crobatoBut they were still reliable and still got better TWR than F-18 and astonished the Swedes.
No. They are still not reliable, as they only improved reliabilty slightly. F-18 is heavier because they are more structurally rugged and tougher for carrier use than MiG-29. Yet F-18s can still turn inside MiG-29s (go ask the RMAF).
The Swedes are not astonished. Far from it.
Those are different Su-35/Su-37
Does not matter. Sukhoi uses the Su-35/37 term and for that it loses credibility. What is the “Su-35” five years from now?
u have serious problem in measuring wealth. Japanese got only $900b? with 160% debt to GDP ratio. Japan is poor nation in modern sense with both government and people in heavy debt. Can they have 13% flat income tax rate?. It is not important where Factory is located. U are still living in 16th century England by measuring wealth on Goods production location. Now Days wealth reside in cyberspace.
poor nation? Have you ever been in Japan? Compared to that to Russia, which is a slum by comparison.
Japanese average income is 33,000 US a year. Russians are only $12,000.
Ever thought who in London are putting this money in world largest IPO.
For this year, thanks to Russian oil.
So all those Microprocessors/Software of the world is built by Russians. Just
They are not built by Russians. Only in your delusion, by falsely alluding Russian immigration to Israel has something to so with Intel’s Israel unit.
look at those 2000 who are Desiging Dream liner. Japanese are merely subcontractors like Italians. Russians does not need to built things. They are providing the Scientific foundation to West(Again the same immigrants) which is building things in East Asia based on that Science. Asia will become Jobless if Russia does not create science for them.
What science did Russia create for Asia, eh? Did Russia design DSPs? Nyet. Did Russia design hard disk controller chips and mechanisms? Nyet. Did Russia design graphics chips? Nyet. Did Russia design RISC architecture controllers like PowerPCs and MIPS? Nyet. Did Russia design Athlon and basic Pentium architecture? Nyet. Did Russia design motherboard bus controller chips? Nyet. Did Russia design and build internet routers. Nyet.
Soviet Union was short of Money since 70s and Communist buerocratic system does not allow to concentrate on small things for improving human life
They have to Show big things like MIR space station. Okno Space tracking station, Buran Space Shuttle, An-225.
Space shuttle that did not fly hoho.
U dont have. u are just assuming.
No. I take up little bits of data from Chinese internet forums where information leaks occur.
It takes time to reveal things. and certain things are not for public anyway.
Let me see.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…ee-in-one.html
The revised published specification details the requirements. “We hit the bull’s eye with the AL-41,” Chepkin says, noting that the engine may have been conceived over 15 years ago, but requires only minor improvement to meet the revised specification. His estimate is that about 35% of the AL-41F’s research and development has been completed.
So they advertized in the last decade as if the AL-41 can be fielded and sold with Su-34 and yet, 15 years have passed and only 35% of its research and development is only actually been completed?
crobatoHow it is inefficient. It is much better than debt ridden western model.
Lol. The Russians were heavily in debt until oil prices went up.
US debt is in the government, not with the private enterprises. Japan’s debt is not carried by the corporations but by the government.
China also tried to convert state enterprises into civil products, and it proved to be a big money loser. China’s 1.2 trillion success rests mostly on other enterprises.
There are more deliveries in March and was shown other countries president. Everything completed by 2008.
Where?
Now why u are embrassing ur self now. Clearly the Journalist were briefed in April and from there the story starts.
Lol, a lot of stuff journalists say never come into fruition.
It is happening or not happening is another issue. But they tried to approach. It just show no confidence in Chinese engine just like tank engine.
Perhaps, China has to prove it to them. But nonetheless China does not appear continuing to install AL-31FNs on J-10s for the rest of the year. So Pakistan does not have much of a choice.
crobatoF)in fact even with relaxed stability the canards shows no advantage over the tailplane
Lol and yet the same article shows that with relaxed stability, the tailplane also has no advantage over the canard.
and you forgot this graph
Which does not show the effects of instability.
C)Canards sometimes are uncapable of trimming the airplane due to their smaller size (proof Su-27 can still do the Cobra at 120 deg with tailplane)
Lol. You are once again making generalities. Canards like the one in the Lavi are already 5m2 in area. Its still smaller than a tail plane but a tailplane has to compensate for the main wing backwash. 5m2 is still quite large by any means.
