23 June 2014 13: 19
            Quote: 0255
            Since Lockheed-Martin turned to Yakovlev Design Bureau, then not everything was so smooth with the American design

            But why did Yakovlev Design Bureau sell something (if it sold)? Or is it not clear where these rotary nozzles should go?
            1. +4
              23 June 2014 15: 41
              Quote: atalef
              But why did Yakovlev Design Bureau sell something (if it sold)?


              If you are not aware of Atalef, our situation in the country after 1991 was dashing, so everyone and everything was corrupt, including KB. And in combination with the American desire to skillfully steal information, this “corruption” once again us failed.

              Quote: atalef
              Or is it not clear where these rotary nozzles should go?


              The United States simply had no previous experience in building VTOL and SUVP, so it was necessary to borrow a number of elements of the traction system and nozzle from someone else. At that time, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and France had such experience. And due to favorable circumstances, the Americans decided to borrow the design from the Design Bureau Yakovleva. The sold documentation helped Yanks a lot to solve a number of issues, and thus it paid off. In the 2001 competition, the X-35 showed better vertical take-off and landing (as well as hovering in the air) than its opponent X-32 (which had by the way n a somewhat odd-looking air intake). The Yak contributed to the development of the F-35B.
              1. Kassandra
                +2
                23 June 2014 16: 40
                The X-32 never made a transition from vertical to full horizontal or reverse (transition), but took off vertically, lightened by 12%, with the hull and air intake elements removed
                The X-32, like the competition between the X-35 and the X-32 itself, is just a fake in order to cover up the fact of copying the Yak-141 from the American public (there was no Internet at that time), and a giant washing of the dough, because the Lockheed got all technology for an airplane in the Russian Federation for half a million and already half a trillion American dollars (70 billion has already been mastered) so that Boeing does not arise, they agreed to give part of the "work" on the F-35 to a subcontract.
                heh heh ... even the propaganda video is like the X-32 is not the first (!) high test hangs and next to him is a woman right on the platform with which he kind of took off and is standing with a child (in a dad type cabin) and talking to a reporter . and everything is so safe and (most important) audible bully and even a child on .. er - onib still the Minuteman was launched like that, a la "Nedelin's disaster." only if this X-32 was not being held with a crane, it was too painful for her, plus to everything she had a very rogue muzzle, and he swayed a little not as it should have. Well, Mouzon esessno with the brain ... at the alpha frequency. bully
                try to somehow communicate with each other when not far from the roof at least boil tar bully
                1. 0
                  23 June 2014 16: 59
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  The X-32 never made a transition from vertical to full horizontal or reverse (transition), but took off vertically, lightened by 12%, with the hull and air intake elements removed


                  About that and speech!

                  Quote: Kassandra
                  X-32, like the competition between X-35 and X-32 itself, is just a fake to cover up the fact of copying the Yak-141 from the American public


                  The X-32 is actually a project of Boeing, Lockheed Martin's main competitor. The purchase of documentation for the Yak-141 has no relation to the X-32, because This is a Boeing project.
                  1. Kassandra
                    0
                    23 June 2014 17: 46
                    "... so that Boeing did not arise with him, we agreed to give part of the" work "on the F-35 to a subcontract ..."
                    1. -2
                      23 June 2014 17: 52
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      "... so that Boeing did not arise with him, we agreed to give part of the" work "on the F-35 to a subcontract ..."


                      Keep trolling. The truth is that your words won’t become anyway! negative
                      1. Kassandra
                        -2
                        23 June 2014 18: 00
                        on the Internet about it somewhere dial yourself ...
                      2. 0
                        23 June 2014 18: 21
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        on the Internet about it somewhere dial yourself ...


                        I typed this about 3 years ago. Googling would not hurt you.
                      3. Kassandra
                        0
                        23 June 2014 19: 18
                        What exactly did you type?
                      4. 0
                        23 June 2014 19: 39
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        What exactly did you type?


                        Read above!
                      5. Kassandra
                        0
                        23 June 2014 19: 46
                        you write here.
                      6. 0
                        23 June 2014 19: 58
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        you write here.


                        I will not write. When I sent you for the link that "the F-35B will also be a ground VTOL aircraft" you also said "look for yourself." Here and read above!
                      7. Kassandra
                        0
                        23 June 2014 20: 14
                        What exactly did you type? what:
                        1. X-32 is a Boeing project, or
                        2. Lockheed gave part of the work on the F-35 to the subcontract?

                        about the fact that the Italian Air Force plans to get 50% of the Italian F-35, they explained it so popularly to you. The Air Force is not a carrier-based aircraft.
                        Most Harriers have always been with RAF and not with RN.
                      8. 0
                        23 June 2014 20: 42
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        1. X-32 is a Boeing project


                        Yes

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        2. Lockheed gave part of the work on the F-35 to the subcontract?


                        FAQ ??? belay

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        about the fact that the Italian Air Force plans to get 50% of the Italian F-35, they explained it so popularly to you. The Air Force is not a carrier-based aircraft.


                        Italians just repeat the mistake of the British.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Most Harriers have always been with RAF and not with RN.


