Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Close coupled vs long arm canard

Discussion in 'The Americas' started by Picard, Aug 23, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    Nope, it was only crap in Typhoon's chosen overall configuration. Only other aircraft with long arm canards are J-20 (light supersonic bomber), XB-70 Valkirye (supersonic strategic bomber), and several civilian designs (Beechcraft Starship, Rutan Long-EZ, Piaggio P180 Avanti).

    In other words, designs that do not require high maneuverability. Close coupled canard on the other hand has been used or tested exclusively for designs that require high maneuverability and/or STOL capability (operational: Saab Viggen, Saab Gripen, Dassault Rafale, J-10, Su-30MKI; testbeds and prototypes: YF-4E PACT, NF-15B Agile Eagle, X-29, Kfir, Lavi, HIMAT). Only exceptions are the X-31 and Eurofighter Typhoon, both with ventral air intake and wing configuration which prevented canard leading edge from being behind the air intake - X-31 was designed for thrust vectoring and Typhoon is an adapted X-31 design, basically neither can achieve maximum performance without thrust vectoring.

    And lift enhancement depends on canard position relative to the wing, interaction with other parts of the airframe and canard size. So reducing canard in order for it to fit would have reduced its aerodynamic benefits (maximum lift enhancement is achieved when canard is at 15% wing size, IIRC. That is about Gripen's canard size, while Rafale ended up using canard that is cca 9% of the wing size due to having LERX in addition to the canard, plus overall superior aerodynamic configuration. It is still more than 5% of Rafale A).

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a245152.pdf
    "The increase in maximum CL was due to constructive interference between the vortex systems of the wing and canard."
    "Improved lift was dependent upon proper longitudinal positioning of the canard."
    "If the canard was mounted too far forward, the canard/wing combination would actually generate less lift than what the wing and canard could generate separately. (It should be noted that the long-coupled canard on the X-31 is a control, and not a lifting, device.)"
    "The trailing edge of the canard and the leading edge of the wing should never overlap, for a loss of lift results. "

    Just as what I'm saying:
    1) positive effect of canard on lift is dependant on proper positioning of the canard (close-coupled configuration).
    2) X-31s (and thus Typhoon's) canard has no effect on lift.
    3) Canard trailling edge must not overlap with wing leading edge

    Reason why Typhoon did not achieve improved lift with close-coupled canards is that interaction between canards and inlet caused increased drag while removing any lift benefits.

    Coming together - 6/16/1999 - Flight Global
    "A chin intake was one of the key configuration features of the Eurofighter (and the TKF before it), selected because it offered performance advantages at high angles of attack and sideslip. As a foreplane located close to the wing produced too much supersonic drag when combined with a chin inlet, designers selected a long-coupled delta/canard configuration."

    Large font, bolding and underlining won't negate facts. You would either need to move wing back (as you said) or extend air intake forward to modify Typhoon to a close-coupled canard configuration. Either of which is a major redesign.

    And close coupled canard aircraft can have just as high level of instability because trailling edge control surfaces can be used to counter pitching moment as well. And since lot of it is dynamic, as opposed to static, instability, you actually get superior maneuvering performance.

    Rafale's separation extends well past the LERX, all the way to the wing proper, while Typhoon's would extend only slightly past the LERX tip. So effect still wouldn't be as pronounced as it in Rafale's case.

    Document was written in 1999, whereas design was frozen by 1994. Question isn't when they made design choices, but when they discovered air intake's adverse effects. It is clear that they realized that, in configuration as-is, close-coupled canard would not have much benefit. It is not clear that they could have gone back and redesigned the aircraft with better air intake positioning and re-tested it.

    And I see you missed another point:
    A fully optimized airframe - Dassault Aviation
    "The RAFALE features a delta wing with close-coupled canards. In-house research in computational fluid dynamics has shown the specific benefits of close coupling between the wings and the canards: it ensures a wide range of centre of gravity positions for all flight conditions, as well as benign handling throughout the whole flight envelope.

    The close-coupled canards / delta wing configuration is key to the combat performance of the rafale: even at high angle-of-attack, it remains fully agile, and its range performance in strike missions with heavy weapon loads is unmatched for such a compact design."

    Rafale's maximum payload is stated as 20.900 lbs. Then there is this:
    http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/rafale_omnirole.jpg
    2 Magic II, 4 MICA, 6 AASM Hammer, 3*2000 L drop tanks.

    So 2*89 + 4*112 + 6*340 + 3*300 = 3.566 kg weight; add 6000 L of fuel, and you have 8.390 kg or 18.500 lbs.