And your memory is always conveniently short that canard deltas still have rear aileron controls. In other words they can trim from both ends of the aircraft.
crobatoIt wasnt?
So what has FM engines anything to do with Saturn Project.
How not certified? when MIG-29K first flew with MK engines dont u think Russians were putting non certified engines on new aircraft?
Yup.
All of them.
oh really.
In that time period and price u can only get Smokey engine and It had short life but not un reliable as confirmed by the Germans which u chose to ignore.
The Germans derated the engines to get more life out of them, as it is already pathetically short.
Sukhoi has also been advertizing Su-35 and its simulators from 2006. So do u think it is false. They Know they can deliver in acceptable time frame. Which will be faster than any western manufacturure.
Lol Sukhoi has been advertising the Su-35 and Su-37 since 1999, despite that they cannot deliver on any contract within a year or so.
Average Japanese is much more in debt than Russian. 132% of household income. Just look at May 9 Wall street report. And now wealth is measured in Global scale. Just look at Israel/UAE/Saudi Arabia. they control wealth that is tens of times there own GDP. In Russia case u can multiply that by hundreds of times.
Oh bull. Japanese debt is held mostly by Japanese banks, not like Russia owing to the Chinese. So they have a handle on their own situation. Their foreign reserves should be at least 900 billion by now, and that’s all finished goods, not raw materials. Raw materials as a basis of economy tends to accent the haves and have nots, which is why there is a terrific class divide in Russia, since the people do not own the land resources.
It is low end commercial stuff for personal/business/household consumption. It is not abstract science. And none of the above brought there own science. They consumed what was Provided by West which they got From Eastern EU immigrants.
Bull. Your so called Russian abstract science does not translate to produce products that can be directly sold to the people and businesses in peace time. Without the test of certifiability and acceptability as true, actually working products of quality, abstraction can be a lot of hot air. Just a bunch of theory, not working principles. And what makes you think that Russian abstract science is better than Japanese, who have built more powerful Tokamaks for example, and managed to run controlled fusion much longer than the Russian equivalent. You have not even begun to get into things like robotics.
It is Japan that sold a 5 axis milling machine to Russia in the eighties, not the other way around, as the Soviet Union is unable to create the precision million machines needed to create super low cavitation skewed propellers. Where is the benefit of your “abstract science” now eh?
Not much bigger and heavier. u dont know the weight of J-10.
Actually I do have a very good range of its weight.
surely. keep entertaining.
Yeah entertain us more with your idiocy about engines built composites and modern warfare having little shrapnel.
crobatoTurn rates are not agility. Agility also means your roll rates. Remember, before you have to turn, you have to roll to bank for a turn. MiG-23 roll rate is not the best, compared to MiG-21.
crobatothat is again based on assumption that they need long term weopons export to begine with. They are fundamentally changing Militarly-Industrial complex to serve 80% of civilian needs. So u dont want technologies that gain give commericial competitive advantage in civilain field cheaply exported with military ones.
That’s what you call a vastly inefficient model.
but it was profitable. $1.3B for 24 aircraft. u get money not only from aircraft but also from pilot training, new infrastructure, weopons and add to that cement position among nautral resource producing countries. Same is true
No. They only bought two aircraft. Their total requirements is 24, but they have not fully confirmed on the rest. Otherwise all of them would be there by now.
It is not some wishfull thinking. Clearly direct confirmation with Russian Journalist and his source from Islamabad.
Wrong. There is no such confirmation. Just Russians making noises again. If I get a cent for things that Russian journalists say but didn’t happen, I’m a very rich man by now.
In the end, its not going to happen for obvious reasons, Indian pressure. Pakistan is lucky to get their first batch of RD-93s and there is no insurance in the future that obtaining more engines will be guaranteed. Just having a few engines does not mean the issue is over, clearly it will persist.
Pakistan once wanted to put Grifo radars on the FC-1; they got Chinese ones instead now. What you want before isn’t always what you’re going to get in the end.
crobatoSo Past, Present and future are the same? AL-41 was associated with MIG project. AL-37 became AL-31FP of MKI. J-10 contract order has nothing to do with Su-35/PAK-FA program.
AL-41 associated with MiG project? Lol.
All of whom are not certified engines.
J-10 project is the impetus that drove for certification of FM1 engine.