                        Only GR.3 (first modification). In the future, only the marine Harrier was used. The British A-8 was mixed (both in Air Force and Navy) but was a pure attack aircraft, they did not use vertical take-off and landing.
                      9. Kassandra
                        0
                        23 June 2014 22: 02
                        I had not about 1 but about 2 (then INTO "faq")

                        Argentina was wrong

                        Well, you have porridge in everything ... A-8 is not British (but skipped among the British), but how they are "not used" in the ILC, look at YouTube. especially about landing.
                      10. 0
                        24 June 2014 10: 00
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        I had not about 1 but about 2 (then INTO "faq") Argentina was wrong


                        Start from the beginning!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Well, you have porridge in everything ... A-8 is not British (but skipped among the British), but how they are "not used" in the ILC, look at YouTube. especially about landing.


                        Read my post carefully, no lies here!
                      11. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 11: 15
                        what for? You’ve been explained to you many times ...

                        read carefully. once again this your dregs there is no desire to read.
                        the whole YouTube and all the KMP is engaged in lies planting their STOVL "sideways" vertically.
                      12. 0
                        24 June 2014 12: 03
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        what for? You’ve been explained to you many times ...


                        Well, thank God!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        read carefully. Once again, this your dregs of desire to read no. All youtube and all KMP is engaged in lies planting their STOVL "sideways" vertically.


                        These are tests! And in operation there will be only a shortened VP.
                      13. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 14: 43
                        yeah yeah ... there will be no exploitation at all.
                        and if it were, then on land - maybe it’s not so scary to roll out of the lane, and the ship is too small for such tricks.

                        only heavily loaded helicopters high in the mountains take off.
                      14. 0
                        24 June 2014 16: 57
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        yeah yeah ... there won’t be any exploitation at all. and if it were, it would be on land - maybe it’s not so scary to roll out of the lane, and the ship is too small for such tricks.


                        Continue to lie to the Russian people that the enemy is weak, and so on. In the 41st, the same clowns lied that in the event of a conflict with Germany we would beat her on foreign territory.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        only heavily loaded helicopters high in the mountains take off.


                        No, not only! negative
                      15. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 17: 31
                        at 41, the same inhuman as you gathered all Soviet aviation at airfields and substituted it under the blow of the same foreign inhuman on the very first day of the war ...
                        here you smear non-aerodrome-based planes with your shit and set the stage for the continuation of your banquet with Russian meat.

                        go kill yourself against the wall.
                      16. 0
                        24 June 2014 17: 53
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        go kill yourself against the wall.


                        And again, a violation of the Criminal Code!
                      17. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 20: 10
                        you are worth it ... especially in light of the above.
                      18. 0
                        24 June 2014 20: 24
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        you are worth it ... especially in light of the above.


                        Wake up already! While you were arguing with me, the number of your warnings has gone from 2 to 5. Trolling should be punished, but it seems to me that you have been punished too hard. No.
                      19. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 20: 49
                        what was written above?

                        the rest is at my door ...
                      20. 0
                        24 June 2014 21: 12
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        the rest is at my door ...


                        That is, the laws of VO are also at your door?
                      21. The comment was deleted.
                      22. Kassandra
                        0
                        27 June 2014 19: 51
                        above it was written about millions of victims 41g
                        you are already earning on the laws of the Russian Federation ...
                      23. Kassandra
                        +1
                        24 June 2014 07: 52
                        so as not to be surprised when a company wins a tender, it often gives out subcontracting orders to competitors
                        sometimes it is even allowed under antitrust law.
                        that's why they often just get together and decide who will be on top in this case and who will be next. and therefore who will go to the tender with what.
                        in the case of the F-35, the competition was generally fake, because there was a fake X-32, in a movie on YouTube about this competition
                        they constantly discuss his parrot wing and what "difficulties" were with him, although not a single apparatus with his dviglom (the British did something again!) will not fly. well, or rather, he will be able to fly only vertically with a low horizontal speed or only horizontally, taking off horizontally from the ground.
                        X-35 is also a third of fake (F-35B) because it can only land vertically in 3/4 of cases, and in 1/4 it is forced to go to the airport. and to make sure that he sits down at least in 19/20 cases, they will not receive it, since at those nodes that break in it, the temperature reaches higher than that of the photosphere of the Sun. this is twice as much as on those mechanically unloaded parts that burned out on the Space Shuttle in 2003
                        soon everyone will quickly abandon it, but the F-35C with cracks in the fuselage will fly for a while. F-35A - a little longer, and then because lop-eared Australians bent on its purchase.
                      24. 0
                        24 June 2014 10: 05
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        so as not to be surprised when a firm wins a competition, it often subcontracts a competitor, sometimes even under antitrust laws. Therefore, they often just get together and decide who will be on top in this case and who next. and therefore who will go to the tender with what. In the case of the F-35, the competition was generally fake, because it was a phony X-32, in the movies on YouTube about this competition, they constantly discuss its parrot wing and what "difficulties" were with it, although not one apparatus with its dviglom (the British have done something again!) will not fly. well, or rather, he will be able to fly only vertically with a low horizontal speed or only horizontally, taking off horizontally from the ground.


                        I don’t know anything, the X-32 was and will be an unsuccessful project of Boeing - Lockheed Martin, the main competitor and internal enemy.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        soon everyone will quickly abandon it, but the F-35C with cracks in the fuselage will fly for a while.


