V/STOL means Vertical OR Short Take Off & Landing - which the T-58VD certainly was.
But the thread header says - STOVL - Short Take Off, VERTICAL Landing - which the T-58VD clearly is not capable of doing.
I would also question the US website's definition (and its use of the word Su-15) - the T-58VD in the picture is IMHO, a STOL machine - Short Take Off & Landing.
I haven't got my refs handy (I'm at work - shush!!!) - but I suspect that the letter V in T-58VD stands for Vertically mounted (e.g. the lift) engines (Dvigatel).
By: Flanker_man
- 7th January 2005 at 19:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have just been scanning some pages from a 3-volume Russian book about Beriev.
That OKB had loads of V/STOL 'Projects' - all with the same generic designation Be-32. Most looked like variations on the 'Dornier-31' theme - twin flight jets with a bank of lift engines.
One of them even has a semi-tilting wing.
From a book about Myasischev, there are scans of a couple of V/STOL proposals.
Finally, an in-flight shot of the VVA-14 at altitude with the floats inflated and an artist's impression is the VVA-14PS - a proposed SAR variant.
Ken
New
Posts: 218
By: Lava
- 8th January 2005 at 19:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Flanker_Man......
:p That was awesome!!! I am just taken aback!! Apart from the few DO-31 lookalikes other seem to be different! 4th Last Green CDesign is just fabolous! Flanker_Man can u solve the riddle left by AerospaceTech!!??? :confused:
Here's that
Tupolev designed a rival to Yak-36("136") project with Pegasus style 4 poster engine but I have no pictures to share.
By: Arthur
- 8th January 2005 at 20:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's only STOL. The three RD36 lift engines combined thrust was less than the T-58VD's empty weight, so it simply couldn't do VTOL.
Not that there is any reason to disbelieve either Flanker_Man or Aerospacetech when it comes to Russian and Soviet aircraft - quite the contrary, i would say.
New
Posts: 218
By: Lava
- 8th January 2005 at 20:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks For the confirmation Arthur ! :)
I am just easily duped by the sites ! :p Any other intresting info on some rare Soviet VTOL project u know off!?
PS: Is ur Avtaar pic Be-12 Chaika?
New
Posts: 218
By: Lava
- 8th January 2005 at 20:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
* The origins of Soviet jet VTOL remain obscure in the West. It is known
that in the mid-1950s the Soviets developed their first jet VTOL platform, a
test rig comparable to the British Rolls Royce "Flying Bedstead" rig and
apparently known as the "Turbolet".
Like the British Flying Bedstead, the Turbolet was a four-legged frame with a
turbojet mounted vertically in the center -- in the Soviet case, a Tumansky
RD-9BL engine, a modification of the standard engine for the MiG-19 fighter,
with 24.53 kN (2,500 kgp / 5,510 lbf) thrust -- and four reaction thrusters
or "puffers" on arms around the frame. Unlike the British machine, the
Turbolet actually had an enclosed cockpit, which looked like the operator's
cab of a crane. Other than the fact that the Turbolet performed its first
flight in 1956 with Yuri Garnayev at the controls, not much data is available
about this vehicle or its development and test program.
However, this work clearly had some relationship to Soviet interest in
"liftjets", which were small jet engines intended to be mounted vertically in
aircraft to provide straight-up thrust. The Kolesov engine OKB (design
bureau) developed a liftjet designated the "RD-36", which provided 23.05 kN
(2,350 kgp / 5,181 lbf) thrust. In 1967, the Soviets publicly displayed
variants of the MiG-21, MiG-23, and Su-15 fighters with various combinations
of Kolesov liftjets in the forward fuselage to provide short takeoff or
landing (STOL) performance, but never went beyond prototype tests.
These STOL fighters will be discussed in documents describing their aircraft
families. In a matter more relevant to this document, the Soviets also
demonstrated a true jet VTOL aircraft in 1967, designated the "Yak-36".
During the 1960s, the British Hawker Siddeley company (later part of British
Aerospace) developed a VTOL demonstrator named the Kestrel, which would lead
to a production successor, the famous Harrier VTOL fighter. The Bristol
company (bought out by Rolls Royce during the decade) developed a VTOL engine
named the "Pegasus" for the Kestrel. The USSR followed the development of
the Kestrel and Pegasus with interest, and in 1961 the powers-that-be had
tasked the Yakovlev OKB to build a jet VTOL demonstrator, which would emerge
as the "Yak-36". The Tumansky engine design bureau was tasked with taking
the R27-300 turbojet, then in development for what would become the MiG-23
fighter, and developing a non-afterburning vectored-thrust version, the
"R27V-300", with two to be used to power the Yak-36.
