NASA X-31
John Powell
X-31 ENHANCED FIGHTER MANEUVERABILITY DEMONSTRATOR
The NASA Dryden Flight Research Center is using two X-31 Enhanced
Fighter Maneuverability (EFM) demonstrators to obtain data that may
apply to highly-maneuverable next generation fighters.
The X-31 program is showing the value of thrust vectoring (directing
engine exhaust flow) coupled with advanced flight control systems for
close-in air combat at very high angles of attack.
Background
"Angle-of-attack" (alpha) is an engineering term to describe the angle
of an aircrafts body and wings relative to its actual flightpath.
During maneuvers, pilots often fly at extreme angles of attack -- with
the nose pitched up while the aircraft continues in its original
direction. With older aircraft designs this would lead to loss of
control which can result in the loss of the aircraft, pilot, or both.
Thrust vectoring paddles on the X-31's exhaust nozzle direct the
exhaust flow to provide control in pitch (up and down) and yaw (right
and left) to improve control. In addition the X-31s are configured
with movable forward canards and fixed aft strakes. The canards are
small wing-like structures set on the wing line between the nose and
the leading edge of the wing. The strakes are set on the same line
between the trailing edge of the wing and the engine exhaust. Both
supply additional control in tight maneuvering situations.
The X-31 research program is producing technical data at high angles
of attack. These data will give engineers and aircraft designers a
better understanding of aerodynamics, effectiveness of flight controls
and thrust vectoring, and airflow phenomena at high angles of attack.
This is expected to lead to design methods providing better
maneuverability in future high-performance aircraft and make them
safer to fly.
Phase One
Phase I was the conceptual design phase. During this phase the payoff
expected from the application of EFM concepts in future air battles
was outlined and the technical requirements for a demonstrator
aircraft were defined.
Phase Two
Phase II carried out the preliminary design of the demonstrator and
defined the manufacturing approach to be taken. Three governmental
design reviews were held during this phase to thoroughly examine the
proposed design. Technical experts from the U.S. Navy, Federal
Ministry of Defense, and NASA contributed to the careful examination
of all aspects of the design.
Phase Three
Phase III initiated and completed the detailed design and fabrication
of two aircraft. This phase required that both aircraft fly a limited
test flight program. The first aircraft rolled out on Mar. 1, 1990,
followed by a first flight on Oct. 11, 1990. The X-31 took off from
Palmdale, CA, runway 07, piloted by Rockwell chief test pilot Ken
Dyson. It reached a speed of 340 mph and an altitude of 10,000 ft
during its initial 38 min. flight. The second aircraft made its first
flight on Jan. 19, 1991, with Deutsche Aerospace chief test pilot
Dietrich Seeck at the controls.
Flight Summary
During the program's initial phase of operations at Rockwell
International's Palmdale, CA, facility the aircraft were flown on 108
test missions before starting operations they were moved to Dryden.
At Dryden an international team of pilots and engineers is expanding
the aircraft's flight envelope, including military utility evaluations
that will pit the X-31 against similarly equipped aircraft to evaluate
the maneuverability of the X-31 in simulated combat.
The X-31 achieved controlled flight at 70 degrees angle of attack at
Dryden on Sept. 18, 1992.
On Apr. 29, 1993, the No. 2 X-31 successfully executed a minimum
radius, 180-degree turn using a post-stall maneuver, flying well
beyond the aerodynamic limits of any conventional aircraft. The
revolutionary maneuver has been dubbed the "Herbst Maneuver," after
Wolfgang Herbst, a German proponent of using post-stall flight in
air-to-air combat.
Evaluation of the X-31 as a fighter maneuverability demonstrator by
the ITO is scheduled to conclude by Dec. 1993.
Program Management
An international test organization, managed by the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), is conducting the flight tests. In
addition to DARPA and NASA, the International Test Organization (ITO)
includes the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, Rockwell International,
the Federal Republic of Germany, and Deutsche Aerospace (formerly
Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm). About 110 people from the ITO agencies
are assigned to the program. NASA is responsible for flight test
operations, aircraft maintenance, and research engineering.
