By: robban
- 22nd April 2010 at 14:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To say that the reason was lack of experience, fear, etc... is just BS though(not saying that's what you're trying to say).
You are right of course, but it's not just black and white. As there's quite alot of money involved in designing and producing a fighter jet, any country would prefer to go the safe route. That is, you go with what you know best. It's undeniably so that the US are far more experienced with conventional designs than with canard/delta ones.
By: wrightwing
- 22nd April 2010 at 15:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are right of course, but it's not just black and white. As there's quite alot of money involved in designing and producing a fighter jet, any country would prefer to go the safe route. That is, you go with what you know best. It's undeniably so that the US are far more experienced with conventional designs than with canard/delta ones.
Operationally yes. That's not to say that the US doesn't also have a lot of experience with canard/delta designs, to the point of knowing that if X is the requirement, there are other designs that meet that requirement, that might just be better. Every design has some sort of trade off. It just depends on which trade offs that you'd rather have.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 22nd April 2010 at 16:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Operationally yes. That's not to say that the US doesn't also have a lot of experience with canard/delta designs, to the point of knowing that if X is the requirement, there are other designs that meet that requirement, that might just be better. Every design has some sort of trade off. It just depends on which trade offs that you'd rather have.
US is not one entity. There are several companies competing against each other. From three canard designs, only one was completely new, made by Rockwell/MBB. Other two were reworked existing designs, one F-5E modified by Grumman and one F-15 modified by Dryden FRC. None of the aircraft was ever procured, produced in series or operated by any branch of armed forces..
Exactly what experience with canards has Lockheed, for example? Maybe some expertise from Lavi project, that's all.
By: wrightwing
- 22nd April 2010 at 16:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
US is not one entity. There are several companies competing against each other. From three canard designs, only one was completely new, made by Rockwell/MBB. Other two were reworked existing designs, one F-5E modified by Grumman and one F-15 modified by Dryden FRC. None of the aircraft was ever procured, produced in series or operated by any branch of armed forces..
Exactly what experience with canards has Lockheed, for example? Maybe some expertise from Lavi project, that's all.
Oh, I dunno- perhaps seeing as how some of these companies have either merged, or aren't in existence any longer, their engineers went to where the work is. I'm pretty sure that they didn't destroy all of their research either.
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 22nd April 2010 at 17:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've heard that lockheed and other US manufacturers went after all the former MBB/Rockwell/Whatever engineers who would have experience on delta canard and went through all of their work, and then concluded that it was worthless in comparison to the normal layout.
After all normal layout worked very well with the P51, which proceeded to win the war all by itself.
Nic
New
By: Anonymous
- 22nd April 2010 at 17:48Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
I thought the "canard" on the Ye-8 was free-wheeling? (as in unpowered and weather-vaned in the slipstream. . .then again I may be thinking of one of the Ye-152/166 one-offs) What is the "Sukhoi 100LDU"? There are arguably TWO types of canard flankers not 4. (The wide-body and the standard :) )
The Ye-8 was a bit of a special case, as far as I understand. However, in principle it was intended to achieve a similar goal to modern unstable canards, namely to reduce the stabilizing effect of the shift in centre of lift location at supersonic speeds. At subsonic speeds it was free to weathervane but once supersonic was locked at a fixed incidence, an idea not unlike the retractable strakes on the F-14. Both represent primitive 1960's solutions to the same basic issue which is tackled with artificial stabilization today.
Meanwhile, the Sukhoi 100LDU started out as a testbed for the T-4 canard configuration and FBW system but reportedly soon became a generic control configured vehicle experiment. In terms of looks it was to a twin-stick Su-7 what the Ye-8 is to a MiG-21, although the air intake remained unmodified. Its canards were fully powered.
By: wrightwing
- 22nd April 2010 at 18:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've heard that lockheed and other US manufacturers went after all the former MBB/Rockwell/Whatever engineers who would have experience on delta canard and went through all of their work, and then concluded that it was worthless in comparison to the normal layout.
After all normal layout worked very well with the P51, which proceeded to win the war all by itself.
Nic
Ah yes, when facts get in the way of a good story, there's always the comfort of hyperbole.
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 22nd April 2010 at 19:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah yes, when facts get in the way of a good story, there's always the comfort of hyperbole.