                        Dream, dream - useful! laughing

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        F-35A - a little longer, and then because lop-eared Australians bent on its purchase.


                        And 9 more countries!
                      25. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 11: 22
                        if you don’t know, don’t write.
                        I have never written that the X-32 is a non-Boeing. knew about it back in 1993 and not like you 3g ago

                        I don’t need to dream.

                        another 9 countries will fall not as much as Australoids, because their brand new UDC Canberra cannot be remade under the F-35C. unlike Prince of Whales - too small.
                        Italy, sensing something was wrong, is keeping its Harriers, and the 51st State has caved in after giving from America.
                      26. 0
                        24 June 2014 12: 10
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        if you don’t know, don’t write.


                        What don’t I know?

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        I have never written that the X-32 is a non-Boeing. knew about it back in 1993 and not like you 3g ago


                        Especially! Why lie then, if you already know this for 21 years!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Italy, sensing something was wrong, is keeping its Harriers, and the 51st State has caved in after giving from America.


                        That's good! The longer the NATO countries exploit these flying troughs (Harriers), the better we are!
                      27. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 14: 50
                        what I wrote that you don’t know.

                        why are you "lying"? I have not written that the X-32 is not a Boeing. see what keys you press.

                        the longer the Russian Federation does not have such an aircraft - yes, the better for you. you can again kill all of her aircraft in concrete, the location of which you know in advance. but what will take off to take off to pull into a close maneuverable battle with harriers and bring down. with about the same score as they butchered Argentina for meat in 1982.
                      28. -1
                        24 June 2014 17: 01
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        what I wrote that you don’t know.


                        Lady do not lie!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        why are you "lying"? I have not written that the X-32 is not a Boeing. see what keys you press.


                        I do not mean it.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        the longer the Russian Federation does not have such an aircraft - yes, the better for you. you can again kill all of her aircraft in concrete, the location of which you know in advance. but what will take off to take off to pull into a close maneuverable battle with harriers and bring down. with about the same score as they butchered Argentina for meat in 1982.


                        What nonsense is she talking about? Or did she say the same thing to the Greeks? laughing
                      29. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 17: 38
                        what, doggie, horrible? bully

                        yes, they didn’t listen to her either ...
                      30. 0
                        24 June 2014 17: 55
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        what, doggie, horrible?


                        I don’t understand what are you talking about?

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        yes, they didn’t listen to her either ...


                        Yes, but you are not her ?!
                      31. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 19: 51
                        this may be your misfortune ...
                      32. 0
                        24 June 2014 20: 17
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        this may be your misfortune ...


                        Thanks Kassandra Yes that you are talking to me again on "you" !!! good
                      33. Kassandra
                        +1
                        24 June 2014 20: 53
                        not at all ... it was about wass as a class.
                      34. 0
                        24 June 2014 21: 13
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        not at all ... it was about wass as a class.


                        At least one positive post from Kassandra! smile
                      35. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 22: 49
                        what did you find positive in it?
                      36. 0
                        25 June 2014 13: 29
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        what did you find positive in it?


                        A rare event belay - lack of trolling!
                      37. Kassandra
                        0
                        27 June 2014 16: 03
                        you did not answer ...
            2. +1
              23 June 2014 18: 01
              Because these sales were lobbied by Abramovich, Berezovsky and many, many of the same. negative stop
          4. Kassandra
            +2
            23 June 2014 15: 00
            it didn’t exist at all, and then you can draw anything now or then.
            the Americans themselves could not even make a subsonic Harrier.
            all of their own ended on Bell X-14, see what kind of pterodactyl it is and be surprised. lol
            1. +2
              23 June 2014 17: 05
              Quote: Kassandra
              it didn’t exist at all, and then you can draw anything now or then.
              the Americans themselves could not even make a subsonic Harrier.
              all of their own ended on Bell X-14, see what kind of pterodactyl it is and be surprised. lol


              worse than the X-32 laughing
              1. Kassandra
                +1
                23 June 2014 17: 43
                no worse, but the X-32 didn’t really fly at all - he already wrote about it here, at 16:40 a little higher. X-32 is almost entirely fake.
          5. +2
            23 June 2014 23: 00
            Quote: 0255
            Since Lockheed-Martin turned to Yakovlev Design Bureau, then not everything was so smooth with the American design.