The X-31 is the first international experimental aircraft development
program administered by a U.S government agency. It is a key effort of
the NATO Cooperative Research and Development Program.
Gary Trippensee is the ITO director and NASAUs project manager at
Dryden.
Pilots of the X-31 EFM aircraft include: NASA pilot Rogers Smith; U.S.
Navy pilot Cmdr. Al Groves; German pilots Karl Lang and Dietrich
Seeck; Rockwell International pilot Fred Knox; and Air Force Flight
Test Center pilot Lt. Col. Jim Wisneski.
Aircraft Specifications
Designed and constructed as a demonstrator aircraft by Rockwell
International Corporation's North American Aircraft and Deutsche
Aerospace.
The aircraft has a wing span of 23.83 ft (7.3 m). The fuselage length
is 43.33 ft (12.8 m).
The X-31 is powered by a single General Electric F404-GE-400 turbofan
engine, producing 16,000 lb (71,168 N) of thrust in afterburner.
Typical takeoff weight of the X-31 is 16,100 lb (7,303 kg).
The X-31 design speed is Mach 0.9 with an altitude capability of
40,000 ft (12,192 m).
_________________________________________________________________
Gary Trippensee, Dryden Project Manager
(805) 258-3163
Image: Dryden EAO Logo Icon
Don Nolan
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Edwards, Calif. 93523
(805) 258-3447
Don_...@qmgate.dfrf.nasa.gov
Modified: Feburary 2, 1994
--
John Powell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John....@f4.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
======================================================================
Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should
be sent to: mco...@paranet.org. Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/
Michael Corbin
Director
ParaNet Information Services
k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us
In article <11646.2...@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>, John....@f4.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Powell) writes:
|>
|> X-31 ENHANCED FIGHTER MANEUVERABILITY DEMONSTRATOR
|>
|>
|> The NASA Dryden Flight Research Center is using two X-31 Enhanced
|> Fighter Maneuverability (EFM) demonstrators to obtain data that may
|> apply to highly-maneuverable next generation fighters.
|>
|> The X-31 program is showing the value of thrust vectoring (directing
|> engine exhaust flow) coupled with advanced flight control systems for
|> close-in air combat at very high angles of attack.
|
|> exhaust flow to provide control in pitch (up and down) and yaw (right
|> and left) to improve control. In addition the X-31s are configured
|> with movable forward canards and fixed aft strakes. The canards are
|> small wing-like structures set on the wing line between the nose and
|> the leading edge of the wing. The strakes are set on the same line
|> between the trailing edge of the wing and the engine exhaust. Both
|> supply additional control in tight maneuvering situations.
***Here's a good example of a good, solid, money - eating disinformation
campaign. The thrust vectoring concept has been working to perfection in
the Harrier for 25 years now. And now what does NASA want to do? STUDY
thrust vectoring. Of course, the relative ineffectiveness of vectoring
thrust at the aft end versus the center of gravity will be studied some
time in the future. And, of course, 5 years from now they will decide to
study Augmented/afterburner thrust vectoring, too. So, after 10-15 years
of STUDYING the problem, NASA will reproduce the project which was cancelled
in 1954 by the British: the P1154 or supersonic Harrier. And lately we see
NASA examining the wisdom of removing the vertical tail to be replaced with
thrust vectoring alone. Where might we have seen that before? But we
can't have too many supersonic, VTOL, Stops-on-a-dime, right-angle-turning
fighters around, can we? Then people will suspect that we've had them
all along. So NASA will continue to STUDY the program until it becomes
technically obvious what they should do. They might even burn up 35 years
of lag time as well. Oh, well, it's only our money.
Kevin O'Malley k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us
Dean Adams
In article <39m9j8$f...@coyote.rain.org> k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us () writes:
>|> X-31 ENHANCED FIGHTER MANEUVERABILITY DEMONSTRATOR
>|> The NASA Dryden Flight Research Center is using two X-31 Enhanced
>|> Fighter Maneuverability (EFM) demonstrators to obtain data that may
>|> apply to highly-maneuverable next generation fighters.
>***Here's a good example of a good, solid, money - eating disinformation
>campaign.