117S is first stage of two stage process towards 5Th generation engine. it has nothing to with any Flanker contacts.
Not certified also.
But all subsystems are certified on other platforms.
Some, not all.
Better than non existent M-88 of 1980s with one tenth the price.
Regardless does not change the fact that the RD-33 is a smokey and unreliable engine.
The can surely deliver much more advance missiles like Kh-65/101 in less than year if they want to and money is right.. show me a missile in world that weighs only 1500KG have 360KG warhead and have 3500km range.
http://www.royfc.com/news/sep/0505sep02.html
Irrelevant.
Does not change the fact that Sukhoi falsely advertised non existant capability.
Pre 1945 Japan got Science from Europe. It didnot send millions of highly educated people to West to build another scientific power. Even today Japan have zero outside scientific contribution. there are 1 million Russians in england alone with 21% of upper class housing.
What a joke, considering how Russia does not even come to a faction of IPR applications of Japan’s. Average income of Japanese per GDP is many many times over that of Russian.
In the west, when you see the labs in Silicon Valley, we see a lot of Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, Pakistani, Armenian, etc,. There is not that many, and quite few, Russians in proportion.
and it is also to carry 10 underwing weopon stations with much more space to carry bigger PGMs. which smaller wing of J-10 cannot do so.
And so, for a much bigger and heavier plane.
so no composites are used to build engines?
Must be news to you.
crobatoBecause of the unfavorable interference of the canard on the wing, asymmetries appear in these curves. The best aft-tail designs achieve 2% to 3% lower drag than canard designs, and although in each case relatively high aspect ratio tail or canard surfaces are preferred, the drag is insensitive to the aspect ratio of aft-tail. Canard designs suffer large penalties in drag with low aspect ratio canard surfaces.
And so, 2% to 3% increase in drag? And for what, stable static designs? This is more like a comparison with a Kfir with its winglet and a Mirage III without the winglet.
Read your own article carefully, and somewhere down the line it also says this
“Relaxing static stability results in canard and aft-tail designs with very similar performance.”
This is actually what you get with modern relaxed stability designs.
Aircraft with canards do have advantages and disadvantages, for example in the plus side is that the aircraft has two centers of lift and you can use a smaller canard airfoil to trim the aircraft nevertheless sometimes the smaller canard might not be able to control an instable pitch up movement due to its small size and in that situation a tailplane can be better and more useful because it is bigger, tailplanes also due to the wing wakes might be uncapable of controling a pitch down movement, in General modern aircraft with or without canards do have their advantages.
Sorry but the tailplane is affected by the wake of the main wing, thus it needs to be bigger to compensate what a smaller canard can do.
And canard deltas in practice, still have rear ailerons for control.
Thrust vectoring in modern tailplane fighters have proven to give better agility than aerodynamic controls
Not necessarily under high speed conditions (e.g. high transonic and supersonic).
and LERXes have proven to be as good as canards.
Not in reducing drag or preventing vortices from bursting in higher angles of attack.
crobatowhat is meant by Ultimate Prototype?
Sukhoi has clearly selected Saturn 117S engine for Su-35. Do u need more proof than that. why dont they select cheaper AL-31FM-1 from salyut?
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=855
Selected does not mean its certified. In the past, Sukhoi has selected AL-37, AL-41, AL-31FM1, -FM2, and none of them came to pass. They are only trying to certify -FM1 (testing does not cut it) to meet PLAAF requirements, just like what, starting in 2005, because you have a J-10 engine contract order?
Sukhoi won’t go through the expense and process of certifying something if that something isn’t inked in contract.
Su-35 isn’t certified by the way.
where i inflate them?
oh you always inflate your nonsense.
All this weight reduction materials, enchance engine, Quad digi FBW does not count? or u want to put delta wing.
Oh and did you check that the MiG-29K increased its weight?
I am clearly referring to MIG-29M of mid 1980s that 4600KG fuel. Not the standard MIG-29.
Which wasn’t operational.
and 95% of MIG-29s are powered by those early 80s RD-33. Compare current with current.
smokey engines with only 200-300 hours of service life.
Zhuk radar technology clearly comes from MIG-29M of 1980s. It is just
Which was far from perfect even in the mid nineties.
change of processoer in early 90s for ground attack. and russians are perfectly capable of putting anykind of seeker and software combination.