    Rafale was intended to be omnirole/swingrole from beginning, but it was never intended to be capable of carrying as heavy loads as it can carry, and 2 out of 5 requirements were for air superiority (remaining three were destruction of low-flying helicopters, weapon load and range in strike missions. Weapon load was actually doubled from the ACX concept).

    Close coupled canard formula was selected specifically because it offered best performance in air combat.

    Indeed it is. But it is not only about lift increase, and besides, Rafale has both LERX and canard root vortex to increase lift over inner portion of the wing, Typhoon only has LERX.

    First photo is irrelevant since it is impossible to tell angle of attack. Second photo clearly shows that Typhoon's canard is not at 0* AoA, while third photo (presumably a sustained turn condition) shows Typhoon's canard at near 0* AoA.

    Gripen and Rafale actually do precisely that during sustained turn, canard is only used to help initial pitch-up (and is more effective than long arm canard at that since effect is achieved in two ways: first is input from the canard itself, second is a momentary increase in lift from forward portion of the wing).

    EDIT:
    Take a look at photo below. If one doesn't know angle of attack aircraft is flying at, then it is entirely possible to get the false impression that canard is providing pitch-down moment; but in reality, canard is at 0* angle of attack.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2014
    samsonight likes this.
  2. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,799
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    No actually, it's quite common for you to be wrong given that you are not degree educated and don't understand even the basic equation for aerodynamics, hence why you think STR is higher at 15,000ft than ground level.

    Russia has adopted no canard designs thus far and the MiG-1.44 was more LCC than CCC.
    Germany - nope. UK - nope. Both Typhoon LCC. Leaving Sweden and France.

    No actually, it's quite common for you to be wrong given that you are not degree educated and don't understand even the basic equation for aerodynamics, hence why you think STR is higher at 15,000ft than ground level.

    They switched to LCC for the reasons described in this official NATO document.

    http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-035///MP-035-01.pdf

    They still could have opted to join up with Gripen or Rafale instead and they didn't.

    Yet you failed to acknowledge it until much later.

    The majority of them. The inner part of the wing is longer and more responsible for lift and it will shift the CoP forward and increase stability, which will be provided for by updated FCS software.

    Which means the pilot was crap and made a mistake.

    They don't have a variable lip and the shield is smaller. The fuselage blocks air to one engine during extreme side-slip.

    Sorry but you've just made up that assertion. The middle of the inner wing is wider and the LERX would extend out from that. Rafale and Gripen couldn't possibly use LCC because of the side intakes and side intakes were chosen for stronger fuselage hard points.

    Nope, they would not have a large effect because the pitching arm is reduced.

    Not at all. Performance at 100deg AoA bears little resemblance to performance at useful AoAs. The Typhoon greater ability to manage instability will make it more responsive at lower AoAs and the greater canard pitch will send it into turns more sharply.

    False. Aerodynamic performance does not change linearly with AoA. The LCCs are actually in a good position for low AoA performance, hence lower drag.

    Which is irrelevant to normal useful AoA performance.

    That's compared to a non-canard design. CCC offers more lift than LCC but at the penalty of greater drag, which works against it at higher altitudes where a lower drag fighter with high TWR can increase speed to make up for lost lift, and a significant portion of thrust points in the lift direction due to higher AoAs.

    Nope.

    Not really. If I'd misunderstood a basic concept like you did I'd just shut up and walk away and go read a book and learn. Yet you proceed to talk about more advanced aerodynamic concepts when you don't understand the basics and how air density affect lift. Given that one of my arguments has related to variation in performance with altitude, you are clearly mentally unequipped to deal with this.

    This link proves my point perfectly and once again proves you wrong. Maximum STR is achieved at sea level, or can't you even read graphs now?

    The Typhoon canard is mounted above the wing. Please don't circle jerk back to 10 dozen pages ago like a goldfish.

    Yes they can and would. Overweight design? To my mind the Typhoon has a 1.2:1 TWR and a wing loading better than most planes in its class. Can't see how that is overweight.

    http://www.baesystems.com/enhancedarticle/BAES_156125/typhoon
     
  3. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,799
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    False claim since you previous arguments about intake interference have been proven wrong. Rafale and Gripen were forced into a CCC design because of side intakes, which were a result of multi-role design.

    I think that after you clearly misunderstand a fundamental concept of aerodynamics, like the basic lift equation, you should just shut up, nevermind laying out false accusations about other people's misunderstanding of a subject they understand very well. You claimed that 2 aircraft had better maximum STR at 15,000ft than at sea level. That is simply idiotic. Obama's arse probably knows more about aerodynamics than you.