No, that is a good example of someone flaunting their ignorance.
> The thrust vectoring concept has been working to perfection in
> the Harrier for 25 years now.
The Harrier's vectored thrust is derived from its unique Pegasus
turbofan engine and the four movable nozzles. That concept and
implimentation is TOTALLY different from that being used in both
the X-31 EFM and F-18 HARV programs. The Harrier can vector its
thrust in a *single* axis over about a 98 degree range, from all
back for forward flight to straight down/slightly forward for
vertical landing. That has no similarity to the three-dimensional
thrust vectoring used on the X-31.
> And now what does NASA want to do? STUDY thrust vectoring.
Not just NASA. The program began in the 1980s and was originally
sposored by DoD, DARPA, and the German Ministry of Defense.
> Of course, the relative ineffectiveness of vectoring thrust at
> the aft end versus the center of gravity will be studied some
>time in the future.
Wrong. Vectored thrust at the aft (which BTW where the engine exhaust
is located), can be quite effective. It can also reduce the size of
the tail and rudder authority required. Most importantly it can
increase the maneuvering ability of a fighter aircraft.
> And, of course, 5 years from now they will decide to
>study Augmented/afterburner thrust vectoring, too.
Phew... where have you been. The X-31 has an afterburner, and the
YF-22 and YF-23 have already tested engines using (2-dimensional)
thrust vectoring nozzles (with AB, of course). There is also a new
F-16 program with an axisymetric thrust vectoring nozzle. Both of
these have built on data from the X-31 and HARV programs.
> But we can't have too many supersonic, VTOL, Stops-on-a-dime,
More ignorance. The X-31 program has nothing at all to do with VTOL.
If you want to talk about spending new money on VTOL, then talk about
the ASTOVL program.
> right-angle-turning fighters around, can we?
A fighter that can out-turn the other guy can KILL the other guy.
I'd say we can't have too many of those around...
> Then people will suspect that we've had them all along. So NASA will
> continue to STUDY the program until it becomes technically obvious what
> they should do. They might even burn up 35 years of lag time as well.
> Oh, well, it's only our money.
What causes you to drone on so long in ingorance. In this case you
hear "thrust vectoring" and you can think of nothing but "Harrier".
F. L. Myke Reynolds
subject of UFOs?
Dean Adams (dad...@netcom.com) wrote:
k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us
In article <dadamsCy...@netcom.com>, dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) writes:
|>
|>In article <39m9j8$f...@coyote.rain.org> k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us () writes:
|>>|> X-31 ENHANCED FIGHTER MANEUVERABILITY DEMONSTRATOR
|>>|> The NASA Dryden Flight Research Center is using two X-31 Enhanced
|>>|> Fighter Maneuverability (EFM) demonstrators to obtain data that may
|>>|> apply to highly-maneuverable next generation fighters.
|>
|> >***Here's a good example of a good, solid, money - eating disinformation
|> >campaign.
|>
|>No, that is a good example of someone flaunting their ignorance.
someone flaunting his arrogance. Why are your posts so mean-spirited?
|> .... The Harrier can vector its
|>thrust in a *single* axis ....
|> That has no similarity to the three-dimensional
|>thrust vectoring used on the X-31.
****So, 2-dimensional thrust vectoring has no similarity to 3-dimensional?
I would dispute this. NASA picked up the concept from the marines
using VIFFing on the harrier.
|> > And now what does NASA want to do? STUDY thrust vectoring.
|>
|>Not just NASA. The program began in the 1980s and was originally
|>sposored by DoD, DARPA, and the German Ministry of Defense.
****The obvious point to what I said was not answered. I would suggest
changing the word "now" to "so". My point that it's a disinformation
campaign still stands.
|> > Of course, the relative ineffectiveness of vectoring thrust at
|> > the aft end versus the center of gravity will be studied some
|> >time in the future.
|>
|>Wrong. Vectored thrust at the aft (which BTW where the engine exhaust
|>is located), can be quite effective.
