Talk:Vectoring nozzle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viffing in the Falklands[edit]

Don't know who wrote this stub, but he/she is dead wrong. In the well-researched "Air War South Atlantic", by Jeffery Ethell and Alfred Price, they have this to say (pg 175): "Because there was scarcely any fighter-versus-fighter combat, Sea Harrier pilots never used VIFF (thrust Vectored In Forward Flight) while engaging enemy aircraft." And later on the same page: "Once Sea Harrier pilots had enemy aircraft in sight, the usually pounced from above, closed rapidly to within missile firing range, and loosed off a Sidewinder." The Army's version of the Harrier was not used in any air to air combat during that campaign. As far as I have been able to determine, VIFF has never been used by Harriers in air-to-air combat in any conflict. 98.255.85.245 (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the two paragraphs about the use of thrust vectoring would be better at home in the thrust vectoring page.--Jean-Marc Liotier (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This commenter is absolutely correct. There were no "dogfights" during the Falklands war. Maneuvering typically meant making a large, high-speed turn to get behind the Argentine attacker and loosing a heat-seeking missile once the enemy's hot tailpipes could be targeted. Read Squadron Leader Sharky Ward's book "Sea Harrier: a Maverick at War" and you'll find not a single reference to VIFFing or dogfighting.173.62.15.212 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the nozzles section from the thrust vectoring page[edit]

The "Nozzles" section in the thrust vectoring page has a high level that I believe would have a better home in the Vectoring nozzles page. Is anyone interested in merging it to this page ?--Jean-Marc Liotier (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

definition for vectoring nozzle[edit]

The definition is incorrect and misleading since it focusses on only one of many capabilities. I have deleted it.User:Pieter1963|Pieter1963]] (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except you have left the article without a lead definition. --ChetvornoTALK 08:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]