            The Americans themselves call the Yak-141 the prototype F-35V, they bought all the design documentation for the Yak-141 and plus operating time on the Yak-201, the designers of Yakovlev Design Bureau did the weight distribution on the F-35V, as they did and sent it
        2. Kassandra
          +3
          23 June 2014 14: 50
          As part of the transfer of technology, Lokhida and Rolls-Royce specialists were not only in design bureaus, but in all factories that made any detail for this aircraft and its engine.
          The engine, by the way, was developed jointly by the Yakovlev Design Bureau and the engine engineers, because the design of its nozzle came to them from the Design Bureau.
      2. Kassandra
        +2
        23 June 2014 14: 45
        everything was taken at all. in americans before it was only a 66-year-old unflavored XFV-12
      3. Kassandra
        0
        23 June 2014 21: 00
        everything was taken but they were especially interested:
        1. nozzle
        2. a system for coordinating the work of PMD and 2 PDs (distributed lift) - they believed that on Yak it was controlled by a powerful on-board 6-processor computer, and there actually were two levers and two wings
        3. flow stabilization systems under the Yakus
        4. materials of the rotary parts of the nozzle
        5. the general layout of the aircraft which, oddly enough, was very difficult to achieve
        gas control system (reaction control) they were interested in just in the last turn, at Harrier was similar. everything else was missing, because Harrier was built around just one turbofan engine (that is, no Distibuted lift coordination), his nozzles are simple, after-blow and small in type of water fittings.
    2. Kassandra
      +1
      23 June 2014 14: 43
      the probable enemy received our unique weapon, and left without it in their country - nothing "did much harm to itself."
  3. StolzSS
    +2
    23 June 2014 10: 39
    The history of technical and technological achievements has a rather funny confusion about priority, which at times is very informative.
    1. Kassandra
      +2
      23 June 2014 15: 07
      confusion is now being introduced. before damaging the Yak and selling it in the USA in 1992, approximately the same thing came in 1962 with the MiG E-8
      There is no Stalin on them ...
  4. 0
    23 June 2014 11: 43
    I agree in general with the article! On its own, the Yak-141, although not very useful (like Harrier), was an amazing machine capable of all kinds of air stunts. However, history has shown that VTOL aircraft completely failed in terms of combat effectiveness and reliability of operation. Therefore, from now on these planes are a thing of the past. Even the modern F-35B is planned to be used neither as a VTOL aircraft but as a deck aircraft with a short take-off and a shortened / vertical landing, because it is much safer and more effective than the vertical alternative.
    1. Kassandra
      +2
      23 June 2014 15: 12
      yeah, escho on foot ... the Americans even bought all the old harriers for their ILCs from the British, leaving their Navy without anything at all.
      1. +1
        23 June 2014 15: 47
        Quote: Kassandra
        yeah, walk escho ...


        So I didn’t write to you. hi

        Quote: Kassandra
        Americans even bought all the old harriers for their ILCs from the British, leaving their Navy without anything at all.


        Well, neither can the British throw this plane (although in fact it’s not a plane). And what was I wrong about? Even those Harriers will use it as an SUMS because GDP is too dangerous and not very effective.
        1. Kassandra
          +1
          23 June 2014 15: 59
          Yes, do not "throw out" and they have Americans this second-hand (74 old harriers) ripped out with a bang in the fabrics.
          just the same greyhound as before unlicensed copied the AV-8 itself, there are just few "own" ones bully and the F-35B is still not (and never will be). laughing
          do you have any relation to airplanes?
          1. 0
            23 June 2014 16: 20
            Quote: Kassandra
            Yes, do not "throw out" and they have Americans this second-hand (74 old harriers) ripped out with a bang in the fabrics.
            just the same greyhound as before unlicensed copied the AV-8 itself, there are just few "own" ones bully and the F-35B is still not (and never will be). laughing


            I do not deny this story, it was all true. The Americans did not have experience in building VTOL aircraft.

            Quote: Kassandra
            do you have any relation to airplanes?


            That is, you think that you are an expert (supposedly familiar with the hardware) and in the right to poke at others considering them more stupid than yourself? lol And you can her one joke fellow ? When reading your comments, I’m no longer angry as before (then I just didn’t know that you were a troll), I’m just ridiculous from your jokes. laughing Crawl on ... wassat
            1. Kassandra
              0
              23 June 2014 19: 43
              not an expert familiar with materiel but the one who did it.
              go to your friends in a trolley bus.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  23 June 2014 20: 39
                  nobody jokes with you.
                  do you think a real specialist can’t go to such a site? they are here ... but you behave more or less the same with all of them.
                  1. 0
                    23 June 2014 20: 48
                    Quote: Kassandra
                    nobody jokes with you.


                    Thank you! Yes I love serious debate!

                    Quote: Kassandra
                    do you think a real specialist can’t go to such a site? they are here ... but you behave more or less the same with all of them.


                    It seems to you so! I take you quite seriously when you do not use trolling.
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      23 June 2014 22: 06
                      Nobody argues with you. Explained to you.
                      Disputes are never serious.
                      I do not use trolling. It seems to you.
                      1. 0
                        24 June 2014 10: 09
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Nobody argues with you.


                        Well, what are you doing then? fool

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Disputes are never serious.


                        There are!

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        I do not use trolling. It seems to you


                        You’re lying! Send me a message with evidence, then I’ll believe it!
                      2. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 11: 25
                        I’ll explain.

                        Disputes are never serious at all. The subject / issue is being discussed.

                        Evidence of what? Why aren't you a camel?
                      3. 0
                        24 June 2014 12: 14
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        I’ll explain


                        Someone would explain to you ... crying

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Disputes are never serious at all. The subject / issue is being discussed.


                        When cave scientists do not participate in them, they are serious.


                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Evidence of what?


                        "Not trolling."

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Why aren't you a camel?