By: wrightwing
- 22nd April 2010 at 20:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wishful thinking >< fact
The facts are that the LM and Boeing engineers have decided that for the requirements given to them, that they prefer designs that don't have canards, to achieve the results. It has nothing to do with experience, fear, or not wanting to look too European.
By: Sign
- 22nd April 2010 at 20:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The facts are that the LM and Boeing engineers have decided that for the requirements given to them, that they prefer designs that don't have canards, to achieve the results. It has nothing to do with experience, fear, or not wanting to look too European.
still its the same old proven mature concept.. thats been around since 1916.
and i dont think you have any real insites of why they choosen this path.
so, maybe for not seing the benefits? not proven enough? not fiting the requirements?
Nither of us have come over any data. Europeans still going canards, so is china. They see a benefit, and still do concepts that path (is really RCS a problem then?!).
US and russia does not.
Thats it?!
By: KKM57P
- 22nd April 2010 at 20:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The facts are that the LM and Boeing engineers have decided that for the requirements given to them, that they prefer designs that don't have canards, to achieve the results. It has nothing to do with experience, fear, or not wanting to look too European.
Or simple the have no balls.;)
You mean not really this super ugly Boeing monster X-32 this really under performer.
By: KKM57P
- 22nd April 2010 at 21:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sure that's the reason.:rolleyes:
As for the X-32, it was ugly as sin, but it was the hover underperformance, that was the main issue.
And fly never supersonic after after vertical take off.
Had some pop stalls.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 22nd April 2010 at 23:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Meanwhile, the Sukhoi 100LDU started out as a testbed for the T-4 canard configuration and FBW system but reportedly soon became a generic control configured vehicle experiment. In terms of looks it was to a twin-stick Su-7 what the Ye-8 is to a MiG-21, although the air intake remained unmodified. Its canards were fully powered.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 23rd April 2010 at 00:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh, I dunno- perhaps seeing as how some of these companies have either merged, or aren't in existence any longer, their engineers went to where the work is. I'm pretty sure that they didn't destroy all of their research either.
Grumman >> Northrop-Grumman
Rockwell >>> Rockwell-Collins >>> Boeing
Whatever Lockheed gained from the US canard programs would have been of a very modest extent.
I think you are underestimating the role tradition and experience plays in development. In most big companies, the direction is usually set by few key persons, the others just follow. Given the history of Lockheed's designs I think there is simply no one who would want to push a canard design and at the same time have sufficient authority to actually achieve that.
Do you think that the long history of Dassault's delta designs is solely based on requirements and that there is no experience, tradition or agenda involved? Yes, after Mirage III even they have flirted with classic layout (Mirage F1) but then nicely returned back to what they do best (Mirage 2000, Mirage 4000, Rafale). Hey, don't tell me that exactly French have always placed requirements which only call for a delta and nothing else.
By: wrightwing
- 23rd April 2010 at 00:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Grumman >> Northrop-Grumman
Rockwell >>> Rockwell-Collins >>> Boeing
Whatever Lockheed gained from the US canard programs would have been of a very modest extent.
I think you are underestimating the role tradition and experience plays in development. In most bug companies, the direction is usually set by few key persons, the others just follow. Given the history of Lockheed's designs I think there is simply no one who would want to push a canard design and at the same time have sufficient authority to actually achieve that.
Do you think that the long history of Dassault's delta designs is solely based on requirements and that there is no experience, tradition or agenda involved? Yes, after Mirage III even they have flirted with classic layout (Mirage F1) but then nicely returned back to what they do best (Mirage 2000, Mirage 4000, Rafale). Hey, don't tell me that exactly French have always placed requirements which only call for a delta and nothing else.
You're arguing from the perspective that LM just doesn't know what they're missing by not having canards(and you're assuming that engineers never change companies, or study things from other engineers), and that's the wrong perspective. When the statement of requirements is given, the engineers figure out the best way to meet the specifications, and look at the pros/cons of different ways of getting there. The requirements aren't "we want a plane with a ______ wing layout." It's more like "we want a plane that can do the following things _______, and these_______ are the minimum acceptable standards." You'll note even the Russians got rid of the canards on the Su-35 and the PAK FA.
By: Bluewings
- 23rd April 2010 at 01:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MSphere to Wrightwing :
I think you are underestimating the role tradition and experience plays in development.