    The Su-37 clearly proves you wrong. You tried babbling about lateral separation but a LERX-mounted CCC on a Typhoon would achieve the same separation. Your point is false. Rather than arguing against my claims about Rafale/Gripen side intake and CCC choice being due to the multi-role element you've found it easier to make easily refutable nit-picking arguments about why CCC wouldn't work on a Typhoon because you found it easier and a good diversion. It would work, they just found that the LCC provides better overall performance and it's clearly outlined in an official NATO document.

    This whole point is a strawman that you're using to divert from the Rafale/Gripen CCC choice. A LERX-mounted canard on a Typhoon would achieve the same lateral separation as on an Su-37. A CCC would entail moving the wing back to reduce longitudinal instability anyway, hence the CCC would move back behind the current intake position. A longer intake on an aircraft with a 1.2:1 TWR would be nothing. There you go, your point is bullshit in 3 different ways, just like your understanding of the lift equation. Go read a book and learn something.

    Yes. Do you even know what the lift equation is without looking it up? Clearly not!

    Oh shut up FFS! Canards are mounted on LERXs on almost every aircraft they're on. The Rafale has a wing and canard LERX. It's the most pronounced LERX you'll every see:

    [​IMG]

    Su-37 too (go tell them it's too coplanar Picard):

    [​IMG]


    Intended or not, it does increase wing area.

    You're still missing the fundamentals of the LCC decision - to increase instability. If CCC is chosen instead, the wing has to be moved back (to reduce instability), hence the canard ends up behind the inlet anyway. Your point is irrelevant from every single perspective.

    Some more swept than others.
     
  4. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,799
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    You don't understand that in determining the end configuration, they looked at several configurations and even wrote official NATO documents about it. Find me an equivalent document on a Rafale or Gripen.

    http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-035///MP-035-01.pdf

    J-20 a light supersonic bomber?:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::rofl::rofl: Now that's the second most retarded thing you've every said, right after aircraft having higher peak STR at 15,000ft. This light 'supersonic bomber' is going to be doing a lot of air superiority work.

    Picard -> Gets proven wrong -> Makes ridiculous statement -> Casually disregards clear retardedness of statement.

    Saab Viggen and Kfir - fixed canard designs. Su-47, MiG-1.44, J-20.

    Nope, because if CCC was chosen, the wing would need to be moved back to reduce longitudinal instability anyway.

    Rinse and repeat. Comparisons against non-canard design. Moving canards are always a control to counter longitudinal instability.

    I can't even see the similarities between the X-31 and Typhoon and his study hasn't actually measured an X-31 with and without. Typhoon canard is closer, larger and more co-planar for affect at lower AoAs. 3) Irrelevent - wing position argument already covered ref stability.

    Except stability would need reducing if CCC was used, therefore wing would have needed to be moved back, hence your argument is BS. Rafale/Gripen chose side inlets to provide for stronger fuselage hardpoints to fulfill multi-role capability, this means that LCCs would be smack bang in front of them, blocking the inlet, hence CCC was chosen. No way round that point have you?

    Something else you've denied during our discussion, and you now casually prove yourself wrong while making another point.

    Journalistic retort.

    NATO report:
    http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-035///MP-035-01.pdf

    It produced too much supersonic drag because it needed to be bigger and instability needed reducing, meaning increased stability when supersonic = more drag. More area = more drag. Chin inlet has shit to do with it. I'd love to see someone try explain scientifically if they think it has, as opposed to, "oh it interferes." Interferes how? Explain motherfucker. Do you not understand that the wing position also has to be moved back as a result of CCC to reduce instability, since CCC can't provide the same corrective pitching moment? Journalists and idiots, one and the same.

    Read!

    http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-035///MP-035-01.pdf

    This was all considered before the first DAx was built. The whole reason for LCC was to allow for the increased instability. Without LCC, the wing automatically needs to be moved back to move the CoP nearer to CoG. Moving the wing back isn't a design decision if you choose CCC, it's a necessity. You can't provide the same corrective pitching moment, so if you don't move the wing back, the plane flips. You can clearly see that the rear of a Rafale delta is near to jet nozzles than on a Typhoon, all you have to do is look. As a loose estimate, I'd say it's about 2ft closer. Note longer exposure of jet nozzles on typhoon:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    This clearly validates all my points on instability and CoP position, whilst neatly proving your CCC-impossibility point completely wrong.

