X-31: Breaking the Chain: Lessons Learned
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 сер 2014
- By any measure, the X-31 was a highly successful flight research program at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, now the Armstrong Flight Research Center. It regularly flew several flights a day, accumulating over 550 flights during the course of the program, with a superlative safety record. And yet, on Jan. 19, 1995, on the very last scheduled flight of the X-31 ship No. 1, disaster struck.
Each mishap has it's own set of circumstances and it's own sequence of events. But those who study mishaps find similar issues: communications, complacency, unwarranted assumptions, human frailties….just like a chain. You make a chain -- a chain of events -- when you have any of these accidents. Any link of the chain, if broken, would prevent an accident.
The X-31 flight test team was the "A" team -- the best people, from every discipline -- from every organization. But they lost an airplane. If it can happen to the best team, it can happen to any team.
Created: 2005 Run time: 38 minutes 45 seconds
Produced by NASA Armstrong TV Services - Наука та технологія
6:47 The disbelief and dry sarcasm from the pilot about the pitot heat wiring issue is great.
Ground: Yeah we think it may not be hooked up.
Pilot: "It may not be hooked up." That's good. I like this.
The pilot also had a secondary air speed indicator, which he never once looked at.
@rustusandroid But that wouldn't keep the systems from going astable on descent since airspeed from the malfunctioning tube was being used by the plane. Not sure what he could do.
@@thomasreynolds1530 There was a switch that would change the where the computer got its airspeed from. Had it been noticed and the backup activated then things would not have unraveled like it did. I know it's hindsight, I'm not trying to sound too critical, but it shows us that even the best can make silly mistakes.
@@rustusandroid ah cool thanks for the reply
@@rustusandroid Banged out far to soon do you think?
Mortifying failure, honest analysis, and spectacular response. Extraordinarily informative. Awesome.
That why I like USA they share the information so that others can learn .Thank you for sharing .
And if we don't share it they just steal it. Everyone benefits(except for the people who paid for the R&D)
Love the humility.
Honest & humble fellas.
All these x prototypes have been up there at the pinnacle of mankind's achievement. Americans should be very proud of their engineers, innovators.
+mr juice HEY! I'm American and I have something to say to you buddy...... I agree :)
+mr juice Of course the Nazi's had Robert Goddard (an American) and Frank Whittle (a Brit) to thank for their help. Then of course there's Tsiolkovsky (a Russian) and the Wright brothers (Americans again). We can keep going on and on and it's a stupid argument unrelated to the video. Let's be honest the only reason you commented was to show your disdain and your ass. (which is of course why I commented back.)
+J Cheatham but only America put all these innovators together, in a nation, for a cause, and took it to the highest. Von Braun, those British, Russian pioneers never had the environment to thrive. America has been the incubator & any one say otherwise is a f*cking liar. I'm not even American just appreciate the heights they've reached for mankind. If u don't recognise that then it deluded -- Russian, African, Muslim, Communist, capitalist, whatever. You can't argue with the raw data, raw achievement -- post war anyway
Except they're entirely german, but germany was occupied so they continue to steal #paperlip #seahorse
This is deutsche Technik
19:22 that trucker must have shit his pants.
Doubtful, test pilots are the consummate Professionals, whose observations however minute, save lives. In the NAV, "NATOPS Manuals are written in blood".
Scott Wolf I'm speaking of the trucker... the man driving the truck... past the burning wreckage at 19:22. I'm not talking about test pilots.
Cool, thanks for the clarification.
I wonder if the trucker knows now what he witnessed.
Loved this video. Thank you for posting. Very informative. Makes you think how important small procedures are, no matter how unimportant they may seem.
19:27 watch the monitor behind.
Haha wtf was he watching
Bruh...
LOL!...maybe hes sitting at a greenscreen and someone put it on to make fun of them.
ROFL =D
LOL! I just noticed this too and then found comments! Gold...
What a awesome plane, such control, it looks like it's capable of flying itself. Thank you for bringing this to us.
Very informative and thought-provoking, thanks!
Excellent video NASA! Almost done reading Breaking the mishap chain. Great ebook, thanks for posting it ont the website.
That was a hell of a tumble all the way down. Squirrelly little aircraft.
That was great, thanks. I'd like to see more stuff like that.
Keep flying guys. You're doing a great job.👍
Excellent video. Study in post mishap sequences can be a greater value than the intended flight tests themselves. hankful no loss of life. Unfortunate loss to an historic aircraft.
