After Venezuela also Iran?? Ouha. We need a lot of more Eurofighters and F-22s.

The Eurocanards are based on the Wright Flyer? I knew it! Man, those Europeans have no clue … you’d have thought that they’d at least have tested the delta-canard configuration before they decided to adopt it!

Wright flyer was only a pure copy of Leonardo da Vinci´s inventions developed IN EUROPE 500 years ago 😀 😀 😀 Oh that Americans… Why they didnt create something original?

And I’m not necessarily disagreeing with however nobody has offered an alternative explanation. It’s a given that designers have known about canards forever so why did everybody decide NOW was the time to put them on and then “whoops maybe not”?

Why yes then – progress in digital flight control systems and idea to build agile, statically unstabile plane – FSW with canards or delta with canards.
Why not now – stealth downgrade, the same can do TVC or adaptabile flight control system.

I like your idea that you dont want to know only facts, but also connections and answers on Why? question. But your construction with copying is (at least I think) highly improbable.

Time will tell with the Russians. If PAK-FA has a canard then I’d agree with you. If it doesn’t then what? Both MiG and Sukhoi had canards on their MFI and now they get rid of it? Must have been lacking in some regard then wouldn’t you think?

PAK FA is build by Sukhoi and Sukhoi in fact didnt answer to MFI specifications, because Jevgenij Ivanov thought, that Su-27 and its modifications is the fighter for the next decade. The only two real contenders were MiG and Yakovlev. Only minister of aerospace industry Ivan Silajev forced Sukhoi to submit something, so they decided to submit pure experimental plane S-32 with no real attemt to create from it a heavy fighter for serial production. Also later redesigned S-37 Berkut was and is nothing more than technological demonstator to develop TECHNOLOGIES for 5th generation fighter – its not 5th generation fighter for operational units itself. Regarding to MIG – if everything went well, then now we can see canard/delta MiG 1.42 above our heads in Russia to rule the sky.

Many of those points are arguable. The Mig-31 and Mig-25 most likely have higher top end speeds (certainly the Foxbat does) and nobody would argue that the 3D TVC equipped Flanker and Fulcrum are more manueverable at airshow velocities (below 300mph or so) but that’s about it. I’d be interested in hearing your arguements on any other claim.

Weapon load (Eurofighter, Su-27 family), different types of weapons (Eurofighter, Su-27 family, F-16E/F, maybe also SuperHornet, but with the last one I am not sure), range with/without fuel tanks (Su-27 family)……. I know that some performances of F-22 are only general and relased for the public, but then why do you think that for example Russians said everything exactly about Su-35 performances?

You of all people should know that while the Rafale and Typhoon were in their genesis that the press was positively littered with canard-equipped ATF designs.

Totaly agree with that statement. But completely disagree with cause of it. I understand from your words that you are saying “because american press published ATF designs with canards, everybody copied it”. Correct me if I am not right. But this sound silly. Delta/canard configuration was very popular in late 70s, early 80s not because american journalists wrote about it, but because it was era with improving flight control systems, new composite materials, idea to create staticaly unstabile plane with sophisticated FBW etc. THATS THE REASON. In that time the way to create the best plane was to take titanium/aluminium/composite delta wing (good for high speeds), combine it with canards (good maneuvrability and benefits from staticaly unstabile concept), FADEC powerful engine/engines and you have it.

The final proposal was the one without the canard

I think I shoud write more exactly what I mean, because it is a bit complicated. I will use the example from Boeing. The basic JSF proposal from Boeing was generaly made from AVX-70 design (http://www.hitechweb.szm.sk/xjsf3.htm). Till november 1996 (when decision was made), it developed to the design 988-370 which we know now as Boeing X-32 (X-32A was made under 988-371 and X-32B had wing from 988-372, but its a detail). But as development progressed, it became more and more clear that their JSF needs also horizontal tail surfaces, redesigned air intakes, different nose part, some mix of delta and swept wing, etc. etc. etc. As the result I can say, that the final model 988-374 (in fact JSF proposed for serial production) was completely different plane compared to X-32. Pics here: http://www.hitechweb.szm.sk/xjsf3.htm

With the same point of view Northrop/MDD/BAe submitted their JAST10 design in november 1996, but if they were selected, only the X demonstrator should look like JAST10. Their JSF developed for serial production (like Boeing model 988-374) look much more like X-36 than JAST10 and had canards. Thats what I said. Their proposal JAST10 dont have them, but if MDD was selected in november 1996, then their final JSF will have them. I have one picture (not official) of it here: http://www.hitechweb.szm.sk/xjsf2.htm, just under banner MDD X-36. Its not very accurate but its something that I can publish.

