By: Rogerout
- 19th April 2010 at 22:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's an indicator of airflow management and resistance to stalling, not to mention nose-pointing ability (a.k.a. nose authority--which IS important in WVR fights).
Sure, if you're desperate and tries to get a shot on your opponent before you fall out of the sky without airspeed, hoping he has no wingman ready to take you out.
By: Cola1973
- 19th April 2010 at 22:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It has to (MOMENTARILY) reduce lift to initiate a pitching moment, yes, but my own pics of the F-22 clearly show that the tails contribute to lift DURING the turn... and if you can't accept it the problem isn't on my side.
This can often be confusing...
Yes, you're right and unstable canards push the nose down, while unstable elevators lift the tail up, BUT...
In canard configured vehicles, one can instantly re-set the Cp, by deploying flaperons (essentially the same thing as the F22 does with elevators), which eventually shifts Cp backwards and behind the CG and you instantly get a "stable" configuration, in which canards contribute to lift.
The issue that often gets overlooked here is trim drag, which is in canard's case very low, especially compared to a system like F22 with very close positioned Cp shifting zone to elevators.
What you're seeing on airshows is most probably the best sustained maneuvering configuration, with flaperons in neutral, canards pivoting a bit down (relaxing the turn) and initial momentum adjusted by canard deflection, actually turning the plane.
When you see EF "pumping down", the force it applies (and corresponding drag) is probably significantly lower than F22's elevator drag.
As you can see, the thing in canard system is that you can have both worlds in one system, but that's not the case with elevatored planes.
So, such a canard systems achieves extreme turning performance, considering the type of wing they're using and matching or surpassing F16's (AR 3.2 wing) sustained turning performance with a wing of an AR 2.2 is by no means a small feat, while maintaining large advantages in pure performance during high supersonic (interception) speeds, which are delta's main feature.
(BTW, you can't compare F18's 50° alpha with 32° in Eurocanards, because F18 is stalled at that alpha)
By: robban
- 19th April 2010 at 22:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Uh-huh... Okay... I didn't know the Gripen's canards were retractable. :rolleyes:
Goodness me.
Those were SUSTAINED figures I quoted. You mean to tell me that a Gripen is able to sustain 110° of alpha (that is to say, able to sustain forward flight TAILPIPE FIRST)??
Of course not.
Nope. That's what a STABLE WING-TAIL does with its stabs (like in the Tomcat pic). Just like unstable wing-tails, stable canard-deltas push up on both sides of the CG to hold the plane in the turn. You REALLY need to read up on platform stability and what that entails with regards to CG and CL relationships.
Stable delta/canard fighters, like for example the Viggen push the tail DOWN.
Right, IT FAILED... and the aircraft lost control because of it. Even if a redesigned FLCS fails, IT STILL FAILS. No FLCS=no control of the flight surfaces, period.
Sure, it failed by overcompensating.
A pitching moment is a pitching moment. If the applied pitching torque is the same, the plane will pitch up at the same rate regardless if that moment is ahead of the CG or behind it. Basic physics.
Can´t you see the difference in lifting the nose into a turn, an pushing a tail in order to point the nose?
By: TooCool_12f
- 20th April 2010 at 08:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Right, IT FAILED... and the aircraft lost control because of it. Even if a redesigned FLCS fails, IT STILL FAILS. No FLCS=no control of the flight surfaces, period.
just about this one:
if FLSC fails, any modern fighter is in deep shi... the F-22, F-16, eurocanards, etc... they all are aerodynamically unstable and need a functionning FBW system to stay airborne.
So, now comes THE question: since the FLCS is mandatory to keep the modern aircraft fly, regardless of their configuration (canard, elevator, pure delta, etc...) what's the point in your remark in an "elevator vs canard" discussion? :confused:
By: MigL
- 21st April 2010 at 02:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This forum always gets bogged down in definitions. Look, according to any elementary aerodynamics text, to determine stability or instability, you need to disregard the trimming foreplanes or tailplanes and consider just the mainwing. If the centre of lift is ahead of the centre og gravity, the aircraft will tend to depart in pitch, and is said to be unstable. It then needs downforce on the front or upforce on the rear for controlled flight. A digital flight control system applies these forces using canards or tailplanes, thousands of times per second, and has been described as 'steering a bicycle backwards while sitting on the hood (bonnet) of a car travelling at 60mph'. Trouble arises when the pilot and FCS both make compensating inputs leading to a divergent situation. This is called a pilot induced oscillation and a PIO was responsible for the loss of the Gripen 17yrs ago.