**** The concept of "quite effective" does not adequately counter
my contention of RELATIVE ineffectiveness versus COG vectoring.
|> > And, of course, 5 years from now they will decide to
|> >study Augmented/afterburner thrust vectoring, too.
|>
|>Phew... where have you been. The X-31 has an afterburner, and the
|>YF-22 and YF-23 have already tested engines using (2-dimensional)
|>thrust vectoring nozzles (with AB, of course).
****Okay, I'll concede that I wasn't being accurate about the
timing. I didn't have my AE books with me. But my point was that
NASA is studying things in the 80's and 90's which were already
known in the 50's -- the effectiveness of thrust vectoring as
demonstrated in the cancelled P.1154 project.
|> > But we can't have too many supersonic, VTOL, Stops-on-a-dime,
|>
|>More ignorance. The X-31 program has nothing at all to do with VTOL.
|>If you want to talk about spending new money on VTOL, then talk about
|>the ASTOVL program.
|>
|> > right-angle-turning fighters around, can we?
|>
|>A fighter that can out-turn the other guy can KILL the other guy.
|>I'd say we can't have too many of those around...
****We already have them. They're called flying saucers. The rest
of these vectored thrust projects are a smokescreen.
|> > Then people will suspect that we've had them all along. So NASA will
|> > continue to STUDY the program until it becomes technically obvious what
|> > they should do. They might even burn up 35 years of lag time as well.
|> > Oh, well, it's only our money.
|>
|>What causes you to drone on so long in ingorance. In this case you
|>hear "thrust vectoring" and you can think of nothing but "Harrier".
****You're right about that. I just don't like to see our money wasted
on fighters that will be obsolete once they dust off and update the
P.1154 file.
Kevin O'Malley k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us
Dean Adams
In article <39ubs2$7...@coyote.rain.org> k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us () writes:
>In article <dadamsCy...@netcom.com>, dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) writes:
>|> >***Here's a good example of a good, solid, money - eating disinformation
>|> >campaign.
>|>No, that is a good example of someone flaunting their ignorance.
>****Ah, the famous DA strikes. I guess this would be an example of
>someone flaunting his arrogance. Why are your posts so mean-spirited?
Are they? In this case I was responding to a VERY arrogant post,
and worst of all, arrogance boisterously floundering in ignorance.
>|> That has no similarity to the three-dimensional
>|>thrust vectoring used on the X-31.
>****So, 2-dimensional thrust vectoring has no similarity to 3-dimensional?
>I would dispute this.
The X-31 has no resemblance at all to the Harrier, or its thrust
vectoring system. You are arguing about something when you have
NO idea what you are talking about!
> NASA picked up the concept from the marines
>using VIFFing on the harrier.
NO, NASA did not "pick up the concept" at all. The X-31 program
was started years ago as a joint DoD/DARPA/German project.
>|> > And now what does NASA want to do? STUDY thrust vectoring.
>|>Not just NASA. The program began in the 1980s and was originally
>|>sposored by DoD, DARPA, and the German Ministry of Defense.
>****The obvious point to what I said was not answered. I would suggest
>changing the word "now" to "so". My point that it's a disinformation
>campaign still stands.
The only "disinformation" is coming from YOU! What NASA is studying
with the X-31 is the high-alpha flight regime, as a compliment to the
F-18 HARV program which has been under way for some time.
>**** The concept of "quite effective" does not adequately counter
>my contention of RELATIVE ineffectiveness versus COG vectoring.
You clearly just do not understand anything about this aircraft.
> But my point was that NASA is studying things in the 80's and 90's
> which were already known in the 50's -- the effectiveness of thrust
> vectoring as demonstrated in the cancelled P.1154 project.
Again you are arguing from complete ignorance. The X-31 is totally
different than the type of thrust vectoring methods used in the Harrier.
>|>A fighter that can out-turn the other guy can KILL the other guy.
>|>I'd say we can't have too many of those around...
>****We already have them. They're called flying saucers. The rest
>of these vectored thrust projects are a smokescreen.
Ha! Thanks for at least showing your true colors.
>|>you hear "thrust vectoring" and you can think of nothing but "Harrier".
>****You're right about that. I just don't like to see our money wasted
>on fighters that will be obsolete once they dust off and update the
>P.1154 file.