I agree . In France , we say something like : What you do best is what you like best . Does it mean something in English ?
In most bug companies, the direction is usually set by few key persons, the others just follow. Given the history of Lockheed's designs I think there is simply no one who would want to push a canard design and at the same time have sufficient authority to actually achieve that.
I also agree but there is a reason behind I believe : the fact that canards are counter productive when you try to design a real LO aircraft .
Besides that , canards are good :)
Do you think that the long history of Dassault's delta designs is solely based on requirements and that there is no experience, tradition or agenda involved? Yes, after Mirage III even they have flirted with classic layout (Mirage F1) but then nicely returned back to what they do best (Mirage 2000, Mirage 4000, Rafale). Hey, don't tell me that exactly French have always placed requirements which only call for a delta and nothing else.
I love this bit :
and that there is no experience, tradition or agenda involved?
True , true and true .
No need to talk about the "experience" factor it is obvious , no need to talk about the "tradition" factor it is also obvious . What is interesting is the "agenda" ;)
Yes , Dassault (and France Btw) has an agenda : build a fighter who could replace our entire fleet (5 types of aircraft) . It would have to be superior in AtoA and AtoG to what we had and be able to protect and fight for France against the 2000-2030 threats .
A delta fighter was the obvious choice . Dassault and Thalès used their expertise to make it "discrete" with canards .
Saab and the Eurofighter Teams have also chosen the same path , why ?
We all know the reasons : canards bring agility and better lift at all regimes .
But there are not "stealthy" .
One only has to check the empty weight of an aircraft versus its MTOW .
Delta-canards fighters have the edge with Rafale leading the pack by a good margin , specially when you have to take-off fully loaded at 220km/hour after a 75m catapult run on a carrier .
Canards are not stealthy but they don 't generate a high RCS , far from it .
Carefully designed edge and angle , RAM coating and sawtooth can make them almost undetectable at BVR range . Unless they are used as airbrakes (near vertical position) , they tend to deflect radio waves on the sides and behind the aircraft when seen from up front .
As an example , a F-16 is a small aircraft without canards but its RCS is much bigger than Rafale's .
Now , I don 't think that France could have built an aircraft like the F-22 (or better YF-23:)) or the B2-Spirit 20 years ago .
We didn 't have the money and the knowledge in real LO designs was not good enough . Now , it is different : we still have no money but the know-how is probably there .
Cheers .
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 23rd April 2010 at 01:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're arguing from the perspective that LM just doesn't know what they're missing by not having canards(and you're assuming that engineers never change companies, or study things from other engineers), and that's the wrong perspective. When the statement of requirements is given, the engineers figure out the best way to meet the specifications, and look at the pros/cons of different ways of getting there. The requirements aren't "we want a plane with a ______ wing layout." It's more like "we want a plane that can do the following things _______, and these_______ are the minimum acceptable standards." You'll note even the Russians got rid of the canards on the Su-35 and the PAK FA.
There are usually several ways to achieve the same. Every solution brings in some pros and cons, of course. The point is that a company usually decides to take the least expensive and time consuming path. In the specific case of Lockheed, the least expensive path would be classic layout because they can use much from the previous designs, for example existing FCS software which only needs to be tweaked and adapted instead developed from scratch.
The question is: could Lockheed develop a canard aircraft? No doubt they could. But compared to Dassault, the motives for doing that would need to be much stronger. You can be sure that if there were two possible versions of an aircraft X, one canard and one classic, both fully comparable to each other in terms of performance, then Lockheed would choose the classic version while Dassault or SAAB would go for the canard.
The example with Russians is not supporting your argument. Flanker series has originally started as canard-less therefore backward adaptation of the canard Su-35 to canard-less Su-35BM was not expensive, at all, many adapted bits from basic Flanker series could have been used OTS. Besides that, even canard-equipped Sukhois are not canard designs in true sense,they still retain their classic configuration with stabilators. The difference between FCS of Su-27UB and Su-30MKI is much smaller than between Gripen and F-16.
By: Bluewings
- 23rd April 2010 at 01:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wrightwing :
You'll note even the Russians got rid of the canards on the Su-35 and the PAK FA.
Reply With Quote
The SU-35 does NOT need canards in the first place because they are counter productive for the airframe . The T-50 being a real LO aircraft , it has to be without canards .
As simple as that .