What is forgotten, however, is that as an aircraft becomes supersonic, its centre of lift (pressure) moves back from the quarter-chord point to about half-chord, which may move it behind the centre of gravity and make the aircraft, now stable, require different fore or aft forces.
By: franc
- 21st April 2010 at 09:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LERX's provide fixed, controlled vortice management at high AoA, which is more than can be said of movable canards. What's the AoA limit of the Rafale compared to the SHornet's?
This is depends on AoA, while in a slight AoA, canards gives more lift than LERX.
Then tell me why in almost all the euro-canard pics I've seen of them maneuvering hard or cruising level, the canards are slightly canted downwards.
Because of they are unstable a/c, which CoL in front of CoG. Consider in a High G turn, not only upward pitch angle but also AoA occur ongoing, so the canards must deflect downwards to balance the continuously increased upward angle.
By: franc
- 21st April 2010 at 09:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm hardly an expert on the subject. From what I've read, it is the canards that makes the aircraft unstable.
No, what makes an aircraft unstable is having the CP ahead of the CG (or even just clost to it). Doesn't matter if it's a canard, a tail, or niether. F-16 is unstable, the Mirage 2000 is unstable as is th Typhoon. You could have stable canards. The X-10, Hound Dog, and Navaho were all stable canards.
What Robban said missing a word "more" in front of unstable:D
By: franc
- 21st April 2010 at 10:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-15's stabs "stabilize" it in the sense that they keep the nose up for level flight.
The point is not how the control surfaces INITIAITE the pitching moment, it's what happens with those surfaces AFTERWARDS. Your pic talks of canards that "STABILIZED the AoA"... "STABILIZE the pitch rate"... "BALANCE the aircraft"... All clever metaphors that tell the same tale: the canards are applying DOWNFORCE to prevent the nose from departing.
In a tight, sustained turn (or vertical loop), canards must apply downforce to prevent over-pitching--THAT's the so-called "stabilizing" effect. With an unstable wing-tail, that same stabilizing effect is accomplished by the stabs producing UPLIFT to keep the nose down... And since lift is the centripetal force that holds an aircraft in tight turns, more lift=GOOD.
Wrong! As I said both AoA and upward pitch angle present in high G turn, canards must deflect towards down. An increasing AoA in turn maneuver means the radius of turn could be decreased more, of course, too big AoA to increasing the rate of turn angle leading a down defected canards is needed but this down deflected canard is not a negative lift. please review the picture posted by Robban.
Yes, apparently, the taileron deflecting upwards gives more lift to F-22 in turn maneuver, but thus also means AoA in F-22's turn comparably smaller than canards a/c in same else condition in which, if F-22 wants approach same rate of turn angle, it must gets faster speed, but turn radius will be enlarged significantly, so please notice starting a turn the TVC on F-22 is deflect upward to making negative lift which you deliberately neglected and your static picture no show.
On the contrary, canards could be deflected upwards or levelly if there is no excessive AoA following which may cause lift loosing. A TVc with the a/c will deflect down to make a lift trimming the over AoA at the turn starting.
Meanwhile, an upward taileron also make a downward force at nose, this also be ignored by us.
By: franc
- 21st April 2010 at 12:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As to why canards make for poor VLO designs, a major reason is canards having to be precisely sized, positioned and shaped for optimum aerodynamics and airflow interactions with the main wing. With rear-mounted stabs, engineers have much more leeway when it comes to VLO optimized shaping. Look at the shaping of the F-22's stabs:
Also look at the F-22 head-on--the stabs and wings are on the same plane. Not so with any of the canard-deltas:
So your principle is not suitable to canard and wing at same level:diablo:
By: aerospacetech
- 21st April 2010 at 12:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not a single solid evidence for the canard/stealth issue, just a random stupid-cool comment and the traditional disliking of the US designers for canards (for the US needs)
But that is...if a unamed guy makes a cool comment to bash international designs then it turns in a fact..because the phrase was cool enough..how was it? "the only place i want acanard is on the enemies plane"...yeah cool...