The only thing that is obsolete is your knowledge of this subject.
k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us
Path: sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us!k3omalle
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
From: k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us ()
Distribution: world
X-Newsreader: mxrn 6.18-16
References: <39m9j8$f...@coyote.rain.org> <dadamsCy...@netcom.com> <39ubs2$7...@coyote.rain.org> <dadamsCz...@netcom.com>
Reply-To: k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us ()
Organization: Santa Barbara City College
Subject: Re: NASA X-31
In article <dadamsCz...@netcom.com>, dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) writes:
|>
|>In article <39ubs2$7...@coyote.rain.org> k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us () writes:
|>>In article <dadamsCy...@netcom.com>, dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) writes:
|>>|> >***Here's a good example of a good, solid, money - eating disinformation
|>>|> >campaign.
|>>|>No, that is a good example of someone flaunting their ignorance.
|>>****Ah, the famous DA strikes. I guess this would be an example of
|>>someone flaunting his arrogance. Why are your posts so mean-spirited?
|>
|>Are they?
*****Yes.
|>In this case I was responding to a VERY arrogant post,
*****How is it arrogant to contrast 2-dimensional vectoring to 3-dimensional?
You did the same thing yourself when you mentioned the YF-22.
|>and worst of all, arrogance boisterously floundering in ignorance.
*****I'll respond to this at the end of my post.
|>
|>>|> That has no similarity to the three-dimensional
|>>|>thrust vectoring used on the X-31.
|>>****So, 2-dimensional thrust vectoring has no similarity to 3-dimensional?
|>>I would dispute this.
|>
|>The X-31 has no resemblance at all to the Harrier, or its thrust
|>vectoring system. You are arguing about something when you have
|>NO idea what you are talking about!
*****Restatement of your argument, with flame attached. The point is
to suggest that Vectoring should take place at the COG for a superior
maneuverability. Computer models show that an updated COG-vectoring
plane like the P11.54 would be superior to even 3-d vectoring at the
aft end. I have seen a senior design Aero project at Cal Poly SLO
which promotes this.
|> > NASA picked up the concept from the marines
|> >using VIFFing on the harrier.
|>
|>NO, NASA did not "pick up the concept" at all. The X-31 program
|>was started years ago as a joint DoD/DARPA/German project.
*****Minor point. I don't care to nitpick about origins. I concede
to your superior knowledge in this subject area.
|> >|> > And now what does NASA want to do? STUDY thrust vectoring.
|> >|>Not just NASA. The program began in the 1980s and was originally
|> >|>sposored by DoD, DARPA, and the German Ministry of Defense.
|> >****The obvious point to what I said was not answered. I would suggest
|> >changing the word "now" to "so". My point that it's a disinformation
|> >campaign still stands.
|>
|>The only "disinformation" is coming from YOU! What NASA is studying
|>with the X-31 is the high-alpha flight regime, as a compliment to the
|>F-18 HARV program which has been under way for some time.
*****By high-alpha, do you mean high angle of attack? Have you seen
the COG-vectoring angles? How about 85 degrees, fully controllable.
They fly backwards at up to 70mph. Effectively no stall angle.
COG vectoring is superior to aft end vectoring, whether 2d or 3d...
|> >**** The concept of "quite effective" does not adequately counter
|> >my contention of RELATIVE ineffectiveness versus COG vectoring.
|>
|>You clearly just do not understand anything about this aircraft.
*****As you have not provided any new information on this point, I
gather you are going to your fallback position. I guess the real test
is when they put one up against the other in TOP-GUN type matchups.
|> > But my point was that NASA is studying things in the 80's and 90's
|> > which were already known in the 50's -- the effectiveness of thrust
|> > vectoring as demonstrated in the cancelled P.1154 project.
|>
|>Again you are arguing from complete ignorance. The X-31 is totally
|>different than the type of thrust vectoring methods used in the Harrier.
*****Again you bring up no new information.
|> >|>A fighter that can out-turn the other guy can KILL the other guy.
|> >|>I'd say we can't have too many of those around...
|> >****We already have them. They're called flying saucers. The rest
|> >of these vectored thrust projects are a smokescreen.
|>Ha! Thanks for at least showing your true colors.
