No, that is the kind of ‘Super Flanker’ the eurocanards were designed for. Just over a decade late by the fate of the SU and Russia.

This was the Su-35 the Eurofighter was designed to kill but not this one, the Su-35BM has supercruise like the F-22

Это означает, что машина при определенном весе и высотно-скоростном диапазоне способна переходить в так называемый “суперкрейсерский” режим полета (лететь на сверхзвуке без форсажа). Из всех серийных истребителей такой способностью обладают только МиГ-31 и F-22A Raptor

http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2008/07/04/su35/

But nonetheless, the Europeans did and the Israelis also went with it. The Japanese also had canard-delta concepts of their own. As for the Russians, MIG did seriously propose its MiG 1.44 and Sukhoi did implement canards on its Flankers. The US also implemented canards on its B-1B. Are you familiar with the X-31 super maneuverability study?

Nonetheless it showed DRDO pretty much alone in this one, against an opinion that is made up of Dassault, SAAB, IAE, Eurofighter consortium (BAE, Messerschmitt, etc,.) and MiG.

The difference between an elevon, and an aileron only surface is not physical. Do you know what is an elevon? What is the difference been an aileron and an elevator? It has nothing to do with shape but the way it moves.

Aileron = two surfaces that move opposite of each other.
Elevator = two surfaces that move in the same direction at each other.

An elevon part times as an aileron and as an elevator. But unlike canard-deltas and tailed planes, an elevon cannot function in one moment of a time, as both aileron and elevator, because aileron and elevator is functionally an “or” proposition.

That does not constitute a droop. No plane can change any wing position from anhedral to dihedral or vice versa, unless you can flap wings like a bird. Note the elevons are down while the canards are pointed up just as I described.

If you ever registered in the CDF, you can see this picture at the end of this thread

http://www.china-defense.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23&st=1975

at the far left corner of the picture you can see a J-10 on take off, and even with the blur, the canards are point up and not drooped, and the trailing wing surfaces are acting as elevators in the take off position.

You are mightily wrong, considering that MIG did venture into canard-delta designs and this is their last every fully unique design, the MiG 1.44. As for the US, it did have the X-31 demonstrator which proved to be extremely successful.

Above shows the US did seriously experiment on canard-deltas and so did MiG.

No, they discarded the pure delta; the tailed delta is a very different animal, not just in its control configuration, but in the aspect as well. The sweep of the F-22 is not as acute as pure deltas, and in fact, the F-22 should best be described as a “diamond”. The F-22 is neither low or high aspect, it is what you can call as a “square”. Pure delta designs are low aspect in the extreme sense. The YF-23, the X-32 and the F-35 all have diamond wings.

Wrong. Canards don’t need to because they have a fresh air stream in front of them, unlike control surfaces tied to the main wing that have to deal with the wake from the wings’ front edge as well as the boundary layer that forms around the wing. You simply cannot ignore even the late fifties studies about why all moving control surfaces are better. In fact one of the reasons why canards are generally smaller than tail planes is that they can generate the same amount of control authority for less size and deflection.

And even if they are turned to pitch, canards generate lift even for the drag they produce. Control surfaces on the trailing edge of the wings however, have to push the aircraft down on its tail to move the nose up, and hence they create negative lift while exerting drag at the same time.

The art of aircraft design does not make any configuration the best. Each configuration has drawbacks, and that is the point, each configuration has been made to exploit some aspects trying to avoid others.

The LCA is a very economical design, being tailess, it generates the least drag, flutter and weight, this configuration is good if you want small and ligt aircraft with high speed and long range, the F-16XL was for that reason considered as a fighter bomber competing with the F-15E
The combination of high speed and high aspect ratio increases the tendency to flutter. Flutter is fatal and cannot be tolerated. The maximum aspect ratio of the canard of a fast airplane is limited by flutter considerations, not loading considerations
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?…3&DISPLAY=DESC

Other fighters have other design parameters, the J-10 for example followed a delta wing with low aspect ratio and high aspect ratio canards to generate the least drag and the highest speed, however the design generates flutter and inertia coupling is common in aircraft with long fuselages and short spans (low aspect ratio) wings, so dihedral in the canards allowed the least flutter, avoided vortex impinging on the leading edges and allowed better roll stability. however canard`s sizes are also limited by the flutter they generate but since they are ahead of the Center of gravity well a small size is affordable .

Aircraft with short span and a long fuselage are capable of high roll rates but also prone to inertia coupling like the F-5
All airplanes turn by tilting the lift vector (banking), then increasing the lift to cause a change in the direction of flight. Highly maneuverable fighter airplanes must have an ability to generate a small turn radius, but must also have an ability to quickly change the direction of the turn. This means that the pilot must be able to change bank angle (roll) very quickly to re-orient the lift to the direction of the desired turn.