Cheers .
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 23rd April 2010 at 02:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, tail and canards can still be kept when the goal is only moderate observable,
but agility has to be top notch.
Posts: 448
By: robban - 22nd April 2010 at 14:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are right of course, but it's not just black and white. As there's quite alot of money involved in designing and producing a fighter jet, any country would prefer to go the safe route. That is, you go with what you know best. It's undeniably so that the US are far more experienced with conventional designs than with canard/delta ones.
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 22nd April 2010 at 15:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Operationally yes. That's not to say that the US doesn't also have a lot of experience with canard/delta designs, to the point of knowing that if X is the requirement, there are other designs that meet that requirement, that might just be better. Every design has some sort of trade off. It just depends on which trade offs that you'd rather have.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 22nd April 2010 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
US is not one entity. There are several companies competing against each other. From three canard designs, only one was completely new, made by Rockwell/MBB. Other two were reworked existing designs, one F-5E modified by Grumman and one F-15 modified by Dryden FRC. None of the aircraft was ever procured, produced in series or operated by any branch of armed forces..Exactly what experience with canards has Lockheed, for example? Maybe some expertise from Lavi project, that's all.
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 22nd April 2010 at 16:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh, I dunno- perhaps seeing as how some of these companies have either merged, or aren't in existence any longer, their engineers went to where the work is. I'm pretty sure that they didn't destroy all of their research either.
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 22nd April 2010 at 17:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've heard that lockheed and other US manufacturers went after all the former MBB/Rockwell/Whatever engineers who would have experience on delta canard and went through all of their work, and then concluded that it was worthless in comparison to the normal layout.
After all normal layout worked very well with the P51, which proceeded to win the war all by itself.
Nic
By: Anonymous - 22nd April 2010 at 17:48 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
The Ye-8 was a bit of a special case, as far as I understand. However, in principle it was intended to achieve a similar goal to modern unstable canards, namely to reduce the stabilizing effect of the shift in centre of lift location at supersonic speeds. At subsonic speeds it was free to weathervane but once supersonic was locked at a fixed incidence, an idea not unlike the retractable strakes on the F-14. Both represent primitive 1960's solutions to the same basic issue which is tackled with artificial stabilization today.
Meanwhile, the Sukhoi 100LDU started out as a testbed for the T-4 canard configuration and FBW system but reportedly soon became a generic control configured vehicle experiment. In terms of looks it was to a twin-stick Su-7 what the Ye-8 is to a MiG-21, although the air intake remained unmodified. Its canards were fully powered.
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 22nd April 2010 at 18:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah yes, when facts get in the way of a good story, there's always the comfort of hyperbole.
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 22nd April 2010 at 19:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wishful thinking >< fact
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 22nd April 2010 at 20:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The facts are that the LM and Boeing engineers have decided that for the requirements given to them, that they prefer designs that don't have canards, to achieve the results. It has nothing to do with experience, fear, or not wanting to look too European.
Posts: 1,577
By: Sign - 22nd April 2010 at 20:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
still its the same old proven mature concept.. thats been around since 1916.
and i dont think you have any real insites of why they choosen this path.
so, maybe for not seing the benefits? not proven enough? not fiting the requirements?
Nither of us have come over any data. Europeans still going canards, so is china. They see a benefit, and still do concepts that path (is really RCS a problem then?!).
US and russia does not.
Thats it?!
Posts: 665
By: KKM57P - 22nd April 2010 at 20:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Or simple the have no balls.;)
You mean not really this super ugly Boeing monster X-32 this really under performer.
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 22nd April 2010 at 21:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sure that's the reason.:rolleyes:
As for the X-32, it was ugly as sin, but it was the hover underperformance, that was the main issue.
Posts: 665
By: KKM57P - 22nd April 2010 at 21:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And fly never supersonic after after vertical take off.
Had some pop stalls.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 22nd April 2010 at 23:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 23rd April 2010 at 00:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Grumman >> Northrop-Grumman
Rockwell >>> Rockwell-Collins >>> Boeing
Whatever Lockheed gained from the US canard programs would have been of a very modest extent.
I think you are underestimating the role tradition and experience plays in development. In most big companies, the direction is usually set by few key persons, the others just follow. Given the history of Lockheed's designs I think there is simply no one who would want to push a canard design and at the same time have sufficient authority to actually achieve that.
