Look at the very last picture, seems HEAVY

There was a Discovery Channel documentary on ‘Raising the Mammoth.’ The weight of the ice block containing the remains was underestimated by three tons, resulting in the Mi-26 lifting a 28 ton block in overload conditions.

Don’t forget the classic…

The Stallion/Harrier combo posted here last month was also pretty impressive.

Is the mechanical vector thrusting better than a fluid one? how much thrust does the fluid vector thrusting nozzle lost?

The flow required to achieve moderate thrust vectoring is actually relatively small.

Fluidic thrust vectoring involves bleeding air from the engine and injecting it perpendicular to the flow at the exhaust.

The flow does not have to be perpendicular, but this is one option. There are a variety of angles (and other flow characteristics, incl. temp and mass) which can be utilized. Most designs tend to have multiple flow channels.

Where do you take the excess air from?

Usually from the compressor, but ‘supplemental’ air sources (either stored air or electrically-driven compressors, favored for MEE designs) can also be used.

Are there any aircraft testing with fulidic thrust vectoring right now. Is F-35 going to use it in the future?

Unlikely to appear on the F-35. As dragon72 says, one of the main benefits of fluidic nozzles is that they are lighter than mechanical TVCs, though questions remain over max deflection angles (due to flow separation) and deflection rates. The other main attractions of fluidic nozzles are cost (due to the simplicity of design) and stealth, and for this reason the concept is likely to be favored for strike aircraft and UCAS.

I think the X-36 and Bird of Prey might have had fluidic thrust vectoring

Intriguing theory, but I do not believe this was the case. As the AFRL site which you link to suggests, due to the multi-flow dynamics involved fluidic nozzles tend to utilize a different shape to these flattened ‘platypus’ designs.

Motus et bouche cousue ! :diablo:

Denel CEO Shaun Liebenberg was quoted in one of the S. African rags this week as saying that he is in discussions with Aerosud and ATE “to assess the feasibility of producing a lighter and less costly version … dubbed Rooivalk Lite to sell to developing countries,” but added that this would depend on securing the Turkish ATAK order (announcement due in August).

“Sky Eye 2” helo type UAV. Chinese PAP. Made in Japan?

Certainly looks like an RMAX (c/o Beijing BVE Technology…? :diablo: ). The name could lend itself to confusion with the HK UAV sensor of the same name.

Malaysia is still showing interest, Brazil is very keen, and Turkey is seriously considering it as well.

From what I hear Malaysia has now walked away from the Rooivalk in favor of a European solution, and in the Turkish ATAK competition it is a distant third. Can’t comment on Brazil – that effort stalled in 2003 (at which time the AH-1 was the favored platform), and funding still seems some way off.

Rooivalk is a contender for the Swedish attack helicopter requirement.

Can’t really see it happening – Tiger would probably be the preferred option. And given that Boeing has first ‘rights’ to all competitions, you’d probably see an AH-64D offered rather than the WAH-64, unless the FMV stipulated the type (Westland’s only hope).

Rooivalk suited the bush-war needs of the RSA during the apartheid years (when Aerospatiale was still willing to sell platforms and provide engineering assistance), but it’s too much of a compromise for most users. Denel’s perilous financial state has also proved worrying for most potential buyers.

The Bede BD-10 flies again…