    False!!!:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: See above, plain as day. Rafale delta ends closer to nozzle rear extremes, hence CoP is further back and instability is therefore lower.

    We were discussing Su-37 lateral separation there, another reason why you're wrong. JFC Picard, you don't half do being wrong really well.

    Document is a retrospective analysis obviously, since both canard position and wing position was set in stone by 1999. Picard, they'd been experimenting with layout since the mid-80s for almost a decade before the first DAx was built in 1994. Get real!
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2014
  5. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,799
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom

    Marketing bumf that doesn't actually say anything. "Ensures a wide range of CoG position." What the hell does that even mean? It's a poor French translation. "Allows for a wide range of CoG positions with different loads," is probably what it's meant to say. Doesn't say anything about providing for high instability.

    Remains fully agile until all its airspeed disappears at short notice making such manoeuvres useless. Meanwhile its longitudinal wing position shows it's running less instability.

    Good luck not getting shot down with that. Why... you'd have about the same manoeuvrability and survivability as a KC-135. It's basically a case of either you can fly a tanker aircraft there, or a Rafale with 3 2000L tanks is getting shot down anyway. Meanwhile 2 1500L conformal tanks will provide a about the same range as 6000L of drop tank fuel due to the reduced drag.

    It always was, that's why they chose side mounted intakes, 5 wet pylons and longitudinally folding landing gear. Those are very specific decisions.

    No it wasn't. It was simply the only canard option left that wouldn't directly obstruct the air intakes.

    Which will do the same job as regards the wing root, whilst further increasing instability.

    Longer pitching arm, less corrective force required for same moment = lower drag + more instability.

    No they don't, because the trailing edge can't provide enough corrective force. The images I posted cleared show what the Gripen canard does to correct longitudinal instability. It's a very intense cation, far more pronounced that that of the Typhoon canard. We see the same thing at pitch onset. A small Typhoon canard push can rapidly accelerate pitching and gain in AoA due to the longer pitching arm.

    EDIT:
    Take a look at photo below. If one doesn't know angle of attack aircraft is flying at, then it is entirely possible to get the false impression that canard is providing pitch-down moment; but in reality, canard is at 0* angle of attack.
    [​IMG][/QUOTE]
    So what are the blue lines bro'? Damn you're stupid.
     
  6. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,328
    Likes Received:
    6,264
    Country Flag:
    France
    Source: NASA Technical Memorandum 11394:“Numerical Study of Steady and Unsteady Canard-Wing-Body Aerodynamics”
    Eugene L TU Aug 1996.
    Ames Exploration Tech Home | NASA
    http://www.engbrasil.eng.br/index_arquivos/art111.pdf

    Source: NASA Technical Memorandum 11394:“Numerical Study of Steady and Unsteady Canard-Wing-Body Aerodynamics”
    Eugene L TU Aug 1996.
    Ames Exploration Tech Home | NASA
    http://www.engbrasil.eng.br/index_arquivos/art111.pdf

    U. Claréus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace
    MACH Aviation Magazine - på webben
     
    Picard and samsonight like this.
  7. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,328
    Likes Received:
    6,264
    Country Flag:
    France
  8. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,328
    Likes Received:
    6,264
    Country Flag:
    France
    [​IMG]
    It is not what Bruno Revellin-Falcoz (Dassault Technical Director at the time of interview) explains.
    Translation
    Like many other industrial Dassault has selected a delta wing formula-Canards for his latest. "When we were working with the European team, we encountered major points of divergence and we made radically different choices of their own, explains Bruno Revellin-Falcoz. They wanted canards mounted on each side of the forward fuselage as we almost wanted to put ours on top of the wing root. The trick of this configuration is that it allows you to channel the air flow at the apex of the wing, where born the vortex lift. Eurofighter Typhoon uses its canards as additional single rudder, effectively with a large lever arm, but he loses this benefit for the lift and therefore the aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft. Therefore we are certain that the Rafale performs better than the Typhoon in incidence, ie in the crucial phases of dogfighting, or low-speed flight. We benefited from the know-how accumulated in the Mirage III programs Milan Mirage III NG and Mirage 4000 to determine this configuration, while they groping with no real prior experience. "
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2014
    samsonight likes this.
  9. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,328
    Likes Received:
    6,264
    Country Flag:
    France
    Picard, samsonight and omya like this.
  10. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,799
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    No one has denied that they increase lift but they only do this at the expense of drag and reduced instability. This is why the Rafale canard span is larger relative to wing span and why the Rafale delta sits nearer the rear extreme of the aircraft. So it's not that there are no advantages to CCC, it's just that the overall advantage averaged across the full range of speeds and altitudes, BVR and WVR lies with LCC, increased instability and reduced drag. Multi-role is a different story, the chin inlet makes for weak fuselage hardpoints, reduced load bearing and silly sideways opening landing gear, which complicates loading options.