Fantastic video...thanks
These men and women are highly confident in their ability to perform the impossible. Because they do it all the time. Their cockyness is not bravado. It's Earned over decades of education, experience and as a group and individually they are among the brightest people on the planet. They seem more critical of themselves than anyone else.
Glad to see our experimental aircraft push the boundaries of performance. The maneuvers were simply wonderful. This is the sort of steed that WW2 pilots envisioned when, as lads, they were thrilled by the high paced antics of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers. A plane you can fling all over the sky . . . better than PAK Fa? Sweet!
I wish every examination & explanation of an event - could be as comprehensible as this was.
"What can we learn?"
First of all, this question has been asked so many times after a disaster like this that there is nothing to learn until team members will not tolerate "hot mic system didn't always work very well (8:34)," and other system deficiencies that prevent complete member attention to be present in the system.
Why wasn't the pilot told at the beginning that this different pitot tube had no heat? Gross negligence?
.
The Air France Airbus A330 accident on that flight from Rio to Paris a few years back has eerie similarities to this accident, but with far more horrendous outcome.
Exactly what I was thinking about.
I'm happy the pilot lived. It seemed like the pilot eject hit the canopy. Pitot tube problems are involved with quite a few accidents over the years. Very important device but it's good to have some backup airspeed, and I wonder if gps could give some basic information on that or other speed measurement tools.
Edit: I just found about the experimental lidar dopper speed measurement which is said to be promising.
Look what's casually sitting in the background! 4:22
A lot of the information gathered during these tests where incorporated into the Eurofighter Typhoon project as fast as aerodynamics are involved but most of the R&D was completed by BAE systems in the UK 🇬🇧, so this data is always of use and never a wasted of time.
looks like a Euro fighter typhoon just with 1 engine and somewhat different kind of wing design
is a american-german coproduction
It was a design bye German company messerschmidt- bölkow-blohm.
I think this is a great way of dealing with such an event, openly discussing and admitting mistakes made. Still, an aircraft tumbling and crashing into the ground is clearly not a "mishap" but a serious accident.
Aviators use the term 'mishap' intentionally. 'Accident' implies no fault or that it could not have been avoided. 'Mishap' means someone screwed up, period.
At 21:30 he said it was a communication problem. No it was not, ANYONE involved in such a project knows that correct airspeed and many other factors are essential for the airworthiness of such an aircraft. It was simple neglect, complacency.
They forgot to interview the trucker that witnessed the crash in real time.
Fantastic Lessons Learnt video! Essential viewing for every test director/manager. This is not just relevant in Aviation, this is relevant to any sector/industry. Thank you NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center for this.
this where the thrust vectoring stated.. cool
You mean "started"?
dnate697 damn swype
Actually it was the USSR that pioneered fighter thrust vectoring, this was just where it started in the West.
wow.... yes, kick off and play.... buy now....that is sweet....Thanks to Nasa............. with great respect..........The Extra Ordinary Innovation contribution work in our Space..... Indeed...god blessed...jm...
The f20 tigershark flown by Chuck Yeager demonstrated vector nozzle and super Cruise in the mid seventies
The X-31 was designed and built by Rockwell and Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm in a joint US/German Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability program. The second X-31 had 288 flights and is at the Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim near Munich.
For more info read Flying Beyond The Stall (PDF) :-
-- www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Flying_Beyond_the_Stall.pdf
Worked on that plane in Tulsa,
Now they tell us what happened. they must have gotten most of the info. they needed according to all the planes that can now do the same maneuvers as the X-31.
3:10 Funny that, how every airplane that crashes, it usually crashes on the plane's last flight.
Kind of like how when you find some lost item, like your car keys,how they are always find it in the last place you look.
Have you also noticed that they all crash, not in mid air, but at the extreme bottom edge of the air? Dangerous place that edge, full of trees, buildings towers, poles and hard rocky stuff.
Last _scheduled_ flight. It was known before takeoff that it would be the last flight. But I think they expected the airplane to land and go to a museum.
Classic NASA retrospection with the focus on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
4:20 "If you are prohibited from flying..." This is like people who say, "I don't have an IFR qualification (I am prohibited from flying in IMC) so I don't need to know how to fly on instruments."
Just because you are not allowed to fly in particular conditions, it doesn't mean you won't accidentally encounter such conditions.