Sorry, but there is no air launched Kh-41 that is operational, in active service or in any form that you can ink a contract and deliver the next year.
Not a big deal. it is only the live structural tests that cost money. if some one has ordered it. They would have done it for them. Just like M2K-9 with BlackShine missile.
It is a big deal because it requires structural tests that costs time and money.
The point is u will never know when is some thing operational inside Russia and when they want to export and under what form. Sukhoi/MIG has plenty of flying labs. Just look at KH-555 history. In 1999 decision was taken and in 2004 it was in operational status.
Flying labs don’t mean certification.
No matter what u say. U cannot change history. The fact is Eastern EU was part of Russian empire and direct extension of Russian academy of sciences. From there the outflow of brightest people started to West especially to US. It is these people who led the scientific foundation and part the core Academia. since u have very shallow mind i will not go deeper into this. Just look at Israel as small example. I dont have to go over Nobel prize winners and science which was closed to outside world.
Who gives a ****.
Simply put Japan under Communist yoke for 80 years. they will be worst than North Korea.
Pre-1945, Japan isn’t that much better than Communist rule because they are under Fascist rule.
why not with so much larger wing and dorsal spine with 13 weopon stations.
The dorsal spine does not make it more aerodynamic and the larger wing is for landing and takeoff purposes for the carrier.
Those who are saying have alot more knowledge than some one like u who dont even know history of modern science.
Really, and you must be an idiot to think composites are used to build engines.
crobatohttp://www.kommersant.com/p763776/r_…peration_China
In the 1990s, many Russian defense enterprises were kept alive almost exclusively by Chinese contracts. Between 1992 and 2006, when total Russian arms exports amounted to $58.4 billion, China took delivery of about $26 billion worth military equipment and weapons. Today the situation has changed. “Russia has significantly expanded its arms deliveries geographically, so there is no loner a critical need for Chinese purchases,” explained Konstantin Makienko, an expert at the Center for the Analysis of Strategy and Technology. Last year and at the beginning of this year, large-scale agreements were reached with Algeria ($7.5 billion), Venezuela ($3 billion) and India ($2.6 billion) and contracts with Libya (up to $2.2 billion) and Syria ($2-3 billion) being prepared.
And yet all of them added up up, do not come close to a fraction of what the Chinese had purchased. And except for India, which has just been burned for another $113 million dollars for the extra cabling for that carrier, none of these countries are considered long term consistent buyers.
So what did Venenzuela buy? A couple of Su-30MK2s?
Kommersant is just voicing the Russian hope that the 36 J-10s PAF might be interested to order would have AL-31F. I don’t think the Pakistanis are going to be burned the second time. India may not be finished in applying the screws against Russia for exporting the RD-93, and so long that India has the capability to apply that political pressure—and they still certainly will—Pakistan cannot invest its eggs with the Russian basket.
crobatoThey pursured the concept and where did it end?
— At least 45 Marine aviators are dead in one of the worst attrition service records of US aircraft in recent history.
— Proved what? In all irony, since the F-35B and the Yak was mentioned, the S/VTOL system used on the F-35B is inspired from the Yak and not the Harrier.
— Whether or not it can deliver munitions and do it accurately is not the point. If the US wants a bizjet to do the same thing, they got the resources to make it happen.
— The whole Harrier concept is based on this line. “Because the aircraft was able to base closer to the forward edge of the battle area, it could respond quicker and didn’t require air refueling. It can do things other airplanes can’t do and can go places other airplanes can’t go.” Except that the whole concept of stacking aircraft around J-STARS, made that obsolete.
crobatoThe 3.10 graph makes very simple comparasion between the coplanar configuration and the non coplanar ones, they say that the high canard had better lift at high AoA, but of course Crobato for you is better to deny things to excuse your self, the study clearly explains that canards at cruise speed or in few words 0 deg of AoA do impose drag on the wing and in Chapter 5, they explain you that even deflecting the canard will increase lift in the canards but decrease lift in the wing.
Now the only excuse you can find is the article is too generalized, but not buddy the article gives you enough examples and comparations of coplanar and non coplanar canards.