                        What a serious one you are! We are discussing aviation here, and you remember the artiodactyl squad! laughing
                      4. Kassandra
                        +1
                        24 June 2014 14: 54
                        you did not try to explain Pythagoras his theorems?
                        try, "you will succeed." bully
                      5. 0
                        24 June 2014 17: 07
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        you did not try to explain Pythagoras his theorems?
                        try, "you will succeed." bully


                        In a state of hopelessness, the troll does not know how to end the argument, because this time he turned from a hunter into a game! laughing
                      6. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 17: 40
                        mediocrity, are you bored?
                        Well pofapayte on the monitor.
                      7. 0
                        24 June 2014 17: 56
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        mediocrity, are you bored?
                        Well pofapayte on the monitor.


                        I tell you, the troll fell into the trap.
                      8. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 20: 02
                        still pofapay ... tired - change yourself you know what laughing
                      9. 0
                        24 June 2014 20: 26
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        still pofapay ... tired - change yourself you know what laughing


                        No, I don’t know, tell me!
                      10. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 20: 52
                        But this is definitely not an obscene word?
                      11. 0
                        24 June 2014 21: 16
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        But this is definitely not an obscene word?


                        Speak up, if you like! Only here in your place I would not want to receive the 6th warning in a row.
                      12. Kassandra
                        0
                        24 June 2014 22: 48
                        Well, you do everything for this ...
                      13. 0
                        25 June 2014 13: 31
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Well, you do everything for this ...


                        No, I’m not doing it, I’m trying to comply with all the points of the Criminal Code.
                      14. Kassandra
                        0
                        27 June 2014 16: 03
                        everyone sees how you observe them, of course, if your comments are not quickly deleted by the moderator (though for some reason this figure in brackets doesn’t arrive from you) ...
    2. +2
      23 June 2014 23: 14
      Quote: supertiger21
      However, history has shown that VTOL aircraft completely failed in terms of combat effectiveness and operational reliability. Therefore, these aircraft are now a thing of the past.

      And why do Americans rivet it?
      1. 0
        23 June 2014 23: 18
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        And why do Americans rivet it?

        From


        To sell to the "unlucky", that which is unnecessary.
        1. Kassandra
          +1
          24 June 2014 06: 53
          this is unlikely - they even bought all of their scruffy Harriers (74pcs) from the non-good English, because they themselves are few.
      2. Kassandra
        0
        24 June 2014 14: 58
        Canadair CL-84, 1965
        but Canada (and all the rest) is not allowed, but the USA is possible.
  5. +2
    23 June 2014 12: 06
    guys are most interesting in another!
    there are alternative antigravity technologies
    1) SERLE WORKS
    2) Installation of the grove-year
    3) HUTCHISON EFFECT
    4) Grebennikov platform
    5) Podkletov effect
    etc.
    and they are closed or WORK on them in SILENT!
    1. +2
      23 June 2014 12: 45
      got this creepy music from the video! A video and interesting good
      I hope they are working on this in the CIS countries bully
    2. 0
      24 June 2014 17: 57
      Quote: Nitarius
      and they are closed or WORK on them in TIHARA

      Not so quietly.
      Source: forbes.com 04 January 2014 year.
      Home nuclear reactor technology receives official funding for the first time
      http://warfiles.ru/show-48386-tehnologiya-domashnego-atomnogo-reaktora-poluchaet
      -finansirovanie.html
      The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has included LENR (low energy nuclear reactions), NASA scientists able to power home nuclear reactors, among other promising technologies with 10 funding of millions of dollars of the declared last fall.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        24 June 2014 19: 51
        our neighbor also quietly enriches plutonium in the basement ...
  6. +6
    23 June 2014 12: 14
    To put it mildly, unreliable information - or rather conclusions. The Conveyr mentioned here never existed "in hardware" - and could not serve as a prototype for the 141st simply because in this case the problem is not so much in the general design of the nozzle but in very fine settings of gas dynamics in "transient modes" - In any case, the 141st is the first a flight sample in which they managed to combine the rotary nozzle with the FC - it was on this problem that the creators of the "super harrier" stumbled - the Americans did not just buy documentation for the Yakovlev product - there, in addition to solving the most complex gas-dynamic problem, there were also technological "chips" associated with solving problems of temperature resistance and vibration loads arising in a curved gas path with a sharp change in flow. This problem was de facto solved only in our country. Since my main specialty was VTOL aircraft itself, we got acquainted with work in this direction from our "potential opponents" in sufficient detail. Until the 141st, no one managed to solve the problem of a supersonic VTOL aircraft (precisely because of problems with the FC).
    1. -3
      23 June 2014 12: 32
      Quote: Taoist
      Conveyr mentioned here never existed "in hardware" - and could not serve as a prototype for the 141st

      This is not claimed. They pointed out that the creators of the Pratt & Whitney rotary nozzle on the F-35B relied on their 3BSD developments.
      Nobody takes away the achievements of domestic designers in the implementation of a working rotary nozzle, but for the claims that the F-35B used domestic developments, facts are needed, not speculation.
      1. +1
        23 June 2014 12: 48
        Quote: Nayhas
        Nobody takes away the achievements of domestic designers in the implementation of a working rotary nozzle, but for the claims that the F-35B used domestic developments, facts are needed, not speculation.