How much does the system to provide pitot heat weigh? I can't really think of a reason *NOT* to have it, even if you never ever use it. I mean, you have an ejection seat and parachute. How much does that equipment weigh? Most pilots will never eject from an airplane even once, even in combat.
"uhm, we kinda decided... that we weren't going to plug it in cuz uhhh... reasons. godspeed"
This is the second jet crash I seen a video about that centered on pitot tubes. Is there any way to solidly guarantee pitot tube function? Maybe just keep the *#% things heated at all times, or automatically operate pitot tube heaters when humidity passes X at temperatures below Y with a cockpit warning light if the PT heaters don't come on automatically .
I cannot be emphatic enough when I say this... The practice of relying purely on technology, academia, the media, our superiors or upon politicians without questioning the perception that these modules or groups know best, is the single greatest liability of our modern times. Our sole trust in these systems, groups or persons wherein we await for them to tell us when there is a problem instead of us learning to always think critically for ourselves & then confirm these other resources after the fact, will always come at a cost that exceeds any return on investment that we can make. These kinds of events are always called black swans after the fact by the arrogant elite, but the one thing that is never a true black swan is the laziness of otherwise intelligent people who refuse to think critically about the so-called reliability of modern schools of thought. Critical thinking of each & every individual is the safeguard of a modern people to prevent arrogance from blinding them to the errors of history, because the true error of history is not the danger of any particular event but rather the danger of not thinking critically & assuming that modernity itself is a guaranty of our safety & success in any given venture.
Duster Dan right on man, great insight
I like the way they pat themselves on the back to fly the second X31 again only 84 days after the "mishap" with the first one as if not sabotaging the jet was now something to celebrate.
UH, what? 500+ flights with no errors and one mistake? What's the problem here.
I think pitot tubes are a problem judging by the amount of accidents related to them, there needs to be a more reliable way
that accident was horrible!Did they continue to test the x31 or it was canceled? my godness it looked like such a good air plane and when i heard of the crash i became so sad.maybe thats why i didnt heard of it anymore
Surprised the pilot didn't say anything....like i need to change angle and increase air speed.....or connect me to chase plane, so i can get an airspeed....
Many airplanes including commercial passenger airliners have gone down because of blocked (e.g. tropical wasp nests and why they air covered whilest parked on the runway) or frozen pitot tubes. Maybe the backup pitot and flight control modes should be switched to and tested briefly during every flight or at least on a regular basis. Since there is no point in having backup systems if you dont also test and use them on a regular basis.
how many times pitostatic systems have bought down planes with lots of people inside who cant eject, air france 447, and that plane from the air crash investigation ep "flying blind". same shit, computers and controls spakking out due to false air speed data from pito tubes blocked. amazing, that a little tube worth 20 bucks causes so much tragedy.
in my opinion in the controlroom have to be people who can help the pilot (like it should be)
It might be obvious, but it would not have been enough to simply decide "Return to Base" - they would have had to have some idea what was going on and which revisionary mode to use.
I wonder why the F16, F18, F15 never got TV versions produced? It seems like they just had stall demonstrators made in small numbers. The effect is noticeable, which really makes me wonder why the U.S. doesn't have more TV versions of the legacy fighters?
Has the U.S. really condensed all this TV knowledge into the F22? (I assume yes, seeing how moscow is already trying to retrofit a 2d TV on the T50 instead of their air show demo-friendly 3d TV) ... Too bad a modern TV set up did not make it onto the A and C versions of the F35.
I suppose they saw the future is not of maneuverability like the Russian's but of stealth, network centric, weapon systems, DAS with it superior situational awareness and other 5th gen capabilities.
there has to be a connection between this and the eurofighter typhoon. they have allot in common. it even got a german flag on it
+2canines that's because the German Government and German Aerospace firms contributed and provided tech and engineers for this project.
Pilots should read the limitations log of the aircraft and abide by them.
The Flight-Control Software should have detected the mismatch between AoA and Air-Velocity thus should have also warned about it at a Sanity-test level.
So sad that it never made it passed the experimental stage.
Hey NASA guys, I had a question I always wanted to say: why is the airborne laser called "YAL-1"? It is incapable of ground attack, and "L- for Laser" is its weapon, not its role. It should be either "YF-24" or "YFC-25", since 24 is the next available number in the "F" series, and C-25 is the military designation for the B747. So why is it the "YAL-1"?
+Sky Eye
developed down south 'yal.