Fighter aircraft with high roll rate capability often experience another coupling phenomenon known as “inertial coupling”. Inertial coupling may occur if there is a large difference between the roll moment of inertia and the yaw or pitch moments of inertia for the airplane. This is often the case for fighters which have short stubby wings (low roll inertia) and long fuselages with heavy engines, electronics, fuel, etc. (high pitch and yaw inertia). When such an airplane is exposed to high roll rates along the fuselage axis, the high mass concentration along the fuselage may cause it to behave like a “dumbbell”. The centrifugal force due to the roll will cause the nose and tail to try to swing out perpendicular to the rotation axis
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/nasroll.html

Flutter, drag and relatively low sustained turn rates are the drawbacks of delta canard designs.

The results are aircraft with good agility and high speed such as the J-10.

Tailplanes need relatively low deflections since they also are under the downwash of the wing and this generates a down force, tailpanes also are pitch and roll devices, so canards are not better in that sense the only real advantage a canard has is at high AoA allowing the wing to have extra low presure and attaching the flow to the wing effectively reducing the AoA.

The advantage of the tailplane is in flutter and drag and with LERXes well more or less get the best of the canard, nevertheless the LERXs also generates flutter and the F-18 suffered vortices flutter

Flutter Excitation
One of the most dangerous events that can occur in flight is a phenomena called “flutter”. Flutter is an aerodynamically induced vibration of a wing, tail, or control surface that can result in total structural failure in a matter of seconds. The prediction of flutter is not a precise science and requires flight verification that flutter will not occur within the normal flight envelope.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/nasflut.html

See the J-10 has short wings and a relatively long fuselage

MiG-23 MLD, thanks for posting the above article, as it is informative.

The canard is detrimental to both lift and static longitudinal stability. …. it is observed that for small vertical separations between the surfaces the forward portion of the wing is ineffective in producing lift.
From the above, I think it is referring to ‘wash’ over the wing, that leaves a low-pressure over the wing. So the wing gets “starved” of air to actually deflect it and create lift.

Note that this happens when the canards are deflected slightly, i.e. “for small vertical separations”, as described in the article.

It is demonstrated that the canard can directly affect the pressure distribution on the wing and application of this configuration to direct lift control and control configured aircraft are noted.

This above is the main function of the canard i.e. creating a low-pressure above the main wing to generate lift. However, the same property is detrimental to flaps and elevons of the wing which have to trim extra efforts at higher AoA to generate lift. I think this is ‘upwash’ (as downwash is high-pressure airflow).

Canard designs suffer large penalties in drag with low aspect ratio canard surfaces.
The above is the primary disadvantage of canards. The canards in J-10, Gripen, etc. are high-aspect ratio but which still provide 2-3% more drag than tailed designs, and further still than tail-less desings.

The canard also is the configuration with the highest drag, however since canards are usually smaller than tailplanes are still prefered by some companies than tailplanes, however the US and Russians used LERXes as canards substitutes on aft tailed designs.
To the above I may opine that like US and Russia, India also did not adopt canards for the Tejas. However, instead of LERXs, it added an andedral crank over the lower-swept portion of the wing, and which slopes upwards as it proceeds aft.

Abhimanyu

for an aircraft like the LCA no canards are needed but do not misunderstand aircraft design is part science part art and designers use different compromises to achieve the performance they need read this article and you will see that canards have advantages and disadvantages
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960047050_1996071178.pdf

And yet Saab and Dassault had the opposite conclusion.

No. The elevons would have acted as ailerons in the initial phase as the plane banks. But once the plane has fully banked, they could act in concert with the canards to increase pitch angle.

Elevons means the surfaces can act both as ailerons or elevators in different times.

The Eurofighter had a different system; by moving the canards as far away from the wing as possible, it reduces canard wash. By putting them in the front it also increases the control authority leverage. The Eurofighter has anhedral canards; the J-10/Lavi/Rafale/Gripen has dihedral canards.

I never seen the J-10 droop its canards like you claim. It would not have been mechanically possible.

The Russians have long concluded—back in the late fifties, starting with the MiG-19 in fact—that all moving control surfaces are the best way to maintain control at supersonic speeds, not control surfaces attached to a wing and which is subject to the trailing wave drag produced by the wing’s front edge and the boundary layer flowing across the wing’s surface. The US also came to the same conclusion in the sixties (although pioneers like Northrop knew that well ahead) though not after the Delta Dart, Starfighter, Phantom, etc,. had been designed and made.

In fact, the Soviet Union, Western Europe, and the US have all abandoned the pure delta form for one reason or another. Are you saying that the DRDO is smarter than all these countries collectively?

Large control surfaces do have increased drag.

How does that explain the short take off of the Gripen from highways then?

You are over exagerating the Eurofighter`s position any canard has advantages and disadvantages see

The Rafale has its canards quit close too its wings, this has to do with the influence they have upon the wing, too far from the wing also means less benefitial effects upon the wing.