New
Posts: 218
By: Lava
- 8th January 2005 at 20:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The KAI-VTOL experimental plane built by KAI students
By: Arthur
- 8th January 2005 at 21:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have a (poor) drawing somewhere of what the original production Yak-36 (yes, the Yak-36MP but with two engines and a nose intake) was to look like: with a radome-upper lip on top of the intake. Construction of the first machines had already begun when this was cancelled in favour of the three-engined Forger (which, of course, initially was also known as the Yak-36MP).
New
Posts: 218
By: Lava
- 8th January 2005 at 21:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Plz plz Plz Arthur can u post that picture !!!? :p
By: gkozak
- 10th January 2005 at 00:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Entwicklungsring-Sud VJ 101C
The Entwicklungsring-Sud VJ 101C (also called the "Traumjager", or "Dreamfighter", because of its "futuristic" appearance) was a German project for a Mach 2 VTOL interceptor, with a swiveling engine pod on each wingtip.
By: Flanker_man
- 10th January 2005 at 07:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
All these jet fighter designs suffer from the same inherent problem......
In conventional flight they have to lug around the dead weight of the lift-engines (or in the case of the F-35, the lift-fan).
AFAIK, the Harrier is the only design that makes do with a single lift and cruise engine - and therein lies its simplicity - and its success.
Although the thrust from the Pegasus (at what? now about 23,000lb??) is way in excess of what is needed for conventional flight.
I remember seeing a simple diagram explaining that it needed the equivalent of 15 horses to achieve vertical flight, but only one horse for forward flight, so it too, in a sense, lugs around the excess 14 horses in 'normal' flight !!
(or maybe it was 'horse-power' ?? No matter - you get the drift).
Ken
New
Posts: 218
By: Lava
- 10th January 2005 at 08:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
gKozak thanks a lot for sharing this picture with us ! :)
This design is so similar to needle shaped F-104 starfighter(Just my opinion !)
Germany had many good designs but unfortunately none of the VTOL aircrafts designed
could enter service! I personally liked the AVS design but.......
These two aircrfats were the only one to ever reach prototoype testing phase
EWR VJ 101C
VAK191
New
Posts: 218
By: Lava
- 10th January 2005 at 08:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
All these jet fighter designs suffer from the same inherent problem......
In conventional flight they have to lug around the dead weight of the lift-engines (or in the case of the F-35, the lift-fan).
AFAIK, the Harrier is the only design that makes do with a single lift and cruise engine - and therein lies its simplicity - and its success.
Although the thrust from the Pegasus (at what? now about 23,000lb??) is way in excess of what is needed for conventional flight.
I remember seeing a simple diagram explaining that it needed the equivalent of 15 horses to achieve vertical flight, but only one horse for forward flight, so it too, in a sense, lugs around the excess 14 horses in 'normal' flight !!
(or maybe it was 'horse-power' ?? No matter - you get the drift).
Ken
Yeah Kinda agree but VJ101 though didnt had that "dead weight" issue still
saw being scrapped. Do u think is VJ101 kind of swivelling Engine lift technique can see any revival !?
Also then why did USAF chose F-35 rather than F-32 coz th elatter is single engine lift+cruise engine !?
New
Posts: 218
By: Lava
- 10th January 2005 at 09:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: Flanker_man
- 10th January 2005 at 12:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah Kinda agree but VJ101 though didnt had that "dead weight" issue still
saw being scrapped. Do u think is VJ101 kind of swivelling Engine lift technique can see any revival !?
The VJ-101 had SIX engines - RB.145's Two in each swivelling wingtip pod plus two behind the cockpit - the vertical thrust was therefore in a triangular arrangement - very stable.
But, while the wingtip engines doubled as lift/cruise engines, the fuselage=mounted engines were for pure VTOL - and therefore dead weight in forward flight.
Also then why did USAF chose F-35 rather than F-32 coz th elatter is single engine lift+cruise engine !?
I can't answer for the USAF (I thought it was a 'joint' venture?).
Maybe because the X-32 was just so ugly ??? :D
Seriously though - IIRC the X-35 arragement produced more thrust for VTOL than the X-32.