Do you think that the long history of Dassault's delta designs is solely based on requirements and that there is no experience, tradition or agenda involved? Yes, after Mirage III even they have flirted with classic layout (Mirage F1) but then nicely returned back to what they do best (Mirage 2000, Mirage 4000, Rafale). Hey, don't tell me that exactly French have always placed requirements which only call for a delta and nothing else.
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 23rd April 2010 at 00:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're arguing from the perspective that LM just doesn't know what they're missing by not having canards(and you're assuming that engineers never change companies, or study things from other engineers), and that's the wrong perspective. When the statement of requirements is given, the engineers figure out the best way to meet the specifications, and look at the pros/cons of different ways of getting there. The requirements aren't "we want a plane with a ______ wing layout." It's more like "we want a plane that can do the following things _______, and these_______ are the minimum acceptable standards." You'll note even the Russians got rid of the canards on the Su-35 and the PAK FA.
Posts: 1,040
By: Bluewings - 23rd April 2010 at 01:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MSphere to Wrightwing :
I agree . In France , we say something like : What you do best is what you like best . Does it mean something in English ?
I also agree but there is a reason behind I believe : the fact that canards are counter productive when you try to design a real LO aircraft .
Besides that , canards are good :)
I love this bit :
True , true and true .
No need to talk about the "experience" factor it is obvious , no need to talk about the "tradition" factor it is also obvious . What is interesting is the "agenda" ;)
Yes , Dassault (and France Btw) has an agenda : build a fighter who could replace our entire fleet (5 types of aircraft) . It would have to be superior in AtoA and AtoG to what we had and be able to protect and fight for France against the 2000-2030 threats .
A delta fighter was the obvious choice . Dassault and Thalès used their expertise to make it "discrete" with canards .
Saab and the Eurofighter Teams have also chosen the same path , why ?
We all know the reasons : canards bring agility and better lift at all regimes .
But there are not "stealthy" .
One only has to check the empty weight of an aircraft versus its MTOW .
Delta-canards fighters have the edge with Rafale leading the pack by a good margin , specially when you have to take-off fully loaded at 220km/hour after a 75m catapult run on a carrier .
Canards are not stealthy but they don 't generate a high RCS , far from it .
Carefully designed edge and angle , RAM coating and sawtooth can make them almost undetectable at BVR range . Unless they are used as airbrakes (near vertical position) , they tend to deflect radio waves on the sides and behind the aircraft when seen from up front .
As an example , a F-16 is a small aircraft without canards but its RCS is much bigger than Rafale's .
Now , I don 't think that France could have built an aircraft like the F-22 (or better YF-23:)) or the B2-Spirit 20 years ago .
We didn 't have the money and the knowledge in real LO designs was not good enough . Now , it is different : we still have no money but the know-how is probably there .
Cheers .
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 23rd April 2010 at 01:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are usually several ways to achieve the same. Every solution brings in some pros and cons, of course. The point is that a company usually decides to take the least expensive and time consuming path. In the specific case of Lockheed, the least expensive path would be classic layout because they can use much from the previous designs, for example existing FCS software which only needs to be tweaked and adapted instead developed from scratch.
The question is: could Lockheed develop a canard aircraft? No doubt they could. But compared to Dassault, the motives for doing that would need to be much stronger. You can be sure that if there were two possible versions of an aircraft X, one canard and one classic, both fully comparable to each other in terms of performance, then Lockheed would choose the classic version while Dassault or SAAB would go for the canard.
The example with Russians is not supporting your argument. Flanker series has originally started as canard-less therefore backward adaptation of the canard Su-35 to canard-less Su-35BM was not expensive, at all, many adapted bits from basic Flanker series could have been used OTS. Besides that, even canard-equipped Sukhois are not canard designs in true sense,they still retain their classic configuration with stabilators. The difference between FCS of Su-27UB and Su-30MKI is much smaller than between Gripen and F-16.
Posts: 1,040
By: Bluewings - 23rd April 2010 at 01:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wrightwing :
The SU-35 does NOT need canards in the first place because they are counter productive for the airframe . The T-50 being a real LO aircraft , it has to be without canards .
As simple as that .
Cheers .
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 23rd April 2010 at 02:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, tail and canards can still be kept when the goal is only moderate observable,
but agility has to be top notch.