The Canards in the Lavi have also dihedral but also they are far too close to the wings in fact over them see

The Eurofighter`s are not as close to the wings as those on the Lavi, the position has to do with drag/lift ratio, the best combination is high aspect canards low aspect wings check the Eurofighter has also strakes

in the chinese J-10 also the canards are not too far from the wing, however are not so close as those in the Lavi and Rafale, the J-10 follows the lines of the interceptor while the Lavi of a fighter attack aircraft, both the Eurofighter and J-10 have the least drag canard delta wing configuration specially good for a fast aircraft

the Viggen has low aspect wings and canards, these low aspect canards and wing are best configured for high lift, while the eurofighter`s are for low drag

LINK BETWEEN THE WING AND CANARD FOR FLUTTER REDUCTION

BACKGROUND

In the design of a canard airplane, it is desirable for the canard to have a large aspect ratio. For aerodynamic reasons, the plane will be faster and more efficient if the aspect ratio of the canard is larger.

however this configuration increases flutter
see
The combination of high speed and high aspect ratio increases the tendency to flutter. Flutter is fatal and cannot be tolerated. The maximum aspect ratio of the canard of a fast airplane is limited by flutter considerations, not loading considerations
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2007050073&IA=WO2007050073&DISPLAY=DESC

see this too

Canard designs suffer large penalties in drag with low aspect ratio canard surfaces
The situation is less favorable for canard designs. Although small canards of high aspect ratio produce least drag, large canards of small aspect ratio achieve the highest CLmax. Moreover, the sensitivity of CLmax and drag to canard aspect ratio leads to greater compromises in each of these areas than would be required for an aft-tail design.

http://aero.stanford.edu/Reports/MultOp/multop.html

Earlier I mentioned that landing distance of Gripen on civilian highways is short as it may use parachutes and flaps. However, flaps themselves are subject to “wash”. To offset it, canards are used in a near vertical position as shown in this photo of Gripen while it is taxiing.

MiG-23 MLD, in this “era” avionics may not matter much, as even JF-17 is scheduled to be installed with an AESA radar and state-of-the-art European avionics suite. Thus avionics are like “plug-ins”, and the platform in which they are installed — whether JF-17 or Typhoon — may be immaterial.

However, it can be safely mentioned that structurally and aerodynamically, Tejas is at par with the Typhoon as it is an unstable design, it is controlled by a flight-control system (that also controls the slats on each wing’s leading edge), and a high percentage of composites. As shown in the video posted by 21Ankush, Tejas can perform the entire range of manouevers with agility and speed.

Now regarding the Su-30 MKI, it has small canards that are fixed, and which are not in the pilot’s control. They trim automatically according to the receipt of airflow. The pitch authority remains on the rear tails. I think Su-30 MKI is the only plane to have canards as well as tails.

Abhimanyu

The LCA won`t be able to out maneuvre more modern fighters in my opinion, the Eurofighter is probably the fourth best fighter in the world, i rate it on par to the Su-35BM simply because both have the following technologies, supercruise and supermaneouvrability.

The SU-30MKI has moveable canards see

see they are used as yaw and pitch devices

http://www.airwar.ru/fighternow.html
However the Su-30 is a heavy fighter weighing more than twice a LCA at fully load, so the canards are not a big burden to the Su-27 which already weighs almots three times more than a LCA at MTOW and EW.

The LCA with so little control devices will of course be able to pitch, yaw and roll like any fighter, its Viggen`s style wing will retard vortex burst by delaying its formation and therefore flow separation. however its wings can not use flaps as freely as a fighter like the J-10 which already has canards trimming and adding extra lift when the flaps are deployed.

The LCA sensitivity to supersonic center of lift shift also is greater, its wing also lacks the extra lift a canard has nevertheless the LCA is not very fast, the J-10 is faster as fast a MiG-29.

The Canard and a delta wing are draggier than a tailess wing however the J-10 also has enough thrust to overcome their unconvinience see that the J-10 is at least 3000kg heavier and has a much more powerful engine.

Its true that the combined lift of a canard wing configuration is lower at cruise flight than the sum of individual lifts, however at high AoA the main wing has greater lift than it would have without it

*Gripen has an AOA of 50 deg. as a practice limit. That seems high compared to LCAs goal of 21. In the 1996 flight tests however the Gripen could do 110 deg. alpha. and still retain controllability. How is that possible, should´nt the aircraft be leaning backwards then?
Do you know the AOA numbers of other fighter aircrafts?

*http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/

BTW, a couple of sweet Viggen pics that clearly shows the cranked delta. The first one is from 1967 testflights and the 2nd one is wallpaper material 🙂

Many aircraft can overpass the 30 Deg AoA mark, however in operational use aircraft are more limited

I do not know in detail the numbers but for example the Viggen can over pass more than 30 degrees for sure but only in experimental tests the Viggen can be flown confortably up to 25 deg of AoA and only beyond 38 deg of AoA it will experiment departure tendencies.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013196_1987013196.pdf

then,The EC version of Su-24 will be heavier than others, my stand is consistant always.

I do agree some of Sukhoi`s data seem to be wrong, speed for example is quoted to only Mach 1.35 that is basicly the max speed at sea level, also internal fuel weight and MTOW seem to be higher than what is reported by the Ukrainian and Belarussian air forces and Yefim gordon.

However they are the manufacturer and therefore they have a lot of authority when it comes to the specifications.

However both aircraft the Su-24 and EF-111 must have similar fuel capacities, this means their ranges are good examples of the SFC of both aircraft and since their ranges are not very different they reflect the real SFC in operational practice