This may help – How the Canards work as explained to me by a Typhoon pilot.

The foreplanes are not actually physically connected in any way, but in practical terms they can be thought of as being connected. There are in perfect sync all the time, there is absolutely no asymetry at all generated by them. The flight controls of Typhoon are an engineering marvel to me. The tolerances are incredible and the cross monitoring that goes on is staggering – it has to be so because the aircraft is so unstable.

In a stable aircraft the moving control surfaces are used to make the aircraft manoeuvre. In an unstable aircraft the moving control surfaces are used to “stop” the aircraft from manoeuvring. The center of lift and the center of gravity are such in an unstable aircraft that any disturbance is going to result in a huge divergence. In a C150 or B747 such a disturbance would be naturally damped out.

If you look at any pictures of Typhoon in a hard turn you will see that the foreplane is actually leading edge down (ie against the turn). What has happened is that from the S+L condition the foreplane has briefly “let go” allowing the aircraft to pitch up and has then “caught it” again before the jet has swapped ends.

If you fly Typhoon in a gusty day, you have the stick in the middle (ie no manoeuvre demand) and the foreplane is constantly moving to counteract the gusts, in the cockpit the result is an incredibly smooth ride. While the Hawk or Tornado is being thrown all over the place!!

So to summarize, Typhoon pitch control comes from a combination of symmetrical foreplanes and trailing edge flaps. Roll and yaw contol come from a very clever combination of differential flaperons and rudder. An even more clever schedule of leading edge slats is used to optimise the lift and trim drag throughout the flight envelope.

Cheers

On the question of the typhoon foreplane positon :-

Foreplane

In regard to the foreplane, when factors such as aircraft layout, access, visibility from the cockpit and the aerodynamic interference with the wing are taken into account, then only two positions for the foreplane remain viable for further evaluation. These are forward and low or high and aft, using the wing plane and leading edge apex as a reference.

Extensive investigation over a period of years prior to defining Eurofighter had shown that intermediate positions were disastrous, regarding the aerodynamic interference with the wing, due to inadequate separation of the surfaces. Consideration of aircraft performance dictates the maximum possible instability to avoid excessive induced drag penalties, which leads to the requirement for foreplane volume.

These are the two solutions we see in the Typhoon and the Rafale/Gripen, low and forward or high and aft.

The minimum induced drag occurs with a level of instability equivalent to about 16% of the mean aerodynamic chord, which is approximately twice that that the FCS can cope with. The high AoA recovery, i.e. the ability to pitch the aircraft down from high angle of attack, whilst at low speeds, dictates that the configuration should be neutrally stable with the foreplane off, which is equivalent almost to an unloaded foreplane. This dictates that the foreplane volume has to be such as to generate around 8% m.a.c. instability at low speeds. A low forward foreplane position then results in the smallest foreplane area, with a consequent benefit on supersonic drag.

Further, at the level of instability chosen for the aircraft,there was little effect on maximum lift of either position, whilst for a less unstable aircraft, a high aft foreplane does provide some benefit on lift. Further, the low forward foreplane is more effective as a control surface,with consequent benefit for nosewheel lift, trim and manoeuvre capability. This increase in effectiveness is maintained, even at high angle of attack, where the effect is to provide more pitch recovery capability for high angle of attack recovery.

So it seems the Typhoon is optimised for manoeuver and is less the stable and the Rafale is optimised for lift and low speed. As you can see from the graph below the foreplane position and the degree of instability is linked.

cheers

It’s really not that hard to believe a Typhoon getting a radar lock on an F-22 during unofficial trials, considering that the F-22 flies with radar return enhancers when not in official testing or exercises. The whole thing about the F-22 pilots “crying off” is most likely sensationalist journalism.

They are still very tight lipped about this, with the only confirmation being from people involved with the Typhoon project saying that if they could say anything at all about it “that they would be shouting it from the rooftops..”.

You can make of that what you will.:cool:

Perhaps now that the F-22 is not subject to the same pressures that caused the D notice on the exercise(or what ever a Defence Notice is called now), that some people in the know can fill in the details. Has any one retired from the fray and want to comment??. LOL…

Cheers

So does anyone have technical drawings showing how round TVC nozzles are actuated? I’m real curious to the way these things work.

Check this out..

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/18/333501/eurojet-pushes-thrust-vectoring-technology-for-typhoon.html

Cheers

There was an old TV program which interviewed a German pilot who said he was on a BF109 straffing raid on the english south coast, when he saw a train.

The train was the Romney Hythe Dymchurch railway which during the war was made into a mobile defensive unit for PLUTO (Pipe Line Under The Ocean) by putting 50 cal machine guns and armour on the train, whats unusual about the train was that it was a miniature train. and the only miniature armoured train in the world:eek:

The pilot mistook it for a normal train and dived to engage the target, but he had difficultly hitting it – he was getting a ground rush effect as he closed he realised it was way too small and he was way too close, the trains machine guns hit him and forced him to bail out, the TV interview was the first time he admitted to being shot down by a “Toy Train” and said he was too embarrased to mention it to his collegues in the POW camp.:o

I quite admired the German pilot, toy train or not those guns were real…

RHDR website

I’ve actually been on that train a number of times…:) and I wasn’t the only famous visitors..

Cheers

I never said the Typhoon was unneeded I just think it’s not needed in the numbers being forced upon their customers.

The RAF are short on numbers they will be short on squadron numbers if they do not buy the full Tranche allocation.

So its that simple!, now I’m assuming you have the Typhoon costs correct, you’ll see there really isn’t any alternative for the money.

Europe is in a better position than the USA on fighter recapitalisation, which is putting all its faith in the JSF for the foreseeable future.

Crystal ball gazing for a moment – I’d expect the UK to cut its buy of the JSF more than the the rumoured Typhoon 3b cut.

If I could go back in time and change it, i’d get rid of tranche 1 and have them build them at a higher standard to begin with so that the budget issues would never compromise capability, it’s a shame I can’t.

You would not have been able to sell that decision to the partners, the Typhoon program required delivery much sooner it was already seen as late, the Italians were so desperate they hired Tornado’s and F-16 while waiting for the Typhoon.

Tranche 1 got an airframe and a decent air to air capability, the rolling increments you see happening now are the result of slow large block upgrades, the block system was found to be inflexible to urgent operational requirements.

The so called Austere air to ground UK requirement was done outside of the planned block upgrades and was found to be easier to manage.

So future upgrades will be done more like that and added to the airframes as they go through maintenance.

The JSF is now in the same position, but with much more momentum to push aircraft out the door, so expect the first JSF’s to be very low in capability, and a disproportionate upgrade effort to be needed.

Also like the Typhoon I do not expect the block upgrade method to be the best way forward as it introduces too many delays.

Cheers

Not in the short term IMHO, the squadrons are already lined up for Afghanistan in the near term, it would be good to get an actual operational deployment though.
The Falklands is the next deployment for the UK Typhoons, but the RAF are struggling with low numbers due to the Saudi order taking 24 tranche 2 jets out of the delivery cycle.

Makes you wonder if the Tranche 3 will be cut as the UK’s MOD are hinting.

Cheers