By: SOC
- 10th January 2005 at 16:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can't answer for the USAF (I thought it was a 'joint' venture?).
The USAF isn't getting very many of the V/STOL F-35Bs, most of ours will be the CTOL F-35A variant, so the dead-weight issue is pretty much nonexistant for us.
Also, don't joke about the aesthetics of the X-32 playing a part...stranger things have happened. This is the DoD, remember. They decided in the early 80's that the F-117s should be painted black regardless of dark grey being better for their intended operating role. The USAF also tends to repaint aircraft in the USAF Museum to their last known USAF markings if they were bailed to NASA later on (think YF-12A or XB-70A). Given our history, Boeing may very well have killed themselves by producing an indescribably ugly aircraft...
New
Posts: 218
By: Lava
- 13th January 2005 at 12:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All
Sorry Couldnt post for many days together ! was busy!!
Thnks Flanker_Man,SOC for answering my posts! :)
Ok Here's the photo of MiG 23 STOL with VD engines
By: wilhelm
- 13th January 2005 at 15:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lava , that second last picture was part of the development of the Su-24.as you can see in this thread , the Soviets were not scared to modify prototypes/developments of their up and coming aircraft.The aircraft in that 2nd last picture apparantely had atrocious handling characteristics and was redesigned with a swing wing and put into service as the Su-24.I'm at work now , so I'll dig up some info tonight.
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 7th January 2005 at 15:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ahhh!!!!
V/STOL is NOT STOVL........
V/STOL means Vertical OR Short Take Off & Landing - which the T-58VD certainly was.
But the thread header says - STOVL - Short Take Off, VERTICAL Landing - which the T-58VD clearly is not capable of doing.
I would also question the US website's definition (and its use of the word Su-15) - the T-58VD in the picture is IMHO, a STOL machine - Short Take Off & Landing.
I haven't got my refs handy (I'm at work - shush!!!) - but I suspect that the letter V in T-58VD stands for Vertically mounted (e.g. the lift) engines (Dvigatel).
Ken
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 7th January 2005 at 19:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have just been scanning some pages from a 3-volume Russian book about Beriev.
That OKB had loads of V/STOL 'Projects' - all with the same generic designation Be-32. Most looked like variations on the 'Dornier-31' theme - twin flight jets with a bank of lift engines.
One of them even has a semi-tilting wing.
From a book about Myasischev, there are scans of a couple of V/STOL proposals.
Finally, an in-flight shot of the VVA-14 at altitude with the floats inflated and an artist's impression is the VVA-14PS - a proposed SAR variant.
Ken
Posts: 218
By: Lava - 8th January 2005 at 19:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Flanker_Man......
Here's that
kOR.SVVP-70 VTOL floatplane Mentioned By AeroSpace tech
Here's Good Site on it and some Drawings
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/korsvvp-70.html
Posts: 7,877
By: Arthur - 8th January 2005 at 19:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yup. Vertikalnyi Dvigatelii if i'm not screwing up too much. Literally "vertical engines".
Posts: 218
By: Lava - 8th January 2005 at 19:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Arthur Can U plz confirm that the SU-15 picture I posted is actually just STOL and not "V"/STOL plane !?
Posts: 7,877
By: Arthur - 8th January 2005 at 20:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's only STOL. The three RD36 lift engines combined thrust was less than the T-58VD's empty weight, so it simply couldn't do VTOL.
Not that there is any reason to disbelieve either Flanker_Man or Aerospacetech when it comes to Russian and Soviet aircraft - quite the contrary, i would say.
Posts: 218
By: Lava - 8th January 2005 at 20:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks For the confirmation Arthur ! :)
I am just easily duped by the sites ! :p Any other intresting info on some rare Soviet VTOL project u know off!?
PS: Is ur Avtaar pic Be-12 Chaika?
Posts: 218
By: Lava - 8th January 2005 at 20:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aha ... Nice to get some More info on Soviet STOL experiments
http://www.vectorsite.net/avredvt.html
Posts: 218
By: Lava - 8th January 2005 at 20:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The KAI-VTOL experimental plane built by KAI students
Posts: 7,877
By: Arthur - 8th January 2005 at 21:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have a (poor) drawing somewhere of what the original production Yak-36 (yes, the Yak-36MP but with two engines and a nose intake) was to look like: with a radome-upper lip on top of the intake. Construction of the first machines had already begun when this was cancelled in favour of the three-engined Forger (which, of course, initially was also known as the Yak-36MP).