    The key word is 'usually'. The other problem with this statement is it appears to completely lack any understanding as to why the canard is there in the first place. The thing with instability is that it has to be counteracted. If you have a bar perfectly balanced on a pivot, the centre of the bar is the CoG. If you apply an upward force on the left of the bar, the bar will spin unless that force is counteracted by another force. The canard is a downwards force on the same side as the upwards force. This is the same for all unstable canard designs. So whilst CCC does have increased wing interaction, it's wrong to say that LCC has no wing interaction and also wrong to say that it only provides lift. In producing downforce during turning to stabilise the aircraft, the faster, lower pressure airflow is under the canard, that airflow goes over the wing increasing lift. The main reason that CCC provides more lift is because the reduced pitching arm means that a greater downwards force is required to stabilise the aircraft. This has 2 affects, the first being increased canard drag and the second being faster airflow over the wing, since the speed difference due to the increased pressure differential is higher.

    Yes, these are all effects of increased lift, increased interaction and reduced instability. Nowhere does it in any way conflict with my statements about increased drag and reduced instability and sadly nobody seems to have looked at the consequences of increased instability and reduced drag on turning performance at a variety of speed and altitude ranges. And ironically, despite Saab's claims about spin and oscillation recovery, what has happened in practice, has somewhat contradicted their claims and its crash rate is far higher than that of the Typhoon.



     
  11. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,799
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom


    ITR is one thing, but how long can you hold that ITR for with increased drag and reduced TWR? How quick can you recovery energy afterwards and do it again?

    Right so pitch up has been fixed and some software for protection below a speed that's completely irrelevant to combat, or even landing and take-off.
     
  12. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,799
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    And meanwhile everyone else on the Eurofighter team was looking at the bigger performance picture. The reason for the split was nothing to do with aerodynamics and you well know that. France wanted a naval multi-role fighter and Germany was adjectly opposed to the creation of a naval fighter. Britain was knew that it was on board with the F-35 program wrt a naval fighter and everyone else wanted an air superiority fighter. So you lost out and we took the lead in the project and obtained an order book of 571 aircraft, whilst also maintaining a 10% stake in stealth fighter program. Meanwhile you have 126 aircraft and are squabbling over rupees to build another 128.

    http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-035///MP-035-01.pdf


    "A low forward foreplane position then results in
    the smallest foreplane area, with a consequent benefit on
    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. The effect
    is to provide more pitch recovery capability for high
    angle of attack recovery. "

    Stop crying about it.
     
  13. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,328
    Likes Received:
    6,264
    Country Flag:
    France
    Rafale canard span is not larger relative to wing span compare to Typhoon! You confuse with the Gripen. And for the drag it doesn't increase it reduces.


    [​IMG]

    Vortex lift start earlier in the AoA scale, DRAG Coefficient is LOWER.

    [​IMG]
     
    Picard and samsonight like this.
  14. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,799
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    And we also know that:

    a) 100deg AoA is useless in air combat and just bleeds a load of energy and leaves you a sitting duck, just like TVC. After all there's a reason aircraft don't fly backwards or sideways, which is effectively what anything over 70 or 100 is respectively. Even in a 1-on-1, whilst you're showboating, the aircraft you're chasing is gaining distance and altitude, which is a major factor when you consider the reduced range of SRAAMs in tail chase. Furthermore, BFM involves staying behind your opponent's 3-9 line, which means turning at the elbow. Start TVC or 90deg AoA BS and they can pull away a turn radius and then turn to face you from higher altitude.

    b) The aircraft that claim higher AoA crash more.

    Loss rate:

    Typhoon - 0.8 per 100,000 flying hours.
    Gripen - 2 per 100,000 flying hours.
    Rafale - >4 per 100,000 flying hours.

    X-31 had extremely small canards and was also relying on TVC paddles for stability. It's not a Typhoon anymore than a MiG-21 is a Rafale.
     
  15. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,328
    Likes Received:
    6,264
    Country Flag:
    France
    It's weird, if what you said was true Typhoon should not have these problems when meeting the high AoA nor the losses of pitch authority.
     
    Picard and samsonight like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page