By: arquebus
- 9th February 2011 at 17:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Scorpion82- ok, well like I say, I havent kept up on military aviation lately, but I doubt that the FBW on Su-27 is true FBW but rather just electronic stability like the F-15 has
By: Scorpion82
- 9th February 2011 at 18:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@arquebus
in such a case it is better to ask first if you aren't sure rather than stating something and present it as http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1702052a fact.
As said the Su-27 features a single channel quadruple redundant analogue FBW. The channel is necessary for the pitch stability as the aircraft isn't stable (unlike the F-15 for example). It's indeed meant to allow for a certain degree of instability, though it may be better described as relaxed or neutral stability. Without FBW the aircraft wouldn't be flyable unlike the F-15 for example. It's not a CSAS but real FBW, albeit no full FBW meaning all electronic FCS.
By: Lindermyer
- 9th February 2011 at 19:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Admittedly my aerodynamic theory is a bit shaky these days, but i thought the whole point of the Canard is that it doesnt stall being in front of the dead/ turbulent air from the wings at high angles of attack . ( t tails notoriously susceptable though).
Regarding Naval Typhoon - If there is an ounce of sense in the MOD thats a NON Nein Niet No Firkin way.
quite apart from the structural issues, its my understanding that the position of the canard is less than optimal for carrier landings to put it most gently.
wasnt it proposed that a fan blew air accross the deck allowing lower approach speeds & or angles.
I think enough can go wrong with carrier ops without that adding to the list .
Carrier aircarft make successful land based aircraft - it seldom if ever works tother way round
By: arquebus
- 9th February 2011 at 20:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
but i thought the whole point of the Canard is that it doesnt stall being in front of the dead/ turbulent air from the wings at high angles of attack
were getting into a semantic problem of defining exactly what is meant by "stall", as fighter jets can maintain flight control at extreme AoA due to large wing are and engine power, whereas conventional aircraft that experience breakage of airflow over the airfoil of the wing will become completely uncontrollable. But what you say is true, canards are positioned forward of the wing, but that doesnt make them unstallable, depending on your definition of a stall.
quite apart from the structural issues, its my understanding that the position of the canard is less than optimal for carrier landings to put it most gently
the proper placement of a canard is ahead of and above the wing, which is where it is placed on the eurofigher, same as the rafale and gripen.
If you look at the article linked to by nocutstoRAF on the "Should the UK dump the F-35" thread: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm
you see that it was very feasible to modify the Typhoon to be a carrier aircraft, much of the modification being done electronically to the FBW rather than the usual structural strengthening. But it was chosen not to as the carriers were already designed for STOBAR jets.
By: Lindermyer
- 9th February 2011 at 21:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
were getting into a semantic problem of defining exactly what is meant by "stall", as fighter jets can maintain flight control at extreme AoA due to large wing are and engine power, whereas conventional aircraft that experience breakage of airflow over the airfoil of the wing will become completely uncontrollable. But what you say is true, canards are positioned forward of the wing, but that doesnt make them unstallable, depending on your definition of a stall.
the proper placement of a canard is ahead of and above the wing, which is where it is placed on the eurofigher, same as the rafale and gripen.
If you look at the article linked to by nocutstoRAF on the "Should the UK dump the F-35" thread: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm
you see that it was very feasible to modify the Typhoon to be a carrier aircraft, much of the modification being done electronically to the FBW rather than the usual structural strengthening. But it was chosen not to as the carriers were already designed for STOBAR jets.
Maybe a slight miss understanding - when i said the Canard was in the wrong place i meant in terms of a carrier landing.
As for converting the typhoon to STOBAR/CATOBAR Im sure with enough time and money BAE could achieve it, however that does not mean it is a good idea or a realistic aim.
If F35 flops (unlikely) then S Hornet is probably the next best bet (number in service / commonality/supportability) Rafale being second choice (simply for cost life supportability reasons)
Typhoon (and probably Sea Grippen unless somebody else buys it) rank below reintroducing Phantoms / Buccaneers (Aaah Buccaneers) or Sea Harrier in terms of feasability.
By: arquebus
- 9th February 2011 at 21:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Typhoon (and probably Sea Grippen unless somebody else buys it) rank below reintroducing Phantoms / Buccaneers (Aaah Buccaneers) or Sea Harrier in terms of feasability.
So if the F-35 tanks, you rank replacements at:
1. Hornet
2. Rafale
3. Typhoon
Reality is lost in planning of current military fighter acquisitions, the F-35 was begun as a low cost auxiliary fighter, its only real selling point being stealth. If you compare specs with the Rafale or Typhoon, I see little reason to dump ridiculous amounts of money into the problematic F-35. The Hornet is a lousy naval fighter, it doesnt carry much, not much range, it makes a so so point defence ground fighter.