Canards are good because they give more lift at high AoA and do help because an airplane with canards has two centers of lift and one ahead of the center of gravity, also the canard vortices do delay the stall of the main wing nevertheless they come with a cost of drag due to the canard wake and this reduces the total lift of both airfoils (canard and delta wing)
In fact if you look at the Figure 3.19 you will see that the high canard creates vortices at relatively low AoA and they help the wing while the Low canard does not create a well formed vortices due to the fact their vortices impact below the wing reducing the lift of the wing even further
You are the one in a friggin denial binge. You never answered the question. You keep showing figures and charts that don’t answer the question? Who do you think you’re trying to fool here, huh? Where is your proof that vertically offset canards affect the main wing lift?
The article does not cover it. I looked through the article and I don’t see it. And you can’t point out them either. Find the page and the paragraph. The charts in article covers mainly coplanar close coupled arrangements, an arrangement that is not in existance with any canard military aircraft in the world. This work seems more in relation to the X-36 than with an actual military fighter.
crobatoI clearly said development was complete. I didnot said that it was ordered by Soviet Airforce just like MIG-29K of that time. Soviet airforce has alot of choice and time. they didnot need Multirole fighter that badly.
Bull. Where is the proof of that? You play on articles then make extrapolations on it. You still have not shown me PROOF of certification of 14.5ton thrust engine either.
You are just cherry picking details, and then inflating them.
Why dont see clear statements by MIG that Aerodynamics were improved even in 1986 and now further in 21st century.
Oh puhleeze. And how does that apply to the MiG-29 when there is no significant change in the exterior wise.
That 4600kg fuel is for mid 80s MIG-29. It has nothing to do with current
Bull. For mid 80s MiG-29, the internal fuel capacity is only 3.3 to 3.5tons.
http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/mig29.htm
MIG-29K/MIG-35. more weight/less efficient engines? any proof for that. show me range of Rafale on interanal fuel? Even in 80s RD-33 has more thrust than M-88. this 8 hard points old MIG-29M. current MIG-35 even uses 10 weopons stations on wings and certainly more fuel than MIG-29K.
RD-33 has far less life, and a lot smokier than M-88. Smokey engines are world infamous for the MiG-29.
Sunburn is expensive missile and nothing wrong on displaying it and any modern zhuk/bars can do it.
Then you are a liar like Sukhoi then. No Su-33 in 1997 has Zhuk and BARS, and Zhuk and BARS both cannot fire Moskit, since the missile never went past initial prototype stage. So why pretend trying to sell it?
and how do u know about KH-59MK development. certain things are slow to release for export even if there development is complete.
What, are you going to claim that the Kh-59MK was operational in 2001? When the Su-30 bort 502 was sporting them in the wings in display in the Paris Airshow 2001?
Do u think Japanese/American can design a 4th generation aircraft without computers that are available to them. Soviets did it when they had hardly access to modern computers and software. there is just different level of intellectual capabilities. u have to read that history of Russian science to understand these things. Just look at those 10 million that fled to West before and after 1917.
Oh I see, American and Japanese engineers are dumbfks while Soviet ones are the brightest. (And despite that it was the Japanese and Americans that pioneered cocuring and cobonding techniques).
Glad to see you have a racist explanation once again, when you have demonstated total technological incompetence in handling the question.
u should put this common sense issue on one side. and it isnt going to cost billions that ur making into it. that is totally different method of Research and development. and that is totally different generation of composites for 5th generation. they are for 50 years and takes alot of stress due to internal weopons. No limitations on Gs with full load and Stealth across all three bands.
MIG-29K uses 15% composites. Did it price rise compare to MIG-29SMT?
Oh and that 15% composites improved the plane’s weight huh?
Composite is the single most important issue both for aircraft and engine.
Wow you actually think that a gas turbine can be built with composites internally. Lol.
crobatoActually proven what?
– When the plane has is forced to lift loads, guess what? It has to take off conventionally. It doesn’t VTOL with a heavy load. So what’s the point of the concept again?
– Did I ever mention to you that vertical takeoff with thrusters on the ground do wonders for the condition of the pavement?
– The country that originated it, chose not to pursue the concept. So much for proving the concept.
– Of two other countries that used the concept, both of whom are not pursuing a direct replacement for it. So much for proving the concept.
– Beyond that, no one is looking to buy it for the last two decades or so. Hardly an export success. So much for proving the concept.
– No one is looking to buy used planes of this, whereas used markets still exists for the Mirage III, Floggers, Jaguars, and F-5E. Again, so much for proving the concept.
