ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.พ. 2024
- In the mid-1980s the NASA Langley Research Centre would head a program known as the High Angle of Attack Technology Program, or HATP. As a testbed to study high AOA performance, NASA chose an F-18 Hornet and named it the High Alpha Research Vehicle, or HARV.
Please consider supporting this channel by becoming a member: raafdocumentary.com/support/
If you are looking for an aviation themed gift and want to support this channel, check out the Military Shop by using our affiliate link militaryshop.com.au/?ref=AMAHA and you can also use our coupon code AMAHA for a discount!
We are also affiliates with Airfix Models - please use our link prf.hn/l/meNMQn5
____________ Disclaimer ____________
Original footage and recreated scenes may not be 100% accurate to the event being described but has been used for dramatic effect. This is because there may not have been original footage of a particular event available, or copyright prevents us from showing it. Our aim is to be as historically true as we can be given the materials available.
Copyright disclaimer under fair dealing sections ss 40/103C, ss 41/103A,ss 42/103B of the Copyright Act which includes research, study, criticism, review, and reporting of news. Copyright remains with the respective owners. These videos are made for educational purposes only.
The Australian Military Aviation History Association is a not-for-profit association with the intent of recording, preserving and promoting Australian military aviation history. - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
Very interesting, you can see where some of the design changes to the Super Hornet came from.
Such as?
You can also see where our current thrust-vectoring technology originated.
@@thelandofnod123I'm not sure but I was going to speculate the enlarged strakes on the F/A-18E are one outcome.
@@spitezor The larger LEX on the Super Hornet are a result of the investigation into fin cracking on the Hornet. The Hornet implemented LEX Fences to disrupt the vortex generated by the LEX impacting the fin. As well as being larger because the whole airframe is larger, the design of the LEX on the Super Hornet ensures the vortex avoids the fin. This wasn’t a result of the HARV program per se.
Thank you very much. I had forgotten this 'what if' vehicle. That paint job and your
site brought it back. Well done!
damned, the only thing we are missing now is a modified F14😂
In all honesty the F18 HARV is a beautify albeit forgotten
Super Tomcat go zool
And the F-111 TACT.
Another great video. Your channel is definitely one of my favourites.
Always interesting to see very early Hornets. No LEX fences, no fin repairs. Although there are a couple of shots of the HARV in the video with fences fitted. It also has a fleeting shot of the F-18A marking above 68L, very cool.
Pretty cool, good vid
I'm surprised no video has been officially released of the H.A.R.V. or that heavily modified F-15 doing HOA maneuvers.
Imagine how game changing mach1+ capable 3D TV engine nozzles could have been if this program had continued 😊
Although it would have been cool, the F404 is really small, as noted in the commentary the package was quite heavy, even with further development I don’t think there would have been enough room in the engine platform or engine bay (the Hornet engine bay is seriously cramped, ask any poor schmuck changing a SEC PRV with the LH engine still fitted, shudder) to provide enough benefit to outweigh the costs.
Although 70 degrees AOA is insane.
TV is useful at low speed when at high alfa surface control loose authority. at high speed there is plenty of force, the risk is overstress the airframe. i think that they said that the limit with tvc paddle is sub mach1 because there's a risk to loose them due to shockwave sollecitation and not because they don't have budget to explore that part of flight envelope
@@AaaBbb-ff1pn I think you missed the point. . . The nozzle design keeps them from passing mach, compared to other fighters. . .
@@mamarussellthepie3995 i think you miss the point too. Even if the design of the nozzle allow to pass mach1 (like f22 or su30/35 family) they would be less needed at high speed in a fighter jet. Pilots tend to go in dream mode or aircraft have a rapid unschedul disassembly if you try something too "spectacular" other than help with trimming in supercruise.
@AaaBbb-ff1pn I think you may be missing the point here, too! At high altitudes where the 18s tend to hit high mach numbers, the air used to maneuver is rather thin! That unfortunately means you will spend more time trying to maneuver than going where you wanna go! If you have access to thrust vectoring control, you instantly gain high altitude maneuverability that would help any plane go where it needs to go faster than normal. . . (and now'a days and even back in the day, FBW was pretty much required for new developments of planes to not "over G" anywhere near as much as pilots want).
Now, say you use up all of your valuable energy needed for aerodynamic ctrl surfaces to give you required maneuverability when it's really needed. High alpha giving TV nozzles would allow a plane that already dumps its speed in a few tight turns (F18 family) to point where it needs to point to get around circles faster, u turn and then u turn again faster, and be where you wanna be when facing more modern, and higher aoa fighting planes, shoot missiles at better angles, maneuver at low altitudes better, get on target against ground targets faster, and even evade baddie air defense sites even better.
Imagine something crazier such as the added authority the F14 would have benefited from with TV. For instance, at high altitudes alone, whatever maneuver you need to make, the FBW would balance the wing's geometry and nozzle angles required to pull off practically any maneuver required at and speed or lack there of or especially at altitude!
Your problem may just be a current lack of creativity within realistic possibilities of implementation, friend! 😁 and that's okay. 💯
Could you also do a video covering the F-14A used by NASA? I believe they did some testing with the wings, and even some LIMITED thrust vectoring, but I've never come across much information.
5:08, I bet you this was the inspiration behind the thrust vectoring nozzle design of a fictional fighter jet called the CFA-44 Nosferatu.
Another slam-dunk video.
awesome
Many people are calling it F-18 when the proper designation is F/A-18. IK I'm that pointing it out type of guy.
I've seen the full vid. I meant even now quite many people say it as the F18.
Watch the video to find out why it's F-18 and not F/A-18.
2:52 my dude. It was a testbed aircraft for the Navy that was transferred to NASA before it received the F/A-18 designation. I'd recommend watching from 2:12 for the full picture.
I mean come on man, at 3.04 there is even a shot of the designation stencilled above 68L, so yeah, this was an F-18 not an F/A-18.
@@thelandofnod123 I've seen the full vid. I meant even now quite many people call the F/A-18 as the F18. As an e.g. of the top if my head, TopGun Maverick kept calling it as F18
Isn't this one parked in Mobile, Alabama now by the USS Alabama?
I regret that I have but one like to give...
F18 was begune as F17 Cobra by Northrop but lost to F 16 2 prototypes were use as fillmelising pilot's to F18
in reality australian aviation history is all the same as US aviation history
No it isn't, though one could think that from the identity crisis the Channel name creates for itself.
Yeah, no.
I think you're misrepresenting the cause of stalls. Aircraft wings stall at an AoA regardless of speed. I believe this gets confused with speed because as speed drops you obviously need to increase your AoA to maintain lift/altitude.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack#Critical_angle_of_attack
Thanks Geoff.
"Silk Purse", bunch of boys in the desert...