+Sky Eye
Y - Experimental
A - Airborne
L - Laser
4:27 dat SR-71
Funny in a sense, a similar scenario also could happen with the stock exchange. Even there, there is some kind of ejection seat and parachute: let the population as a whole pay for the losses. See Greece...
Amazing, should that airplane out of control had been a bit more to the left or the north or whatever, it could have crashed on the buildings or on the highway traffic one can see... Can you imagine what would have happened, if that would have occured, right at the moment that a yellow schoolbus with happily singing kiddies would have come along ? Aren't there really no safer places to do such "routine" flights with experimental planes ? I mean, there isn't exactly a lack of space in the area...
Does anyone see that this is the Eurofighter Typhoon prototype? I cannot believe how similar they look, sans the twin non-thrust vectored engines.
NOPE. The EF2000 is develope from British Aerospace EAP with first flight in 1986 and retire in 1991 , way before the X-31
The EF2000 is a european coproduction! Not british only!
the eurofighter comes from the german TFK90 or Jäger 90. the british EAP was a british german collab but germany didn't see any use in it since they got the TKF90 design and the x-31 tech and stopped financing it. the british build the EAP anyways but by then the eurofighter was already in development and the EAP was of little to no use to anyone.
My favorite part 27:50 where the narrator asks, "So why didn't the team manage to recognize, communicate, and respond to the X-31's pattern of anomalies in time?" (Cut to the only people of color in the whole video.) The narrator goes on to say "Black woman, black man and an Asian man, that's why."
Pretty bad failure, glad nobody was hurt, hope lessons were learned.
I don't think this represents NASA's sentiment toward equality, but I think the editor just had some fun. It's funny or offensive, not neutral.
How is it the plane was unflyable after the initial pitch up just before ejection? It stayed in the air quite a time after ejection.
Imagine sitting in the cockpit of that tumbling plane - you're trying to troubleshoot on a rollercoaster, it can't be done. The forces would have rendered the pilot unconscious in a few more seconds anyway...
What did he say in ejection?
Sad thing is that if the pilot had hit R3 instead of ejecting the aircraft was capable of coming out of it. Safety first, but that plane was exceptionally capable.
Almost precisely what happened to the Boeing Max 8. Tragically.
No, not at all.
Fascinating and I'm normally loathed to criticise these incidents. However, some of the facts are very hard to believe and can only point to a bunch of incompetencies never normally associated with test flying and test pilots. The fact the pilot didn't know the pitot heat wasn't hooked up before taking off, the fact the pilot didn't look at his backup mechanical ASI to cross reference and the fact that all information was so obviously wrong to everybody concerned and nobody pulled the alarm, is absolutely astonishing. I think that this team were so complacent having had an easy ride to date they completely switched off. Highly unprofessional and completely avoidable. I imagine the pilot is currently enjoying an extended retirement because he alone should have been switched on enough to prevent the whole incident regardless of the other factors.
If this is the A-team then they need a new team.
" Heat may not be hooked up "
Hmm
Was that a ufo on the left top
@ 9.21- 9.24?
No. Just a spot of dirt on the window of the chase plane. It is just an 'O'. Not flying and now identified.
Don't worry about it Europe made the Euro Fighter Typhoon :D
Icing strikes again!
looks a little like the early eurofighter
The outline of this experimental aircraft is almost similar to the Chinese J-10 fighter jet, who bought the technology from Israel.... but without the thrust vectoring hardware. Those small wings does not help much in terms of maneuverability but cut down other performance on the said aircraft.... should it succeed and turn into a full working jet aircraft, it won't do much in any battle scenario with the exception of the thrust vectoring technology
At least it did not kill 228 people like Air France Airbus 330 in a similar situation i.e. unreliable airspeed.
Most successful, 550 flights, several flights a day...
It was still an experimental airplane, not one where all the institutional knowledge is honed into the instrument panel with priorities emphasized and anomalies highlighted for the average highly skilled pilot. But people had gotten comfortable with it.
A pitot tube froze over, right?
aside from not having the flying buttress on the vertical tail and canards set further back than the X31 the Chinese did a near copy of this plane , Chinese Gov probably paid hundreds of millions in development costs only to get a design ripped off from the U.S. which probably cost that company nothing to acquire
No "Paddle Off" on the stick to over ride the computer?
it looks like a eurofighter.
Yes. Germany was part of the X-31 program and the wings were taken from the Eurofighter testbed "EAP".
eurofighter reminds me of this plane.