Posts: 218
By: Lava - 8th January 2005 at 21:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Plz plz Plz Arthur can u post that picture !!!? :p
Ok little offbeat I was just scrapping the net for pictures for this thread
and I found this
http://frank.harvard.edu/~howard/election2000/curious.gif:D
Posts: 1,159
By: gkozak - 10th January 2005 at 00:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Entwicklungsring-Sud VJ 101C
The Entwicklungsring-Sud VJ 101C (also called the "Traumjager", or "Dreamfighter", because of its "futuristic" appearance) was a German project for a Mach 2 VTOL interceptor, with a swiveling engine pod on each wingtip.
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 10th January 2005 at 07:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
All these jet fighter designs suffer from the same inherent problem......
In conventional flight they have to lug around the dead weight of the lift-engines (or in the case of the F-35, the lift-fan).
AFAIK, the Harrier is the only design that makes do with a single lift and cruise engine - and therein lies its simplicity - and its success.
Although the thrust from the Pegasus (at what? now about 23,000lb??) is way in excess of what is needed for conventional flight.
I remember seeing a simple diagram explaining that it needed the equivalent of 15 horses to achieve vertical flight, but only one horse for forward flight, so it too, in a sense, lugs around the excess 14 horses in 'normal' flight !!
(or maybe it was 'horse-power' ?? No matter - you get the drift).
Ken
Posts: 218
By: Lava - 10th January 2005 at 08:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
gKozak thanks a lot for sharing this picture with us ! :)
This design is so similar to needle shaped F-104 starfighter(Just my opinion !)
Germany had many good designs but unfortunately none of the VTOL aircrafts designed
could enter service! I personally liked the AVS design but.......
http://www.vstol.org/GermanVSTOLFighters.pdf contains good information on Germany's VSTOL /VTOL experiments
These two aircrfats were the only one to ever reach prototoype testing phase
Posts: 218
By: Lava - 10th January 2005 at 08:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah Kinda agree but VJ101 though didnt had that "dead weight" issue still
saw being scrapped. Do u think is VJ101 kind of swivelling Engine lift technique can see any revival !?
Also then why did USAF chose F-35 rather than F-32 coz th elatter is single engine lift+cruise engine !?
Posts: 218
By: Lava - 10th January 2005 at 09:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Italian/American/UK Project
(Bell Agusta)BA-609
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 10th January 2005 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The VJ-101 had SIX engines - RB.145's Two in each swivelling wingtip pod plus two behind the cockpit - the vertical thrust was therefore in a triangular arrangement - very stable.
But, while the wingtip engines doubled as lift/cruise engines, the fuselage=mounted engines were for pure VTOL - and therefore dead weight in forward flight.
I can't answer for the USAF (I thought it was a 'joint' venture?).
Maybe because the X-32 was just so ugly ??? :D
Seriously though - IIRC the X-35 arragement produced more thrust for VTOL than the X-32.
Ken
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 10th January 2005 at 16:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The USAF isn't getting very many of the V/STOL F-35Bs, most of ours will be the CTOL F-35A variant, so the dead-weight issue is pretty much nonexistant for us.
Also, don't joke about the aesthetics of the X-32 playing a part...stranger things have happened. This is the DoD, remember. They decided in the early 80's that the F-117s should be painted black regardless of dark grey being better for their intended operating role. The USAF also tends to repaint aircraft in the USAF Museum to their last known USAF markings if they were bailed to NASA later on (think YF-12A or XB-70A). Given our history, Boeing may very well have killed themselves by producing an indescribably ugly aircraft...
Posts: 218
By: Lava - 13th January 2005 at 12:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All
Sorry Couldnt post for many days together ! was busy!!
Thnks Flanker_Man,SOC for answering my posts! :)
Ok Here's the photo of MiG 23 STOL with VD engines
STOL Ye155(MiG25)
STOL MiG21 PD
??? :confused: All Russian
??:confused:
Su-15
All Images were found at www.vtol.boom.ru
Posts: 1,620
By: wilhelm - 13th January 2005 at 15:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lava , that second last picture was part of the development of the Su-24.as you can see in this thread , the Soviets were not scared to modify prototypes/developments of their up and coming aircraft.The aircraft in that 2nd last picture apparantely had atrocious handling characteristics and was redesigned with a swing wing and put into service as the Su-24.I'm at work now , so I'll dig up some info tonight.