Well, it all seems correct. @FeetPics literally just threw away those 24249 lbs and was like, “okay, now let’s go look at the Hornet!” WTF?
Meanwhile, the @MatrixRupture 's sources actually explain the influence of that vertical component on the Harriers maneuvering characteristics.
So then my previous answers still apply.
the split of the vector thrusts is not the same as each vectors size compared to the thrust. They are two different percentages that both are true at the same time.
at 45 degrees both vectors are the same size, that size being 0.707 times the size of the thrust.
It’s almost as if squrt(0.707^2 + 0.707^2) = 1 , would you look at that, the math checks out.
Oh hey, look at this one: sqrt(0.5^2 + 0.866^2) = 1 , wow at 60 degrees the math also checks out. and what size is one of the components, oh look it’s 50% ! :D
Apparently I’m dumb and don’t know anything. Same with the Royal Aircraft Establishment if the 45 degrees thrust component cam be trusted.
I said I agree
that is for finding the resulting gross thrust
however feet pics said that a nozzle pointing more forwards then backwards will provide an equal force backwards as anywhere else.
That’s not what that sentence means. that’s not what he is saying there.
The total thrust is the “input”.
yes it is
he compared it to the TWR of the F-18 in a horizontal manner
to attempt to compare bleed rates
he said the harrier has a .8 twr pushing it forwards.
despite the nozzle literally pointing closer to the nose then the tail.
except he didnt
he said at 60° it will provide 50% of the HORIZONTAL component compared to the nozzle pointing completly back
which is correct
(again 10k lbs thrust for ilustrative purposes)
Again, not what that is saying.
I don’t know how you’re reading it like that. That is not what he is saying there.
That is what he is saying there, and you and the other feetpic fans have been trying to justify his mistake.
his misstake is being right about trigonometry
I never said that 1 calculation is incorrect
I said it isn’t valid for this application.
A nozzle pointing closer to the nose can not impart the same amount of thrust both down and rewards.
It is correct?
No a harrier with its nozzle pointing closer to the nose will not achieve an equal thrust force straight down as it does straight backwards.
Huh??
You’re confusing the lift produced from the wings at speed and in a turn with the lift component of the thrust.
NO ONE HAS SAID THIS. LITERALLY NO ONE.
He said 50% OF THE INPUT THRUST, not 50/50 splits between the values of the two thrusts.
He used 50% of the thrust to calculate the harrier forward thrust component.
that is not what matrix has been argumenting against the past hour or so
he simply counldnt comprehent that angeling the nozzle 60° down will result in 50% of the horizontal thrust component
Which is correct. the value of the lift component in that case would be 86.6% of the thrust. at the same time as the forward thrust is 50% of the thrust.
The lift thrust component will be bigger than the horizontal, but the horizontal is still 50% of the input.
no like honestly
the nozzle is pointing more downwards then it is backwards
how can it give equal net thrust in both directions
iam going to post this image a 3rd time now
maybe look at it or take a math course
guess what the resulting horizontal component of 50% of the original occours past 45°
