Strawman arguing.
What are the bleed rates for all these jets at EQUIVALENT alphas, hmm? Point being, in a turning fight, a pursuing Hornet is better able to point its nose at a target than a Rafale or EF.
Well, the Super Hornet is the king of bleed rates. It´s the draggiest fighter in the world. E is life, the SH can´t sustain it. Its only hope for survival is to pray he only has one adversary and that the other adversary is a moron.
The F/A-18C/D can out turn, out fly and generally outperform the Super Hornet. During exercises the Gripen has made short work of Finnish Hornets. So what about its “superior” AoA capability.
You guys bring up the notion that canards are just as good as LERXs/slats at laminar airflow management, even though the numbers clearly don’t bear that out.
Oh, don´t stop. Tell us more.
And then you proceed to trot out strawman arguments in an effort to bolster your case. Of course higher alphas means higher bleed rates, but the point here is how much alpha you can sustain before stalling. Again, hi-alpha ability is a clear indicator of airflow management and stall resistance. And in this area eurocanards are INFERIOR to modern wing-tails.
Being able to sustain higher alphas means that even higher E-bleed rates can be achieved. The Eurocanards are designed to sustain E for as long as possible. So, Eurocanards aren´t inferior, they are simply smarter. High AoA is for airshows.
Going by the replies so far, not even you pro-canard guys seem to agree on this lift/downforce/”stabilizing”/(whatever) thing. So you might want to resolve the issue amongst yourselves before taking on the “opposition.”
Quite an opposition. So, you can´t tell how it works by yourself? This thread has provided alot of insight on how stuff works. Try and see the whole picture.
Please! Given how aerodynamically dirty even a “clean” Tiffy* is compared to an F-22, I’d steer clear of any “draggy” points of contention:
OMG, you really got us there! :rolleyes:
Besides, another thing that “often gets overlooked” is that TVC can be used to trim the aircraft. That means very little, or no surface deflections.
So what´s the point of having the tailerons deflected at all then? Cause drag for the fun of it?
Okay, so does that mean the Typhoon is stable too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn7RWQUqlUI
(You can catch a glimpse of the flaperoonies deflecting UPWARDS at around 0:09 right before takeoff,)
Rotating at take off and pitching in flight is not the same thing. The FCS has a take off/in flight and landing mode. When the landing gear is out the FCS works differently. During take off the Eurofighter uses the canard as well as the elevons to rotate the aircraft. In flight the canards provide for pitch, and the elevons provide for roll and trim. You cannot compare to a Viggen.
The end result will be the same pitching motion. Lift/downforce means nothing in this case, because any lift the canards provide to initiate the pitching moment will be negated by the downforce they will apply to stop it.
You really don´t want to get it do you?
The point is that from an aerodynamics point of view, canard-deltas offer no advantages over wing-tails,
Why don´t you try and read the posts in this thread.
Maybe because they learned years ago that any wave-drag advantage attibutable to deltas is only relevant at speeds greater than ~Mach 2–speeds fighters rarely ever see. Deltas made sense on SR-71s and Concordes, not so much on fighters.
My goodness.
Sign In