It is the same category of plane, you a right. Most likely it is the last generation of these kind of planes. The forces are extreme for the pilots. It cannot get worse.
That is due to the Germans working on this jet with the US. They found the tech more useful than we did and used what was learned as the base of the Eurofighter.
this is his father, is a colavoration between usa and germany.
I think you need to check your research.The Eurofighter was a British Aerospace design that was built as a mock up and a flying prototype, then offered to the eurofighter programme.
Germany did not have any input on the actual design of the plane, this was also one of the reasons why the French left the programme; they felt that the design did not meet their requirements although in reality it was because they were not given overall command of the whole project
sapper steve
So your position is that the Eurofighter took nothing from this test aircraft? That seems pretty odd considering Germans develop both the jets and the Eurofighter looks a lot like a TKF-90... which was a German design long before both of these jets were even thought up. I think its is you who need to check the research. Have you seen the EAP? They almost look exactly the same. I bet you anything this joint venture was a way to test, among a few other things, the viability of TV on the Eurofighter. It also obviously uses the same wing shape, general layout and odd air intake as the EAP/Eurofighter. If you think BAe and Germany didn't take information from this program you are pretty ill informed.
I do not know if any of this is fact but it seems to me the EAP had some small issues, and instead of fiddling away for years they asked for help from a friend. Look at how short both the EAP and the X-31 are. Look at how long the Eurofighter is. Look at the tail of the EAP. I bet the EAP had some negative flight characteristics and the X-31 was put together with a very similar small wing and a "new" small stabilizer to test some of theories on why the EAP was not performing as it should. If you notice the Eurofighter lacks both the large stabalizer and the strangely shaped wings that the X-31 and the EAP had. And they(the wings) are much bigger that the two older jets. If you look at all the British drawings for possible fighters from that time frame they all had that double delta look. I bet you that those weird wings were the weak point and the X-31 helped them come to that conclusion.
this is the only X-plane ever to be developed together with a foreign nation
So all of this came down to not pressing that one R3 button that made these guys lose the plane and the program!
I always thought all petote tunes were heated. ??
Never accept risk on a test plane, never fly on the moist weather is a period the rest of what happens next is delinquency to safety systems
Lesson: be veeeery careful about how much faith you put in a computer. This aircraft relied heavily on the computer to control the aircraft under certain circumstances, rather than the pilot. Understandable considering the characteristics of this aircraft. Still, an experienced pilot is worth twice what all the avionics in the world are. Problems = pilot takes control and RTB.
Where are the triangle-shaped Aircrafts, called Ufos???
Forgot to post them??
+Lilian Imsirovic
I think the Belgians have them.
Rick Raven Rumney maybe but everything good comes from AMERICAAAAAA
Not everything.Its the diverse culture not just the place makes it easier. I notice people from the EU and such can't believe that Americans don't think of them 24/7 like they do us. If it wasn't for the USA, Europe would have been part off the the USSR, now Russia. That's a factI don't like when my government does shitty things in my name and then sends servicemen into harms way without thinking it through. I'm sure you love your country as do I mine. So many missed chances for cooperation. By the way, i say a Docu-TV show on BBC about Triangles in Russia. What do you know about them? A triangle aircraft may have been developed after the first space shuttle accident in 1986. I don't think it went anywhere. All reliable sighting ended after around 1992, except for maniac that see them everywhere. Supposedly an aircraft based on the XB-70 was developed to launch a parasite aircraft at altitude. I'll believe it when I see it. The air force has that unmanned space plane that seems pretty cool. I was in submarines during my early navy days. Chasing Soviet Subs around the Barents Sea. They always had my respect.Where do you hail from?
Captain Hindsight lol
Space X Starship team could learn a lot from these people and NASAs history.🤣
Amazing!
America is the best!
But where is the successor?
How comes Sukhoi had their S 27- 35 without a game changer from the American side ?
Question not answered: Why was pitot heat not connected??? Too much work?
+Milan Trcka It was not cleared to fly in ice therefore a pitot heater was not needed. Then they flew it in ice.
The pitot tube used on this flight was specifically designed for high alpha flight (w/o pitot heat for more precise measurements), note the downward bend compared to a standard pitot. The video explained that the flight was not planned/expected to occur in icing conditions (visible moisture) which made a heated pitot unnecessary. Unfortunately, the flight did occur in icing conditions and apparently the pilot was not made aware of the lack of pitot heat prior to the flight. you fly a plane 500 times with no problem and you think nothing will be different on the 501st if no one mentions a difference beforehand.