        developments on the Yak-141 were purchased for $ 500, what other facts do you need?
      2. +4
        23 June 2014 12: 59
        Well, unfortunately, hardly anyone will post a scan of the contract with the Americans here. But the fact that such a contract was concluded, I know absolutely for sure - because of my specialization. Yes, and open sources reported (in particular, the Yakovlev Design Bureau itself - then we were on friendly terms with amers)
        "In the mid-1990s, an agreement was signed between the Yakovlev Design Bureau and Lockheed Martin on joint work under the JAST program to create a promising fighter for the US Air Force (later renamed JSF). In accordance with this agreement, the OKB A.S. Yakovlev presented the American side with information and research results on VTOL aircraft, as well as draft designs of the future Yak-201 fighter. These data were used to create the JSF F-35 Lightning II "(c)

        And this is a replica of one of my acquaintance in that KB working in those days:
        "But then Dondukov came to the helm of the OKB and started ...
        He sold all the engine documentation for 500 thousand greens and, most importantly, the engine management system ...
        Well, the YAK-3 was sold from the museum, they spoke at 3 of the year, but he never returned.
        From the dynamic testing workshop, the machine and equipment were thrown out ... and they began to saw diamonds there, and then almost all the design bureaus were given to the Bank.

        Although what was expected from Dondukov .... "(c)
        1. -4
          23 June 2014 13: 20
          Quote: Taoist
          But the fact that such a contract was concluded, I know absolutely for sure - because of my specialization. Yes, and open sources reported (in particular, the Yakovlev Design Bureau itself - then we were on friendly terms with amers)

          I do not dispute this. Yes, the Americans bought something, but they could not buy anything from the Yakovlev Design Bureau for the engine. the engine was developed at the Soyuz MNTK. Or do you think that the Yakovlevites sold something that does not belong to them?
          1. +2
            23 June 2014 18: 12
            Let's just say that in those days there was no such reverent attitude to the issues of "intellectual property" (Everything around the Soviet, everything around me) - that I managed to "grab" and trade. And the documentation for the engine (and most importantly for its control system) in the design bureau was completely - by and large, for such a specific vehicle as VTOL aircraft, the engines and airplanes work in a very tight tandem - aerodynamics and gas dynamics are only synchronous ...
            However, even now this does not really bother some ... The Ukrainians sold the Zubr to the Chinese.
            1. +1
              24 June 2014 00: 03
              Quote: Taoist
              Let's just say that in those days there was no such reverent attitude to the issues of "intellectual property" (Everything around the Soviet, everything around me) - that I managed to "grab" and trade.

              Do you think that the leadership of Yakovlev's design bureau went to "lawlessness"?
              Quote: Taoist
              And the documentation for the engine (and most importantly for its control system) in the design bureau was completely - by and large, for such a specific vehicle as VTOL aircraft, the engines and airplanes work in a very tight tandem - aerodynamics and gas dynamics are only synchronous ...

              Undoubtedly, the engine designer did the job of the aircraft developer. But let's get back to the article itself. As I found out, this article is an echo of the article by Kevin Renshaw, who was the director of the ASTOVL program (supersonic VTOL for the U.S. ILC, one of the JSF forerunner) at General Dynamics, and after that he was deputy chief engineer at Lockheed ASTOVL. The article is called History Of The F-35B Swivel Duct. In this article, Kevin Renshaw describes the story of the creation of a rotary nozzle mounted on the F-35B. In his article, he specifically points out that this rotary nozzle was designed on the basis of the three-bearing swivel duct nozzle 3BSD, which was developed at Pratt & Whitney in the 60s. 3BSD was tested on a Pratt & Whitney JT8D aircraft engine, the tests included full-force nozzle operation with a ninety degree nozzle deflection.

              In 1993 Lockheed acquired the aviation division of General Dynamics Fort Worth whose team members were integrated into the ASTOVL theme, documents from Convair regarding the nozzle design were raised from the archive. In October 1994, Pratt & Whitney funded the Lockheed Fort Worth team to run a 3BSD study for ASTOVL configuration. The results of this study showed that the 3BSD variant was significantly lighter than the previously tested SerN type design (two-flap design).
              SerN:

              At the end, Renshaw reports that rumors about borrowing the nozzle design from the Yak-141 are misinformation, because 3BSD design that used in the X-35 is much older than the Soviet machine. At the time of the visit to Yakovlev Design Bureau (as indicated on the wiki in 1995) in the X-35, the three-bearing swivel nozzle (3BSN) scheme was already approved.
              If you are not too lazy, you can read it yourself:
              http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137
              1. Kir
                0
                24 June 2014 01: 22
                The reference to the wiki says little, since this segment of the Internet is very specific in relation to Russia, then when listing the aviation geniuses there are only two of them, and as it is not difficult to guess there are no Russians there, etc., then about rumors, and what will not suggest that more Probably just the ends are well cleaned up, and it seems like the timing of the f-35b commissioning was delayed well when cooperation with the Yakovlev Design Bureau ceased, then, unfortunately, not only in the west. but what is much more deplorable and disgusting, we have a part of "experts" who always see in our developments those, but reject the opposite as dirty insinuations!
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  24 June 2014 07: 17
                  see gopher answer right above, have a fan love
                  left pictures now all draw much ...
                2. Kassandra
                  0
                  24 June 2014 08: 45
                  ... answer from 7:15.
              2. Kassandra
                0
                24 June 2014 07: 15
                after these pictures - already laziness, but read.
                such a sharp deflection angle as on the second, not a single jet stream can stand it, just like the nozzle itself - it will simply break it. on Yak, a deviated nozzle with a large radius of curvature and then lost 20% of thrust compared to non-deviated one, this is not a hose from a bicycle pump - there is a supersonic gas outflow
                and if you cut a straight pipe at an angle to its axis (this is already about the first picture), then in the section you get an ellipse - now twist the resulting segments relative to each other
                you yourself do not disgust yourself post this? bully
                your Kevin lies worse than Fat from South Park.
                if you want to look at what the bourgeoisie could achieve for themselves, then here:
                http://www.robertcmason.com/textdocs/GermanVSTOLFighters.pdf
                on page 50
                like-be-so-so-moo ... one can also collect only one who in the subject does not understand nihua (but very hotshetsa) - it exploded with them when her model hot-spun on a stand made just for 60% percent of the actual size.
                during the copying of Yak, the specialists of MAN and RR were not too shy to even come up and ask why they didn’t get this crap, they explained to them. the first time they did not understand, the second time they left in tears.
              3. +1
                24 June 2014 12: 59
                / in the 60's. 3BSD was tested on a Pratt & Whitney JT8D aircraft engine, the tests included full-force nozzle operation with a nozzle deflection of ninety degrees. /
                And this "pundit" did not write why such an "innovative development" was still not used somewhere other than the stand? And everything is trite ... then the United States failed to solve the problem of gas-dynamic stability of such a nozzle. This "city" was destroyed in 10-15 seconds after switching on the afterburner. I do not know if you have at least basic knowledge of TAD - but any turbojet engine is a pipe open on both sides - and any change in the gas flow velocity causes a change in the pressure in the gas path. there, shock waves also begin to appear - the failure of which can extremely sharply change the pressure distribution in the duct and, as a result, lead to uncontrolled pressure surges with a very high frequency - surge and complete destruction. But on a real plane there is also the influence of the surface and structural elements. Of course, I am far from thinking that the Americans "stole / bought everything from us" - but the fact that our developments on this topic really saved them years and billions for sure. The Americans were ahead of us in engines with a high by-pass ratio, and our developments were significantly superior to the USA in the field of high-powered engines. The same "all-aspect nozzles" ...
                1. Kassandra
                  +1
                  24 June 2014 15: 41
                  And what is so complicated in the bypass? They simply were not allowed to do it, just like the Yak-41 had not been able to get permission for the first flight for 12 years, and all this time it was hanging on hot under a bridge crane on a leash.
                  They did not allow such engines to be made so that there was no "own Harrier" because it contains just such, and because this engine would further increase the capabilities of the VTA.
                  The new Yak was actually made very quickly because, oddly enough, it coincides by 75% with the Yak-38M in nodes - in this case, the lack of such an engine just happened for those who slowed it down (well, we are not looking for easy ways!) Sideways - because of its absence, there was a well-developed scheme with 2 PD, and you still cannot make a supersonic aircraft with a turbofan engine. On the PMD with a new nozzle, instead of the previous two, it took only a year for the Freestyle, another six months for firing tests, solving the balancing and layout problems of the new double-boom airframe, and solving the problem of changed ventral temperature fields - and absolutely all of them, like the PMD design, presented for the Americans primary interest. Otherwise, f35 would have just turned out to be a "bust of ice cream" (even in the heat, even in the arctic cold), or it would start tumbling like ...
                  They just stole / bought everything from the Yakovlevites because before that they could not even make a pre-sound VTOL aircraft, and about the same they threw the British - the AV-8B is not licensed !!! Her Majesty only gets money for his engine. after the Americans within the consortium received all the documentation for the second Harrier "for the joint creation of a new aircraft" they told the Britons that they "did not work well" bully but Pegasus was patented, and in the case of Yak, they even patented its engine for themselves (though in England), and they sit with a smart look. And having attached another wing to the English Harrier, they consider him their plane, and this is the norm for them.
                  You haven’t seen their "management", these are some toads bully
                  but at the expense of most local techies, Zadornov, alas, was not joking either.
                  they have dullness on the verge of degeneration, or already behind it
                2. Kassandra
                  0
                  27 June 2014 19: 03
                  Ho-ho-ho !!! By the way I didn’t miss the bast shoe, by the link on the English site http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137
                  2 comments of approximately the same content (below) - so they erased them in 2 days !!! Although in their text the mosquito of the nose would not have undermined. They even erased a neutral comment of some Englishman with quotes from the English Wikipedia on the topic, although they were in their favor.
                  So, I didn’t look what kind of magazine it was, and ... SUDDENLY It turned out that this is Lockheed’s magazine bully see their logo in the upper right corner and "About Us", and that he publishes such illiterate articles ... Half of the fake sketches, half of the photo of the X-35, But what kind of a hairdryer is there 3BDSM-Convair? The five men whom they hired from the Yakovlev Design Bureau were fired one by one when they were all sucked out of them - wouldn’t give any other work to order later !? So what kind of firm is that after that?
                  PS. Which is located in the country at the entrance to which they are trying to take fingers from you as if you were some kind of criminal.
                  -----
                  Fake drawings and wrong article's content.
                  Would you cut off cylindrical tube under angle to its axis (3BSN shown), you would have an elliptical section. Now counterrotate those two elliptical chunks off their alingment area and have some fun trying to keep duct (nozzle / tube) hermetic ...
                  Flat SERN (Single Expansion Ramp Nozzle) would be blown off with engine throttled up. Nevetheless Yak / F35 afterburning swivel nozzle is bent much steeper than STERN, it looses 20% of thrust in hover position ... Loosing of thust means stress on the structure (bearings / plates). There is supersonic exhaust flow. Even Y-shaped Harrier non-afterburning Pegasus engine has much more blunt shapes.
                  All the US had among supersonic STOVL ideas prior Yak purchase (USD 500 kilo) was wrong XFV-12 that couldn't lift 50% of its own dry weight, and there were no swivel nozzles at all.
                  Whose of you are interested could see other western (unsuccessfull too) supersonic STOVL designs at
                  http://www.robertcmason.com/textdocs/GermanVSTOLFighters.pdf
                  especially at page 50,
                  that one MAN + RR engine had completely wrong conical profiling (must be
                  cylindrical) and thus blew up tested above 60% of its scale,
                  With all due respect F35 / Yak swivel nozzle is soviet know-how and nobody's else.
                  Regards,
                  -----
                  There are no 3 out of 4 comments to the article, but the article itself hangs (like ... mulberry testes in the gopher "Nayhas") - however, democracy! fellow
        2. +1
          23 June 2014 15: 06
          Dear Taoist! You are absolutely right. I wrote in my comment that Russian officials sold because I definitely didn’t know and could not say at that time that they worked at the Yakovlev Design Bureau. You supplemented my information. As for the authors of the remaining comments that enter into a dispute with you, forgive them. They are still young and know little about that time. It is clear who sold what was sold and who bought it. The rest is no longer important - what's the difference, drank or poured water, the main thing is that it is no more.
        3. Kassandra
          +1
          23 June 2014 15: 30
          the engine was developed jointly by the Yakovlevsky Design Bureau and the engine engineers, because the design of its nozzle came to them from the Design Bureau.
          for the Yak-38 and Yak-36, the engines did the nozzles themselves, and by the way they turned out to be more difficult than what was on the Yak-141. The chief designer of these nozzles was very "jealous" about this.
          all the documentation was bought and for this minuscule advisory turned out to transfer technology over 1,5 g, including completely shameful consultations on third-party topics why such projects at MAN + RR did not work out in the 1960s.
          the conveyor had nothing even remotely reminiscent of blotters.
    2. Kassandra
      +2
      23 June 2014 18: 13
      you can’t prove anything to them - they’re full muddaks and work .. didn’t even try!
      but they have been given astral target designation - cfr @ t on the USSR / RF and its achievements.
  7. +1
    23 June 2014 18: 44
    The Americans simply stole everything from us with the help of our corrupt bureaucrats, who sold so much to the West in the 90s that they still have not figured out everything that they stole.
    1. Kassandra
      +2
      23 June 2014 19: 21
      not so easy. and not so much the Americans. even during and after the transfer of technology there was a strange series of deaths of those who worked on this aircraft.
  8. Kassandra
    +1
    23 June 2014 19: 50
    "Funnily enough, ahead of the Farnborough Airshow, the F-35B faced the same problem as the Yak-141 in 1992. It, too, will only be allowed to hover and will not be allowed to land vertically."

