Talk:STOVL
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Newbie question
[edit]When was this site created? How can i find pictures of some/all instruments discussed in this site?
You can find information about Wikipedia on Wikipedia:About. You can ask general questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk. DJ Clayworth 20:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The "short" in STOVL
[edit]How short is the "short" in STOVL? How short does the required runway need to be before the aircraft is designated STO? How long a runway is required for aircraft which take off in the typical fashion? -- 199.244.214.30 17:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- According to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=12049&rsbci=0&fti=112&ti=0&sc=400 , during prototype testing the F-35 took off in STO mode in 500 feet. How does this compare to other STO aircraft? How does it compare to CTO fighter aircraft? --199.244.214.30 17:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Quote: "A Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing aircraft (aéronef à décollage court et atterrissage vertical)" Is it really necessary to quote the foreign language ? If so why?
Improving this page
[edit]I've located the source of the NATO definition of STOVL that was stated but not cited within this article I've added the verification of this quote which is on page 2-S-5 on this pdf http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/other_pubs/aap_6v.pdf hope that's ok --Yak-38M 23:13, 6 November 2008 (GMT)
gyroplanes
[edit]Don't gyroplanes qualify as STOVL? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- They probably would, if the official definition didn't specify fixed-wing. 50.188.129.46 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)