Here's my list:
1. F-23 (honestly, which would win in a dogfight? F-23 or F-35?)
2. fixed wing Tornado (it was a mistake to make this FBW jet a swingwing)
3. Typhoon
If the UK is smart they will see that the F-35 is not going to pull through on any of its promises, there are better existing options that completely outclass the F-35
By: haavarla
- 9th February 2011 at 21:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe a slight miss understanding - when i said the Canard was in the wrong place i meant in terms of a carrier landing.
As for converting the typhoon to STOBAR/CATOBAR Im sure with enough time and money BAE could achieve it, however that does not mean it is a good idea or a realistic aim.
If F35 flops (unlikely) then S Hornet is probably the next best bet (number in service / commonality/supportability) Rafale being second choice (simply for cost life supportability reasons)
Typhoon (and probably Sea Grippen unless somebody else buys it) rank below reintroducing Phantoms / Buccaneers (Aaah Buccaneers) or Sea Harrier in terms of feasability.
Wow.. no beating around the bush here..:)
For what its worth i think you are right on that account.
The Typhoon as a navy assets is a riddiculas notion..
By: Lindermyer
- 9th February 2011 at 21:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So if the F-35 tanks, you rank replacements at:
1. Hornet
2. Rafale
3. Typhoon
Reality is lost in military fighter aquisitions, the F-35 was begun as a low cost auxiliary fighter, its only real selling point being stealth. If you compare specs with the Rafale or Typhoon, I see little reason to dump rediculous amounts of money into the problematic F-35. Here's my list:
1. F-23 (honestly, which would win in a dogfight? F-23 or F-35?)
2. fixed wing Tornado (it was a mistake to make this FBW jet a swingwing)
3. Typhoon
If the UK is smart they will see that the F-35 is not going to pull through on any of its promises, there are better existing options that completely outspec the F-35
I disagree regarding swing wing on tornado.
as for 1 and 3 while you may be right, i was considering the issue soley as regards carrier capability and none of the above are carrier capable.
As a carrier aircraft I rank Typhoon below 3rd - i really do think it would be better to operate phantoms off CVF if the only other option is Typhoon
(I have no axe to grind with the tiffy as a land based aircraft)
By: haavarla
- 9th February 2011 at 21:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So if the F-35 tanks, you rank replacements at:
1. Hornet
2. Rafale
3. Typhoon
Reality is lost in planning of current military fighter acquisitions, the F-35 was begun as a low cost auxiliary fighter, its only real selling point being stealth. If you compare specs with the Rafale or Typhoon, I see little reason to dump ridiculous amounts of money into the problematic F-35. The Hornet is a lousy naval fighter, it doesnt carry much, not much range, it makes a so so point defence ground fighter.
Here's my list:
1. F-23 (honestly, which would win in a dogfight? F-23 or F-35?)
2. fixed wing Tornado (it was a mistake to make this FBW jet a swingwing)
3. Typhoon
If the UK is smart they will see that the F-35 is not going to pull through on any of its promises, there are better existing options that completely outclass the F-35
Hmm.. thats a little out in the woods wouldn't u say?
If you really want to take that far out, the RN could just as easly go into a partnership with Sukhoi and make a new improved Su-33 version, aka Naval Su-35S version.
It would be an awsome naval assets.:)
Of course it would never take place, neighter would your F-23 or typhoon.
The SH is an excellent choice if you don't want to pick from the top shelf.
It got pros and cons.. so what! The F-35B/C and a Naval Typhoon got it too..
By: Amiga500
- 10th February 2011 at 07:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
very easily actually.
I suggest you go look at the area centroid of the wing/canard with respect to the c.g and the aero centre positions before thinking they won't recover from such stalls. :)
(That is after all... how the Flanker was first able to do the Cobra)
Posts: 275
By: arquebus - 9th February 2011 at 17:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Scorpion82- ok, well like I say, I havent kept up on military aviation lately, but I doubt that the FBW on Su-27 is true FBW but rather just electronic stability like the F-15 has
Posts: 4,461
By: Scorpion82 - 9th February 2011 at 18:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@arquebus
in such a case it is better to ask first if you aren't sure rather than stating something and present it as http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1702052a fact.
As said the Su-27 features a single channel quadruple redundant analogue FBW. The channel is necessary for the pitch stability as the aircraft isn't stable (unlike the F-15 for example). It's indeed meant to allow for a certain degree of instability, though it may be better described as relaxed or neutral stability. Without FBW the aircraft wouldn't be flyable unlike the F-15 for example. It's not a CSAS but real FBW, albeit no full FBW meaning all electronic FCS.