    Yak-141 didn’t have such a problem,
    only the F35 has such a technical problem. The author of this "article" will write which one, or will it be done for him?
    Because of this problem, using the F-35B with UDC is now allowed only if there is a coastal airfield nearby where in case of failure you can land the F-35 by plane. Then after 2-3g the project branch on F-35B will be closed.
  9. 0
    23 June 2014 22: 29
    As far as I know, the documentation for the Yak-141 was simply sold to the Americans in the early 90s, and after a while they got the F-35. Someone in Russia received good money.
    1. Kassandra
      0
      24 June 2014 07: 20
      money was only 500 thousand dollars, it was less than the cost of a Ferrari, and it was not money but barter.
      RFIA was then such a country in which it was possible to buy a JBL at the price of two BMWs. Now the situation (with conventional armaments) has not changed much (all plutonium has already been sold in bulk).
  10. 0
    23 June 2014 23: 05
    At the beginning of 90's, one Yak-141 and all the design and technical documentation for it was sold to a private (?) Person in the United States.
    1. Kassandra
      0
      24 June 2014 07: 20
      Lockheed in the Russian Federation
  11. 0
    9 July 2014 20: 33
    A very promising topic! There would be funding and there would be no funding "breakers" - would have been in service long ago!
    1. Kassandra
      0
      10 July 2014 02: 10
      if this is written about the Americans, then they themselves did not cope with this task and bought everything for it in the Russian Federation for half a lam, and in the USSR, at 100% readiness of the aircraft, they covered up this topic for about the same reasons that "Russian_aircraft carriers_not_necessary", and also based on the fact that all of its aviation, on occasion, should be easily destroyed at airfields, as it was already in June 1941 and June 1967

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"