As I understand it, it was Harry Hillaker (google him if you don't know him) who said it, and he said (in the context of a technical forum where French and British engineers were putting forward the merits of close-coupled versus separated canard deltas) the best place for a canard was "on someone else's airplane".
The guy who designed one of the most successful fighter aircraft of all time, what would he know... in case you don't know, he studied canards for that design and didn't use them.
By: sferrin
- 21st April 2010 at 13:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I understand it, it was Harry Hillaker (google him if you don't know him) who said it, and he said (in the context of a technical forum where French and British engineers were putting forward the merits of close-coupled versus separated canard deltas) the best place for a canard was "on someone else's airplane".
The guy who designed one of the most successful fighter aircraft of all time, what would he know... in case you don't know, he studied canards for that design and didn't use them.
I'd still like to know how anybody could possibly believe the US is "uncomfortable"/"dislikes" canards, given they've actually FLOWN far more canard-equipped designs than anybody else (possibly than EVERYBODY else put together). I'd think if ANYBODY was familiar with the pros and cons of the canard it would be the US.
By: robban
- 21st April 2010 at 14:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd still like to know how anybody could possibly believe the US is "uncomfortable"/"dislikes" canards, given they've actually FLOWN far more canard-equipped designs than anybody else (possibly than EVERYBODY else put together). I'd think if ANYBODY was familiar with the pros and cons of the canard it would be the US.
Flown and tested, but with no operational experience. Sweden for example has over 40 years of operational experience with canards. One of the reasons the Gripen ended up with a delta/canard configuration is because Saab had more experience here than with supersonic tail designs.
I'm certain the US is fully capable of developing and producing a fully operational delta/canard design. But in the end they went with the more familiar tail arrangement.
However, As we are dealing with human beings here it can be just a matter of national pride. Meaning "everyone else has canards, so we must be different"?
By: sferrin
- 21st April 2010 at 14:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Flown and tested, but with no operational experience. Sweden for example has over 40 years of operational experience with canards. One of the reasons the Gripen ended up with a delta/canard configuration is because Saab had more experience here than with supersonic tail designs.
I'm certain the US is fully capable of developing and producing a fully operational delta/canard design. But in the end they went with the more familiar tail arrangement.
However, As we are dealing with human beings here it can be just a matter of national pride. Meaning "everyone else has canards, so we must be different"?
National pride? YGBSM. And no operational experience? Hound Dog flew for decades with a canard. Did it ever occur to you that given all the different canard-equipped designs the US has flown they just MIGHT know what they're talking about? And do tell, who were all these "everyone else has canards" back in the early 80s when the ATF was being researched? The ONLY canard-equipped fighter in service at the time was the Viggen.
By: robban
- 21st April 2010 at 15:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
National pride? YGBSM. And no operational experience? Hound Dog flew for decades with a canard. Did it ever occur to you that given all the different canard-equipped designs the US has flown they just MIGHT know what they're talking about? And do tell, who were all these "everyone else has canards" back in the early 80s when the ATF was being researched? The ONLY canard-equipped fighter in service at the time was the Viggen.
Yes, at the time the Viggen was the only operational aircraft with a canard. But, as far as I'm aware, in the 80's sveral canard equipped fighters were on the drawing board. Saab had the Gripen, Dassault had the Rafale, the UK had the EAP, IAI the Lavi. Not to mention all the Mirage III's and V's being equipped with canards.
By hound dog do you mean the air to ground missile? Perhaps I should have written canard equipped aircraft? Otherwise we can add the Sidewinder missile as well?
And yes, national pride. People are simple, what can I say.
New
By: Anonymous
- 21st April 2010 at 15:09Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
I'd still like to know how anybody could possibly believe the US is "uncomfortable"/"dislikes" canards, given they've actually FLOWN far more canard-equipped designs than anybody else (possibly than EVERYBODY else put together). I'd think if ANYBODY was familiar with the pros and cons of the canard it would be the US.
Russia could probably give them a run for their money: MiG Ye-8, Sukhoi 100LDU, Sukhoi T-4, Sukhoi Su-30MKI/M/A, -33/UB, -34, -35 & -47, MiG 1.44 and probably more that escape me currently (not to mention unbuilt projects). What's more, most of the Flanker derivatives were/are being built in significant numbers - between the Su-30MK*, -33 and -34 we'll eventually end up with comfortably more than 300 once production ceases.