*****No problem. Haven't you been reading my posts? If you say that we
can't have too many of these effective aircraft, THEN WHY WAS THE P.1154
CANCELLED? You are right when you say that a fighter that can out-turn
the other guy can kill the other guy, and a COG-vectoring fighter has
a faster roll and pitch rate than aft-end vectoring craft.
|>>|>you hear "thrust vectoring" and you can think of nothing but "Harrier".
|>>****You're right about that. I just don't like to see our money wasted
|>>on fighters that will be obsolete once they dust off and update the
|>>P.1154 file.
|>
|>The only thing that is obsolete is your knowledge of this subject.
*****I'm not a PhD like you. But you're too mean-spirited for me.
I like what some other guy did in this news group -- he said he would
bow out and let the other guy have the last word. Go ahead.
Kevin O'Malley k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us
Dean Adams
In article <3a86f5$f...@coyote.rain.org> k3om...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us () writes:
>In article <dadamsCz...@netcom.com>, dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) writes:
>|>In this case I was responding to a VERY arrogant post,
>*****How is it arrogant to contrast 2-dimensional vectoring to 3-dimensional?
The arrogance was your loudly attacking the X-31 program from
a position of complete ignorance about both the aircraft and
the research involved. Not to mention your ridiculous statements
about it being a "money - eating disinformation campaign". (??)
>You did the same thing yourself when you mentioned the YF-22.
No, the thrust vectoring nozzels tested on the YF-22 were very much
a follow-on to the concepts studied in the X-31, and nothing at all
like the Harrier.
>|>The only "disinformation" is coming from YOU! What NASA is studying
>|>with the X-31 is the high-alpha flight regime, as a compliment to the
>|>F-18 HARV program which has been under way for some time.
>*****By high-alpha, do you mean high angle of attack?
Of course.
>Have you seen the COG-vectoring angles? How about 85 degrees, fully
controllable. They fly backwards at up to 70mph. Effectively no stall
> angle. COG vectoring is superior to aft end vectoring, whether 2d or 3d...
All of this COG talk of yours is applicable mainly to VTOL type aircraft!
As i've told you many times, the X-31 is not that kind of airplane.
The primary reason for locating your thrust in a COG configuration is
for VTOL applications, and it has a side effect of significantly limiting
your capabilities in other areas. Your opinion on this issue seems to
be based on a very limited view of the subject matter and applications.
Just look at the ASTOVL proposals for the Harrier follow-on aircraft.
They are planning to use a normal jet engine configuration, for the
high speed and efficency they provide, coupled with COG placed lift
fan units for vertical flight.
>|>You clearly just do not understand anything about this aircraft.
>*****As you have not provided any new information on this point, I
>gather you are going to your fallback position.
You come out of nowhere flaming this aircraft, clearly knowing nothing
about it at all, and you fault ME for "not providing information"?
I've tried again and again to explain various aspects to you, but you
seem capable of doing nothing but falling back on this one "senior
project" which you apparently seen.
>I guess the real test is when they put one up against
>the other in TOP-GUN type matchups.
The X-31 has already performed in such conditions during DoD testing,
and it demonstrated a definite ACM advantage in several areas.
>|> >****We already have them. They're called flying saucers. The rest
>|> >of these vectored thrust projects are a smokescreen.
>|>Ha! Thanks for at least showing your true colors.
>*****No problem. Haven't you been reading my posts?
These were the first that got my attention...
> If you say that we can't have too many of these effective aircraft,
> THEN WHY WAS THE P.1154 CANCELLED?
Because it would have been a white elephant. Pushing the Harrier into
being a supersonic aircraft would have likley resulted in an inefficent
platform with limited range and payload. The configuration is clearly
much better suited for slower flight regimes.
> You are right when you say that a fighter that can out-turn the
> other guy can kill the other guy, and a COG-vectoring fighter has
>a faster roll and pitch rate than aft-end vectoring craft.
Sure, when its flying relativly slowly.