@ Canards: Needed after TVC? The long canard works but it makes fuselage structures heavy, is a dog for area ruling, obstructs view from cockpit. And the short canard – I don’t know. Sukhoi added it to the 27, but MiG can do all the tricks with TVC alone, so canards are probably not worth it.

After TVC not. But before TVC? We are discussing era sometime between late 70s and early 80s. Thats also the answer for PAK FA. Why to use canards when they have AL-41F? And remebmer that PAK FA was launched in 1999 compared to MFI – twenty years before. Some things progressed already.

So has the US they just never put them into service. Early F-108, XB-70, Ascender, Lockheed L-1000, hell the Wright Brothers Flyer. Nothing special about canards except with the exception of the Viggen nobody put them into service and then all of a sudden EVERYBODY has them on their designs? You don’t see anything unusual about that?

I see. Digital FBW system and its ability to add improved maneuvrability to the fighter. All planes that you mentioned (L-1000 etc) were statically stabile.

not too sure wat is it about the shuttle and lavi clone…

To copy the worst american design – Space Shuttle was the most stupid POLITICAL decision ever! Some peope in Moscow thought that they dont want to waste a time with smart MiG Spiral or MTKVA and they decited to build something bigger, more impressive or more gorgeous to comptete with imperialists. We all know how american and russian shuttles ended.

and although it seems there is a copying conspiracy, but we are talking about the most sophisticated flying machines here, these are flying systems with so many complex technical challenges involved and so much cost involved to just copy someone’s drawings… dont u think?…

Thats the point! I am always laughing with the idea that I will take some guys to my garage, we copy the external shape of YF-23, put two powerful engines inside and then it will fly like YF-23.

There was some speculation going around years ago that maybe everybody got suckered :diablo: Almost every ATF concept realeased for public consumption had a canard. None of the REAL proposals did. Then everybody starts working on their new projects: Rafale, Lavi, EFA (Typhoon), Mig 1.42, S-37, Gripen and so on, all with canards. Then the YF-23 & YF-22 are rolled out, a NASA paper (I think it originated at NASA) comes out that says at typical fighter conditions a traditional tail is a better solution than a canard, and out comes the quote thst the best place for a canard is on someone else’s aircraft.

I agree that there is a big difference between artists drawings for public and real proposals, but what you wrote looks for the rest of the world like, you know, “we dont have our own development capabilities so we must copy everything from Americans”. I think that the MiG 1.44 or Eurofighter look like they look because their creators were certain of that this is the best solution for what they want to do. And this was based on their own research and selection.

Now, we are in point that I dont like to discuss about – what is the BEST fighter. Because in fact F-22 isnt the most agile, or fastest, or the longest endurance and distance or the biggest useful payload, etc. etc. etc. fighter. Its “only” the most stealthiest fighter currently in service. Yes (nearly I forgot) – and the most expensive 😀

I also disagree the idea that Eurofighter has canards because someone in Europe saw public ATF drawings. Concept of what is now Eurofighter was crystalising nearly 25 years (what a pity 🙁 ). Just look at date when ECF (European Combat Fighter) was born.

None of the three JSF entries has a canard.

Its not true – once again public vs. real proposals. The final MDD/BAe/Northrop proposal had canards. Its different compared to JAST-10 (shown for example at http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_photo_cddr_mda-ngc-bae.htm) and looked more like X-36. My biggest argument should be cutaway of that plane, but unfortunatelly for some reason I cant publish it.

Now I just want to see Warhog at Ramstein 😀