By: Blue Apple
- 21st April 2010 at 15:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And do tell, who were all these "everyone else has canards" back in the early 80s when the ATF was being researched? The ONLY canard-equipped fighter in service at the time was the Viggen.
And the Kfir.
Both Saab and Dassault have been using delta platforms and exploring canards for a long time which is why it's not surprising they went with delta+movable canards for their latest generation. Similarly, US plane makers went on using the familiar (to them) wing + rear elevators configuration.
What is intriguing is how one can conclude from that canards are bad or somehow unstealthy based on the lack of US-fielded platforms using that configuration when the obvious explanation is that it would have been kind of stupid to ditch 40+ years of experience in aerodynamics and control laws.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 21st April 2010 at 15:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd still like to know how anybody could possibly believe the US is "uncomfortable"/"dislikes" canards, given they've actually FLOWN far more canard-equipped designs than anybody else (possibly than EVERYBODY else put together). I'd think if ANYBODY was familiar with the pros and cons of the canard it would be the US.
Sure :) Don't let the facts spoil your little self-bragging round... :)
For the others who are more interested in naked truth, here the listing of all canard types, including experimental aircraft.
Control canard aircraft include J-10, Typhoon, Gripen, Su-30MKI/MKA/MKM, Su-33, Su-34, Su-35/37, Berkut, X-31, EAP, F-15 ACTIVE, X-29, MiG 1.44, Mitsubishi T-2 CCV, Rafale (close coupled control type)
Cheetah, Kfir, JA37 Viggen, HiMAT, YF-4E PACT and Tu-144, too have close-coupled canards but fixed (or with landing flaps). Despite appearance, they are no canard-designs.
Sukhoi T-4, MiG E-8, XB-70 Valkyrie or J-9 only have lifting canards, that means fixed surfaces for creation of additional lift. Similar surfaces can be found on Mirage IIIS, Mirage IIING or Mirage 2000 (strakes).
The purpose of canards on YF-16/CCV/AFTI escapes me, looks like ventral fins, can anyone shed more light into this?
That means:
China: 1
Japan: 1
Israel: 1
EU: 4+1 (X-31)
USA: 2+1 (X-31)
Russia: roughly 5 or 6 (depending on how we take the Su-30 and Su-33)
By: KKM57P
- 21st April 2010 at 16:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well. This accident occured 17 years ago, and Saab learned alot from it. The crash even caused the Eurofighter first flight to be delayed. I haven't heard of an FCS failure in operational Gripens, so either the system is very safe, or the free flow mode works as it should. :)
Not really a PIO more the FCS software failure was rudimentary the pilot can't make crosswind correction and this ends then in the PIO.
This and the YF-22 crash through PIO caused the Eurofighter first flight to be delayed. The Eurofighter GmbH mean it's sure better fly not with an rudimentary software like Gripen and Pre-Raptor.
Posts: 457
By: Rogerout - 19th April 2010 at 22:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sure, if you're desperate and tries to get a shot on your opponent before you fall out of the sky without airspeed, hoping he has no wingman ready to take you out.
Posts: 230
By: kirtap - 19th April 2010 at 22:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.
Posts: 1,206
By: Cola1973 - 19th April 2010 at 22:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This can often be confusing...
Yes, you're right and unstable canards push the nose down, while unstable elevators lift the tail up, BUT...
In canard configured vehicles, one can instantly re-set the Cp, by deploying flaperons (essentially the same thing as the F22 does with elevators), which eventually shifts Cp backwards and behind the CG and you instantly get a "stable" configuration, in which canards contribute to lift.
The issue that often gets overlooked here is trim drag, which is in canard's case very low, especially compared to a system like F22 with very close positioned Cp shifting zone to elevators.
What you're seeing on airshows is most probably the best sustained maneuvering configuration, with flaperons in neutral, canards pivoting a bit down (relaxing the turn) and initial momentum adjusted by canard deflection, actually turning the plane.
When you see EF "pumping down", the force it applies (and corresponding drag) is probably significantly lower than F22's elevator drag.
As you can see, the thing in canard system is that you can have both worlds in one system, but that's not the case with elevatored planes.
So, such a canard systems achieves extreme turning performance, considering the type of wing they're using and matching or surpassing F16's (AR 3.2 wing) sustained turning performance with a wing of an AR 2.2 is by no means a small feat, while maintaining large advantages in pure performance during high supersonic (interception) speeds, which are delta's main feature.