Posts: 408
By: Lindermyer - 9th February 2011 at 19:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Admittedly my aerodynamic theory is a bit shaky these days, but i thought the whole point of the Canard is that it doesnt stall being in front of the dead/ turbulent air from the wings at high angles of attack . ( t tails notoriously susceptable though).
Regarding Naval Typhoon - If there is an ounce of sense in the MOD thats a NON Nein Niet No Firkin way.
quite apart from the structural issues, its my understanding that the position of the canard is less than optimal for carrier landings to put it most gently.
wasnt it proposed that a fan blew air accross the deck allowing lower approach speeds & or angles.
I think enough can go wrong with carrier ops without that adding to the list .
Carrier aircarft make successful land based aircraft - it seldom if ever works tother way round
Posts: 275
By: arquebus - 9th February 2011 at 20:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
were getting into a semantic problem of defining exactly what is meant by "stall", as fighter jets can maintain flight control at extreme AoA due to large wing are and engine power, whereas conventional aircraft that experience breakage of airflow over the airfoil of the wing will become completely uncontrollable. But what you say is true, canards are positioned forward of the wing, but that doesnt make them unstallable, depending on your definition of a stall. the proper placement of a canard is ahead of and above the wing, which is where it is placed on the eurofigher, same as the rafale and gripen.
If you look at the article linked to by nocutstoRAF on the "Should the UK dump the F-35" thread:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm
you see that it was very feasible to modify the Typhoon to be a carrier aircraft, much of the modification being done electronically to the FBW rather than the usual structural strengthening. But it was chosen not to as the carriers were already designed for STOBAR jets.
Posts: 408
By: Lindermyer - 9th February 2011 at 21:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe a slight miss understanding - when i said the Canard was in the wrong place i meant in terms of a carrier landing.
As for converting the typhoon to STOBAR/CATOBAR Im sure with enough time and money BAE could achieve it, however that does not mean it is a good idea or a realistic aim.
If F35 flops (unlikely) then S Hornet is probably the next best bet (number in service / commonality/supportability) Rafale being second choice (simply for cost life supportability reasons)
Typhoon (and probably Sea Grippen unless somebody else buys it) rank below reintroducing Phantoms / Buccaneers (Aaah Buccaneers) or Sea Harrier in terms of feasability.
Posts: 275
By: arquebus - 9th February 2011 at 21:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So if the F-35 tanks, you rank replacements at:
1. Hornet
2. Rafale
3. Typhoon
Reality is lost in planning of current military fighter acquisitions, the F-35 was begun as a low cost auxiliary fighter, its only real selling point being stealth. If you compare specs with the Rafale or Typhoon, I see little reason to dump ridiculous amounts of money into the problematic F-35. The Hornet is a lousy naval fighter, it doesnt carry much, not much range, it makes a so so point defence ground fighter.
Here's my list:
1. F-23 (honestly, which would win in a dogfight? F-23 or F-35?)
2. fixed wing Tornado (it was a mistake to make this FBW jet a swingwing)
3. Typhoon
If the UK is smart they will see that the F-35 is not going to pull through on any of its promises, there are better existing options that completely outclass the F-35
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 9th February 2011 at 21:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wow.. no beating around the bush here..:)
For what its worth i think you are right on that account.
The Typhoon as a navy assets is a riddiculas notion..
Posts: 408
By: Lindermyer - 9th February 2011 at 21:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I disagree regarding swing wing on tornado.
as for 1 and 3 while you may be right, i was considering the issue soley as regards carrier capability and none of the above are carrier capable.
As a carrier aircraft I rank Typhoon below 3rd - i really do think it would be better to operate phantoms off CVF if the only other option is Typhoon
(I have no axe to grind with the tiffy as a land based aircraft)
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 9th February 2011 at 21:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm.. thats a little out in the woods wouldn't u say?
If you really want to take that far out, the RN could just as easly go into a partnership with Sukhoi and make a new improved Su-33 version, aka Naval Su-35S version.
It would be an awsome naval assets.:)
Of course it would never take place, neighter would your F-23 or typhoon.
The SH is an excellent choice if you don't want to pick from the top shelf.
It got pros and cons.. so what! The F-35B/C and a Naval Typhoon got it too..
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 10th February 2011 at 07:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I suggest you go look at the area centroid of the wing/canard with respect to the c.g and the aero centre positions before thinking they won't recover from such stalls. :)
(That is after all... how the Flanker was first able to do the Cobra)