arquebusPoor comparison. Both the M2000 and the Tornado weren’t available until after the Islamic revolution in 1979.
good point, I guess for the mid 70s those jets were the best they could get
I don’t know why you posted your chart of all those aircraft types above – proof of just how easy it is to keep American types in service I should think.
are you serious? even without the nuclear sanctions, Iran is currently rated as the worst foreign threat to the US…..you really think Iran wants to be using american a/c for their frontline defence?
arquebusThe shah was given a choice between the tomcat and the eagle
really? if true he was an idiot to take the F-14
arquebusWhat if Iran bought F-15s instead of F-14s?
The US wouldnt have sold them, they had a hard enough time selling F-15s to Saudi Arabia against Isreals objections. Iran having US equipement for their AF turned out to be a major mistake….you know they loved relying on Isreal for F-4 spares. If Iran bought Mirage 2000s or Tornadoes, they would be in much better shape now.
their current AF strength made up of:
F-4……..65
F-14….. 20
F-5……..60
Mig-29…..40
Mirage F-1……24
arquebusTyphoon (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
arquebusbut 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.
arquebusScorpion82- 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
arquebusNow you lost me..:confused:
Pls provide some sources or explain this further..Do you know when the first Russian FBW system on a fighter was official put into service..?
no I dont know when the first russian FBW system was put into service, I havent kept up on military aviation the last few years, but Im sure that russian next generation jets being worked on will be FBW. But the mig-29 and su-30 is not
arquebusWHAT?!? :confused:
Do you know what a deep stall actually is?
I look forward to you explaining how a canard configuration can experience unrecoverable deep stall.
very easily actually. All the eurocanards have thrust to weight ratios less than unity, so unrecoverable stalls are a major area of concern as they cant power out of them. Keep in mind the eurocanards are all FBW, a computer is both steering and stabilizing the a/c, the the pilots input is only telling the computer where to go. This is why the F-18 has to be launched off a carrier on autopilot, the jet is pitching back and forth to try and maintain stability balanced between lift and speed. A pilot cant know which pitching movement is being caused by the jets FBW computer and and which is caused aerodynamically so they just give all control to the plane.
Back to the point of deep stalls: All the eurocanards have CoL of the main wing behind the CoG, with the canards much smaller area ahead of CoG, so the canard is contributing lift to balance, but a very small amount. Although the size of the canard is very small in relation to the wing, it is positioned very far forward of the CoG for better leverage requiring less drag inducing AoA. This means CoL of main wing and canards is balanced squarely over CoG and so the a/c will not pitch down in a stall. And the eurocanards cant fly out of a stall because….theyre stalled, the wings and control surfaces have lost aerodynamic control, neither does the FBW computer know whats forward at such drastic speed loss and lack of indicated AoA. And as I mentioned, they cant power out of a stall because of their sub-unity thrust to weight ratio.
The situation is even worse in non-FBW canard jets like the viggen. Such a jet cannot be controlled aerodynamically at anything but the slightest AoA and therefore the plane must land without an increased AoA using autothrottle to control speed of decent and make a brutal non-flare landing.
The IAPO made Flankers with its carnards, aka MKI is second to none when it comes to recovering ability.
keep in mind the current generation of mig-29/su-30 family of jets are not FBW by design, these jets would not be able to manuever like they do with artificial stability and would become uncontrolable in maneuvers like the cobra. The thrust to weight ratios being well in access of unity is a major factor in these jets maintaining control when stalled.
arquebus:confused:No matter how hard I look, I don’t see substantial differences in shape of the wings of the JAS39 and Rafale..
After looking at line drawings of the rafale and gripen, I have to admit the plane shape of the wing is almost identical as well as the placement of the wing in relation to the fuselage. So I’ll admit Im wrong, and will remember to not go by memory but verify statements I make about a/c next time.
arquebusIf the F-35C fails completely, we’ll still have the option of buying Rafale (it’ll still be in production for France), & F-18E production will be extended. Therefore, we don’t need to jump in early in case JSF goes totally ****-up.
Why would UK buy Rafales? Cant they make a carrier version of their Typhoon?
arquebusTraditional canard design for stability and control places the CG between the center of lift (CL) for the wing and canard. This makes the canard statically stable with the forward and aft wings producing up forces. NASA tutorial
By removing the canard without adjusting the CG, the trim forces are unbalanced. If the CG is too far from the wing’s CL, there probably isn’t enough control authority in the elevons to produce a balancing force.
The information you give is true for conventional canard aircraft, not FBW. Conventional aircraft put the CoG ahead of the CoL so that the a/c will stall properly. A FBW a/c is artificially (electronically) stable and so the CoG can be put directly on the same point as the CoL of the Wing. This greatly reduces the control forces that have to be imparted to change the AoA of the wing and which is why a FBW jet is order of magnitudes more maneuverable than a conventional jet. Now more to the point of the original question:
In case of battle damage: Can the Eurofighter be flown without the canards?
Or: Was it ever tested with fixed or removed canards?
Can any of the Eurocanards?
First of all, when you say “without canards” Im going to assume that means completely removed, because canards stuck in even slightly non-neutral AoA would make the a/c uncontrollable. As far as removed, the answer would be that the delta winged canards like the eurofighter and rafale can because they have delta-wing shape which is inherently stable, where as the gripen could not because it (very unwisely) chose a conventional wing shape that offers no stability. This is why the gripen has had problems with “deep stalls” whereas the eurofighter and rafale has not.
arquebusif you want more range for a transport aircraft, it would be no problem putting that extra fuel inside the fuselage. generally speaking, transport aircraft are designed to carry the maximum payload possible, you cant just keep adding fuel beyond the weight it was designed to carry. it is very common for transport aircraft for example on aircraft carriers to carry nothing but fuel inside their cargo hold so they can fly extra long missions
arquebusAs of now UCAVs are only used for reconnaissance. The closest they have been used as strike aircraft is the Tomahawk missile which is a jet powered aircraft. The size of the Tomahawk should be increased so it carries enough fuel to fly back to base and be recovered. A UCAV will NEVER be used as an air superiority fighter unless you consider AA missles to be rocket powered fighters. How would a UCAV identify enemy vs friendly aircraft especially in crowded hostile airspace? And there is the factor of air safety, even with well trained pilots there are hundreds of military air crashes every month all over the world. Well imagine if fighters were autonomously or remotely controlled and flown through civilian airspace, that would be a huge increase in air crashes and resulting liability. There is just no need for a UCAV fighter aircraft. Even with huge increases in artificial intelligence and environmental sensors it will never come close to doing the job a human pilot can do.
arquebus27vet- Thanks for that info. 1/10 is not too bad for a 172. Im pretty sure that the biggest factor is whether the prop is variable pitch or not. I think the glide ration for the Windex 1200 motorglider goes from 20 to 36 by adjusting the prop pitch. I heard the Cessna 152 has pretty much the same wing as the 172 so it probably has much better glide ration due to its lighter weight.
arquebuswhat are the isrealis using for jet trainers, are they still using the Magister? or have they gone all prop training with the Texan II?
I find it hard to believe the isrealis cheapout so much on their trainers considering how much they value their AF and how well the Magisters served in the 6th Day War. I would think they would want the best trainers they can get
Sign In