(BTW, you can't compare F18's 50° alpha with 32° in Eurocanards, because F18 is stalled at that alpha)
Posts: 448
By: robban - 19th April 2010 at 22:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Goodness me.
Of course not.
Stable delta/canard fighters, like for example the Viggen push the tail DOWN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzDAm43qa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JK3Vx_G2k0
Sure, it failed by overcompensating.
Can´t you see the difference in lifting the nose into a turn, an pushing a tail in order to point the nose?
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 20th April 2010 at 08:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
just about this one:
if FLSC fails, any modern fighter is in deep shi... the F-22, F-16, eurocanards, etc... they all are aerodynamically unstable and need a functionning FBW system to stay airborne.
So, now comes THE question: since the FLCS is mandatory to keep the modern aircraft fly, regardless of their configuration (canard, elevator, pure delta, etc...) what's the point in your remark in an "elevator vs canard" discussion? :confused:
Posts: 190
By: MigL - 21st April 2010 at 02:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This forum always gets bogged down in definitions. Look, according to any elementary aerodynamics text, to determine stability or instability, you need to disregard the trimming foreplanes or tailplanes and consider just the mainwing. If the centre of lift is ahead of the centre og gravity, the aircraft will tend to depart in pitch, and is said to be unstable. It then needs downforce on the front or upforce on the rear for controlled flight. A digital flight control system applies these forces using canards or tailplanes, thousands of times per second, and has been described as 'steering a bicycle backwards while sitting on the hood (bonnet) of a car travelling at 60mph'. Trouble arises when the pilot and FCS both make compensating inputs leading to a divergent situation. This is called a pilot induced oscillation and a PIO was responsible for the loss of the Gripen 17yrs ago.
What is forgotten, however, is that as an aircraft becomes supersonic, its centre of lift (pressure) moves back from the quarter-chord point to about half-chord, which may move it behind the centre of gravity and make the aircraft, now stable, require different fore or aft forces.
Posts: 620
By: franc - 21st April 2010 at 09:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is depends on AoA, while in a slight AoA, canards gives more lift than LERX.
Because of they are unstable a/c, which CoL in front of CoG. Consider in a High G turn, not only upward pitch angle but also AoA occur ongoing, so the canards must deflect downwards to balance the continuously increased upward angle.
Posts: 620
By: franc - 21st April 2010 at 09:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What Robban said missing a word "more" in front of unstable:D
Posts: 620
By: franc - 21st April 2010 at 10:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wrong! As I said both AoA and upward pitch angle present in high G turn, canards must deflect towards down. An increasing AoA in turn maneuver means the radius of turn could be decreased more, of course, too big AoA to increasing the rate of turn angle leading a down defected canards is needed but this down deflected canard is not a negative lift. please review the picture posted by Robban.
Yes, apparently, the taileron deflecting upwards gives more lift to F-22 in turn maneuver, but thus also means AoA in F-22's turn comparably smaller than canards a/c in same else condition in which, if F-22 wants approach same rate of turn angle, it must gets faster speed, but turn radius will be enlarged significantly, so please notice starting a turn the TVC on F-22 is deflect upward to making negative lift which you deliberately neglected and your static picture no show.
On the contrary, canards could be deflected upwards or levelly if there is no excessive AoA following which may cause lift loosing. A TVc with the a/c will deflect down to make a lift trimming the over AoA at the turn starting.
Meanwhile, an upward taileron also make a downward force at nose, this also be ignored by us.
Posts: 620
By: franc - 21st April 2010 at 12:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So your principle is not suitable to canard and wing at same level:diablo:
Posts: 1,437
By: aerospacetech - 21st April 2010 at 12:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I understand it, it was Harry Hillaker (google him if you don't know him) who said it, and he said (in the context of a technical forum where French and British engineers were putting forward the merits of close-coupled versus separated canard deltas) the best place for a canard was "on someone else's airplane".
The guy who designed one of the most successful fighter aircraft of all time, what would he know... in case you don't know, he studied canards for that design and didn't use them.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 21st April 2010 at 13:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
???
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 21st April 2010 at 13:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd still like to know how anybody could possibly believe the US is "uncomfortable"/"dislikes" canards, given they've actually FLOWN far more canard-equipped designs than anybody else (possibly than EVERYBODY else put together). I'd think if ANYBODY was familiar with the pros and cons of the canard it would be the US.