@@sseeplane6950 Thanks for the clarification. Yet again, a case for "if it is allowed to happen, it will". (Aerospace instrumentation and medical devices career)
we have heard this ice weather excuse before...hhhmmm
Specific power and a specific pitch attitude will determine an airspeed within reasonable flight limits to avoid a stall. Shouldn't this data have been made available to the pilot to avoid this accident? After time in an airplane the pilot can avoid a stall by keeping a pitch low attitude visually referenced. It just seems strange that they had to lose an aircraft because they had no instrumented airspeed indication. These guys are top test pilots. Power and pitch attitude data should be used to achieve close to any desired airspeed. Didn't they have this data?
But these test aircraft are designed to be highly unstable and the computers are needed so they don't swap ends. Perhaps the pilot at this point has no input to override the flight control systems. I'm no engineer so just guessing with very limited knowledge, right?
I thought the flight pilot would have been in this video...hmmm Maybe he did not want to participate..
I don't know about the real plane but in my flight simulator I could do high alpha stuff all day in this plane
Why did the U.S. not pursue thrust vectoring implementation early on?
+Michael Mixon F-15 was used to test TVC back in the early 1980's but there was more cons than pros. Helmet mounted sights combined with missiles like AIM-9x, IRIS-T, Python 5, have made TVC obsolete nowadays.
+Juuso Peltoniemi
I don't see how any of those things has made TVC obsolete, at the time (1980's and 90s) it was cumbersome (added unnecessary weight and it still does) and was expensive so the US never bothered with it much (except the 2D TVC in the F22). However TVC today can come in handy in any close in fight(especially 3D TVC as fitted in the Su-30/35/50 and Mig-35), however the US does not believe in dogfights. They have the notion that stealth is the future, unfortunately we don't have sufficient evidence to suggest that modern combat has moved away for Visual combat to BVR.
+David Higan Because aerodynamic maneuverability and thrust matters more than TVC "super maneuverability". Snap turns don't mean much if you can't get into dogfighting range where you're likely to get ****ed up by a high-off-boresight AIM-9X or IRIS-T anyways.
Energy is life, and TVC does not contribute to energy. The only truly important role for TVC is VTOL and trim drag control.
tvc good for air shows only, at least extreme tvc of Russia
+Juuso Peltoniemi F15 Active, F16 Vista and F18 HARV were all TVC/post stall maneuvring demonstrator. F15B pre build had 2d TVC nozzles and active canards. 6th gen is credited of having fluidic thrust vectoring which still grants 15degrees vectoring while keeping the engine lighter, more reliable and definitively cheaper. 15 degrees is only a little less then the conentional TVC nozzles. You can see that when looking at F22/SU3X demonstration where the nozzles seems to not even moving.
Btw, when the F15 Active (s/mtd) was ready in late 80s the US were already deep into the F22/23 and were already ditching the whole dog fighting concept that were the dogma of the 4th gen.
6:45 WTF???????!!
He ejected too early
Recruiter: What do you think about being a parachute rigger?
ROTC student: Oh, I would never jump out of a perfectly good airplane!!
Recruiter: There's no such thing as a perfectly good airplane.
That's why we invented parachutes.
Just inexcusable. Nothing but negligence. Not a result of a complicated confluence of events. Pitot tubes are known to freeze over. Not hooking them up to the heating circuit is sheer negligence, if not incompetence.
Too bad, the tech development of this thing especially the revolutionary thrust vectoring might lead to a more efficient VTOL or SVTOL. The Harrier and F 35 is too slow and too inefficient in performance. I like to see in my lifetime a Supersonic Stealth Jet figther that can take off, land, hover, turn sideways quickly like a Helicopter.
is a american-german coproduction
The only plane that perfected the Trust Vetoring system was the Russians Mig-29 and Su-27 family and the F-22 Raptor
Well, idk about "perfected". For example the F-22 has no vectoring in the yaw axis, only in pitch and (maybe) roll. A true 3 axis thrust vectoring system combined with a >1:1 thrust/weight ratio would be optimal.
No operational Mig 29 has thrust vectoring and only a handful of Su-30 and 35 have. None of them are 3D.
@@citizenblue 3D vectoring for the F22 was dropped in favour of better stealth characteristics.
So will be your next car .....................
NASA
LINDO ESMERALDA GRACIAS
gracias JUUSO PELTONIEMI