Possible trust vectoring system?

Distiller,

Unfortunately, Kurt Plummer never joined this place and hence he never was banned. Personally I would have loved to see him here. An engineer with an attitude… you know that I for one can appreciate that.

Don’t forget that posters who are considered valuable contributors can have quite a bit more room to play than people who only post a single question here or there. People who come here to learn are expected to be a bit more modest than the people who come here to share their knowledge/insight/experience/personality/wit… 😀

If I remember, it was not in AFM where Plummer got banned. It was the DefenceTalk forums.

I understand all of that, but the array literally is identical to the Phazotron example. To the last detail.

Because its all mathematics and physics like all wheels have to be round.

And its not identical to the last detail unless you can specifically measure the size and length of each slot and the space between the slots to the last millimeter. Heck if you can get those dimensions you will get the operating frequencies of the radar.

Just because an array is orange color its a copy of another radar that is also orange in color?

DO YOU KNOW WHY PLANAR ARRAYS ARE ORANGE IN COLOR?

Because its made of Ferrite which is an Iron based compound. Its the color of rust aka Iron Oxide.

Do you know why slotted arrays all got slots? That’s because the slots are wave guides and these size and spacings of the wave guides are determined by the frequencies used by the radar.

In other words, all slotted arrays look alike because functionality dictates them. Where they tend to be unique from one radar to another is the servo or gimball mechanisms behind them. These are the most complex mechanical part of the radar and determine its field of view and movement, as well as its scanning rate. If X radar is a copy of Y radar, the servo mechanism should be a copy of Y’s too.

Which in this case is not.

Do Chinese actually use mission-specific variant suffixes, except for the G? I’ve never seen them, only sequential ones (J-6IV, J-7E) or sometimes specific ones for export customers (F-7P). The one mission-specific variant suffix I know with Chinese designations is Z for recce, as in the JZ-8.

A further development of the J-11B would likely be J-11C. A -G suffix doesn’t make sense since it only seems to be applied to export aircraft, which is out of the question for the J-11.

As a matter of fact they do use mission specific suffixes. The J-8F for example. J-8H can mean either a strike version of the J-8F. The BVR capable J-7, the J-7FS with a Corsair like nose. The version of the KLJ-6E with BVR capability is called KLJ-6F.

G is generally applicable for everything from tanks like ZTZ-99G, to ships and submarines like the Type 039G. We also have the J-7G. Improvements to the G can be expressed as G1, G2, etc,.

M stands for export as in F-8IIM and the F-7MG, which is the export variant of the J-7G.

See, ADA concluded that for Tejas only, and likewise Dassault, SAAB, Chengdu etc. concluded otherwise for their own respective airplanes. It must also be noted that no American or Russian company has implemented either deltas or canard-delta planes.

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?

Thus, it may show that various design houses have varying opinions based on their own test-data. It may not be said that one design is superior to the other.

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.

Now, as mentioned earlier, the Rafale has actuator fairings visible for the outboard segment only (as shown in the schematic of top and bottom view), whereas none are visible for the inward segment. Thus, it apparently has airelons only. However, you may be right that elevons are present on some canard-delta planes as Gripen has elevons.

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.

See, the J-10’s characterictic frontal photo shows upright canards (I “morphed” the photo to remove them and posted the same on another thread). That is seen when the J-10 is taxiing only, but during flight they do “droop” as seen in this photo.

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.

See, to the above it may also be brought to notice that US and France atleast brought delta fighters into service, whereas none of the US and Russian companies “ventured” to canard-delta designs. Leave aside bringing into service, canard-delta planes were not even experimented with by these 2 nations.

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.

Canard-delta designs are the particular domain of 3 particular European companies only, and so cannot be taken as an industrial benchmark. As mentioned a few times earlier, the F-teens, Flanker and MiG series do not feature canard-deltas and are not wanting of performance.

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

In fact, I disagree that the delta has been “abandoned” by US and Russia, because the F-22 and F-35 can be reasonably termed as tailed delta planes. But there are no indications or plans of canards being added in their current or future projects.

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.

The above is true, however the advantage is a lesser trim effort needed. Small control surfaces like canards, have reduced drag at the expense of a larger trim effort needed to achieve the same objective.

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.

Firstly, it may be reiterated that as per the links posted by 21Ankush and myself earlier, it has been reported that canards were added, but later cancelled on the Naval Tejas as CFD flight-tests did not indicate enhancement in lift, stability or manoueverability.

And yet Saab and Dassault had the opposite conclusion.

Another explanation may be that suppose Rafale or J-10 needs to bank while executing a pitch. Thus, the canards will be deployed for pitch and the airelons for thr bank; had they been elevons acting in concert with canards, this manouever may not be possible.

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.

See, the above may be a measure to reduce the effect, however it may not have eliminated completely.

In this photo of Eurofighter, the canards are “drooped” as in ‘A’ and not in ‘V’ (the ‘V’ orientation is usually seen when J-10 is taxiing). In the photos off J-10 while in flight, the canards are not necessarily seen to be “upright”. To generate lift, they have to “droop”, which in turn may increase ‘wash’ over the wing.

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.

I agree with you that elevons are subjected to turbulence of the main wing and canards are subjected to ‘unhindered’ air first. However it must be noted that tails too are also subject to the “wash” of the main wing. But elevons are not subject to wash as they are part of the wing itself.

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?

It must be noted that elevons are also significantly “bigger” than canards as they span a larger width as seen in this video posted by 21Ankush. Thus, their effect on lift cannot be much lower than canards.

Large control surfaces do have increased drag.

As regards the landing distance of Gripen, it is true that it is configured to land on civilian highways also, which indicates a short-takeoff and landing capability. However, it may also be assisted due to parachutes, large flaps, etc.

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