Posts: 448
By: robban - 21st April 2010 at 14:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Flown and tested, but with no operational experience. Sweden for example has over 40 years of operational experience with canards. One of the reasons the Gripen ended up with a delta/canard configuration is because Saab had more experience here than with supersonic tail designs.
I'm certain the US is fully capable of developing and producing a fully operational delta/canard design. But in the end they went with the more familiar tail arrangement.
However, As we are dealing with human beings here it can be just a matter of national pride. Meaning "everyone else has canards, so we must be different"?
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 21st April 2010 at 14:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
National pride? YGBSM. And no operational experience? Hound Dog flew for decades with a canard. Did it ever occur to you that given all the different canard-equipped designs the US has flown they just MIGHT know what they're talking about? And do tell, who were all these "everyone else has canards" back in the early 80s when the ATF was being researched? The ONLY canard-equipped fighter in service at the time was the Viggen.
Posts: 448
By: robban - 21st April 2010 at 15:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, at the time the Viggen was the only operational aircraft with a canard. But, as far as I'm aware, in the 80's sveral canard equipped fighters were on the drawing board. Saab had the Gripen, Dassault had the Rafale, the UK had the EAP, IAI the Lavi. Not to mention all the Mirage III's and V's being equipped with canards.
By hound dog do you mean the air to ground missile? Perhaps I should have written canard equipped aircraft? Otherwise we can add the Sidewinder missile as well?
And yes, national pride. People are simple, what can I say.
By: Anonymous - 21st April 2010 at 15:09 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Russia could probably give them a run for their money: MiG Ye-8, Sukhoi 100LDU, Sukhoi T-4, Sukhoi Su-30MKI/M/A, -33/UB, -34, -35 & -47, MiG 1.44 and probably more that escape me currently (not to mention unbuilt projects). What's more, most of the Flanker derivatives were/are being built in significant numbers - between the Su-30MK*, -33 and -34 we'll eventually end up with comfortably more than 300 once production ceases.
Posts: 394
By: Blue Apple - 21st April 2010 at 15:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And the Kfir.Both Saab and Dassault have been using delta platforms and exploring canards for a long time which is why it's not surprising they went with delta+movable canards for their latest generation. Similarly, US plane makers went on using the familiar (to them) wing + rear elevators configuration.
What is intriguing is how one can conclude from that canards are bad or somehow unstealthy based on the lack of US-fielded platforms using that configuration when the obvious explanation is that it would have been kind of stupid to ditch 40+ years of experience in aerodynamics and control laws.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 21st April 2010 at 15:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sure :) Don't let the facts spoil your little self-bragging round... :)For the others who are more interested in naked truth, here the listing of all canard types, including experimental aircraft.
Control canard aircraft include J-10, Typhoon, Gripen, Su-30MKI/MKA/MKM, Su-33, Su-34, Su-35/37, Berkut, X-31, EAP, F-15 ACTIVE, X-29, MiG 1.44, Mitsubishi T-2 CCV, Rafale (close coupled control type)
Cheetah, Kfir, JA37 Viggen, HiMAT, YF-4E PACT and Tu-144, too have close-coupled canards but fixed (or with landing flaps). Despite appearance, they are no canard-designs.
Sukhoi T-4, MiG E-8, XB-70 Valkyrie or J-9 only have lifting canards, that means fixed surfaces for creation of additional lift. Similar surfaces can be found on Mirage IIIS, Mirage IIING or Mirage 2000 (strakes).
The purpose of canards on YF-16/CCV/AFTI escapes me, looks like ventral fins, can anyone shed more light into this?
That means:
China: 1
Japan: 1
Israel: 1
EU: 4+1 (X-31)
USA: 2+1 (X-31)
Russia: roughly 5 or 6 (depending on how we take the Su-30 and Su-33)
Posts: 665
By: KKM57P - 21st April 2010 at 16:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not really a PIO more the FCS software failure was rudimentary the pilot can't make crosswind correction and this ends then in the PIO.
This and the YF-22 crash through PIO caused the Eurofighter first flight to be delayed. The Eurofighter GmbH mean it's sure better fly not with an rudimentary software like Gripen and Pre-Raptor.