– The plane has a terrific high wing loading. For something that weighs about an F-16 roughly, its got wings smaller than a MiG-21. Put enough ordinance on it, and the plane turns like a milk truck.
– Vertical take off has proven to be quite tricky and dangerous. A Harrier does not have the same kind of controllability a helo does. A slight tilt in the nozzle it goes to one direction and other. Very sensitive. For that matter it is also very sensitive to winds during vertical take off and landing.
– Put the two together, and you have a plane that is not easy to fly by any means. It requires a very specialized and skilled pilot, combining the abilities of a fighter pilot with a helicopter pilot. Should a pilot of such skills and abilities better invested elsewhere? What happens if these pilots get killed or maimed? The Harrier is not noted for its safety records.
– Whatever happened to the Navy doctrine of putting two engines for safety? The Harrier only has one.
– This difficult to fly package has to be matched by high maintenance. So yes, I wonder what kind of high mission availability the plane gets, and how that is maintained in rough bases. Despite what you said, much of the mission generation in the last four campaigns are overwhelmingly dominated by conventionally landing and takeoff aircraft. I believe the Harrier suffered the highest attrition rate for any aircraft in Desert Storm, and in GW2.
– Because of the nozzles, the heat is centered in the middle of the aircraft, not on the tail. This greatly increases the hazard of the aircraft against IR guided SAMs and AAMs.
– The huge intake, means huge RCS for easy detection of the enemy. Yet the plane is not fast enough to avoid trouble.
– I wonder what kind of “areas” specifically the USMC can alone reach with ‘forward deployment’ of S/VTOL jets that is not in reach of USN carrier jets and USAF long range jets, or USAF jets assigned in neighboring allied or collaborating countries. There was none in Iraq. There was none in Serbia. There was none in Afghanistan.
– Those big intakes have a strong appetite of ingesting particulate matter in rough strips.
– When you create a S/VTOL variant of the F-35, the changes mean the plane will have some logistical variances with the USN, USAF and Allied version of the plane. These will bite you in the ass because you have to bring logistics to cover these variances.
– The effect these variances create will only raise the overall price of the plane, so that everyone pays for it.
– If you need on the dot CAS support for land forces, one word delivers it better: Apache.
crobatoCrobato
You pretend you have read the article and you pretend the article does not say it well buddy what about if you read the chapter 3 in the 3.2 figure where it clearly states that the canard rests lift to the main wing, however since it also has lift of the canard the total lift is almost unchanged below an AoA of 6 deg compared to the canard off configuration, however after 6 deg of AoA the canard on aircraft exhibits an increase in lift compared to the canard off aircraft.
And if you read the article it is talking of a coplanar canard. Boy, 6 degrees of deflection, you think that’s big?
If you use the little bit of logic and read the article you can understand that since both configuration have the same lift at angles below 6 deg of AoA despite the canard on has the extra canard area and lift you understand the drag is resting lift to the total lift area of the canard on configuration.;)
The Canard on configuration is getting only more lift after 6 deg, use the logic a J-10 or Gripen also have down wash and their canards do rest lift from the wing however the J-10 and JAS-39 at high AoA have an extra lift.
Boy, you think that a mere 6 degrees of deflection is a big thing do you?
The Fig 3.3 even gives you the proof that the wing in a canard on gives you less lift than in the canard off configuration
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960047050_1996071178.pdf
You know, you are using a theoritical model trying to justify universals.
Take a look at Figure 1.4, and you can see he is using nothing but a coplanar canard layout.
Which makes this study irrelevant when it comes to high offset or biplanar canards.
None of it shows relationship to the size and sweep of the canards, the size and sweep of the main wing. What makes you think this would be relevant to something like the Su-30MKI or Su-33? These would require their own seperate analysis, which may not apply here.
check the chapter 3.1.1
Oh, and I read it, and all it talks is a coplanar canard.
Read the article and you will understand why the J-10 has canard in a high position, the fig 3.10 (a) shows you the high canard such as the one of the J-10 has better lift drag ratio than the coplanar canard on the Su-33, and that is the reason the J-10 has an offset non coplanar high canard configuration above its wings
So, where is the drag on the biplanar canard against the main wing which you so claim about?
The article has little relationship with actual designs.
Sign In
