Talk:Thrust vectoring

message: I'm curious as to the definitions of 2D and 3D thrust vectoring as used in this article.  The SU-30 page describes it as having 2D thrust vectoring, while this article says 3D thrust vectoring.  I'm not quite sure what 3D thrust vectoring exactly means.  As this article says, it shows two axes, pitch and yaw, which would be 2D.  Similarly, it should read "1D" instead of "2D".
Aflazmn (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this is just confusion about how people think of it. If you have TV in only the pitch direction, then you can vector the thrust up or down, so that the potential areas where the exhaust goes describes a 2-D plane. Even though there's only one actual dimension the nozzle can move through. The thrust direction becomes a "vector" in that 2-d plane. 3D thrust vectoring is when the nozzle can move in both pitch and yaw, so that the exhaust can go anywhere in a 3D cone behind it. Someone was really confused about this and listed su30mki and su-35 as 2D thrust-vectored. They're 3D. I'm pretty sure the MiG29OVT is also. I'm fixing this for the sukhois right now.75.170.64.63 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: also, before someone gets an itch to reedit su-35 back, the su-35 STARTED with 2D vectoring nozzles each pointed slightly outwards on the yaw axis, with each one controlled independently and thrust differential, allowing a limited 3D vectoring effect when they were pointed in different directions with different thrust levels; but these engines have been replaced with full-orbital vectoring engines. The mig-29OVT has always had full 3D.75.170.64.63 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Su-30mki does not feature 3D tvc.  The nozzles are offset from the origin to improve maneuverability but are not capable of moving in three dimensions. Nem1yan (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: This article is almost entirely about air-breathing aircraft, for which thrust vectoring technology is just now becoming a reality.  Rockets and missiles have used thrust vectoring as their primary means of control for decades.  Shouldn't this article spend a little more time on them? MarcusMaximus (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rockets 

message: I took away whoever put the J-11 under the 3-D category of thrust vectoring... There is no proof or any evidence or even speculation that the J-11 and J-11B will be thrust vectoring... I hope they will, but we must not make absurb claims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.50.156 (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  J-11 

message: Doesn't i have thrust vectoring after 2010, too???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.234.19 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurofighter

message: I was thinking about adding the SU-57 to the list of aircraft capable of 3d thrust vectoring, as it uses the same engines as the SU-35 models (AL-41F1 or -F1S) as interim engines for the izdeliye 30. Both engines are capable of TV and I was wondering if it would be a valid addition to the article. 
(12.187.245.16 (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add SU-57/T-50 to the 3d thrust vectoring section? 

message: The Su-30MKI and Su-30MKM use Saturn AL-31FP 3D vector thrust engines (or to clarify, up and down with a 15 degree pitch from vertical ).
The Su-35 uses the Saturn AL-41F1S, which has the same limitations in terms of thrust vectoring.
The J-10 also uses the Saturn AL-31FN, which (in this example, I'm not 100%) seems to have similar limitations.
Why are the latter 2 represented as 3D vector thrust, and the others as 2D vector thrust? It's a strange double standard.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling Saini (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange double standard for thrust vectoring 

message: does tvc work on a turbo prop plane Mundaepog5 (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  does it work on prop planes????