Well, its possible, but very debatable. I would be willing to accept a close couple canard would add to Clmax automatically, but on Typhoon, canards are just too far away to provide a meaningful vortex at high AOA.
In fact, Typhoon has two additional vortex generators to mitigate that.
Such canards would work better when aircraft is supersonic, making maneuvers that require little AOA, but I may be wrong, and there can be improvements on subsonic regime as well, I don’t know. In any case, airfoil itself is thin, you can improve it only to a degree, its not logical to expect Cl to go anywhere above ~1,2.
Agreed, then Su-27 has triple shock variable inlet ramps, so it can also give an edge when high and supersonic; nothing is exactly clear on this one.
Not all vortices are always visible and if you look carefully you can just see a feint vortex under the left canard in the bottom picture. Top picture, nothing too wrong with how it’s working. The other vortex generator you mention is more for body lift.
Eurofighter were pushing this mod that might have brought it upto F-16 class :p
Adding leading edge root extensions and extended trailing edge flaps, and reshaping the side-of-cockpit ILS antennae covers as 70° delta strakes should improve the aircraft’s agility for close-quarters combat.Laurie Hilditch, head of future capabilities at Eurofighter, says the modification kit should give the aircraft the sort of “knife-fight in a phone box” turning capability enjoyed by rivals such as Boeing’s F/A-18E/F or the Lockheed Martin F-16, without sacrificing the transonic and supersonic high-energy agility inherent to its delta wing-canard configuration.
That’s probably more for Storm Shadow carriage than dog-fighting. AoA would benefit too though. Swiss thought the a/c performance was more than fine as is.
F-16? Okay now.
I’ve read the report multiple times. There is NOTHING about specific performance numbers. The performance based on the OCA/DCA mission performance. It does not mean that the Typhoon has superior turn performance, nor does it mean inferior. Simply put, there is nothing to support either in the Swiss Eval, except that the overall aircraft performance on the missions was superior.
What numbers are you using? Wiki? The F414 produces 14,770 lbs in intermediate and 21,890 in wet thrust. The EJ2000 is very similar at 13,500 and 20,250. These are the manufacturers numbers. There is no credible report that he EJ2000 has a war emergency power setting the pilot can activate similar to some Migs. What the typhoon starstreak site stated was:
Like any engine, that means simply, that engine can produce more thrust at higher operating temps at the cost of engine life. There is nothing to suggest that the pilot can control this or that any air force would allow it.
Note also, add 5% to the stated 20,250 lbs of thrust. What do you get? Simply put, the Ej2000’s thrust is known.
BTW, I’m not arguing that the Su-35 has a higher sustained turn performance than the Typhoon. I’m saying your reasoning is flawed. Your trying to compare wing loading of canard/delta wing to that of cropped delta/tail planform. I shouldn’t have to explain why using simple wing loading numbers do not support that the Typhoon would have superior sustained turn performance
.
That is the point, they were both designed without high lift devices, and neither likely have significant body lift. So, obviously the Mig-21 with it’s larger wing will have superior turn performance as most speeds/alt.
What? what are you comparing? I was talking about to similar wings one with leading edge root extensions and one without. Which one is going to generate more lift as AoA increases?
Right, so how did the Typhoon get 30% ahead of the Rafale if it was just down to a slight speed or climb advantage say? Clearly it must have been better over a range of parameters.
Says 13,000lbf on wiki and 14,000lbf here. Either way, the wet/dry ratio is >1.5. As it is for most Flankers and the like too.
http://www.sps-aviation.com/story_issue.asp?Article=731
That seems to be exactly what it suggests.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081231141150/http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html
Overall the EJ200 employs a very low By-Pass Ratio (the ratio of air which bypasses the core engine or compressor stages) of 0.4:1 which gives it a near turbo-jet cycle. Such a low BPR has the benefit of producing a cycle where the maximum attainable non-afterburning thrust makes up a greater percentage of total achievable output. At its maximum dry thrust of 60kN (or 13,500lbf) the EJ200’s SFC is in the order of 23g/kN.s. With reheat the engine delivers around 90-100kN (or 20,250-22,500lbf) of thrust with an SFC of some 49g/kN.s.
Well that’s just as well, because you haven’t explained it. I was the original one who made the comparison either. Whilst wing loading and TWR isn’t everything, it certainly isn’t nothing either and when the differences are this huge, one really has to question exactly how they can be undone by other aspects.
Whilst the F-16 could achieve higher STR than a Mirage 2000 due to the M2000’s poor TWR, ITR was not higher. Even with the 25% advantage in TWR, the F-16 only manages marginally better STR of around 10% at 0 PS and 5% at -800PS. The lower wing loading did give an advantage of some 4deg/s peak. Now if the Mirage 2000 had 29,000lbf of thrust instead of 21,400lbf, no doubt it would have won on STR too. Now factor in inherent instability margin and canards on top of a 1.2:1 TWR and that kind of wing loading and you get the picture.
Wing area generally tends to include the part of the body that adds lift and we’re again comparing two planes built in the modern era, well actually the Typhoon is much newer in design to boot.
They will both generate more lift as AoA increases and canards area help keep airflow attached at high AoA. Can the Typhoon pull the same AoA as an Su-35? Nope, but that kind of AoA frankly isn’t useful for ITR and certainly not for STR. The Typhoon can easily make sufficient AoA that makes AoA a moot point in any turn rate comparison (see 1:30).
Sign In
