Saab 35 Draken Projects

[Lockon]

Hi all,

Lets talk about this nice looking J35?

I found this pic on the net and would like to know more but there is not much out there can anyone help?

Any info or 3 view drawings would be great!

The drawing is from this web site........http://www.vectorsite.net/avj35.html

Thanks,

Lockon

 

[Jschmus]

I found some info here:

http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/35draken.htm

"The most extensive AJ 35 Draken upgrade, 35 MOD level 4, would have consisted of new outer wings giving a 1 m greater span with small dogtooths, a fin extension, additional elevon actuators and some kind of canards -- most likely flip out moustaches on the sides of the air intakes. Clearance between the RBS 15F fins under the front wings and the ground would have been 44 mm.

The load out could have consisted of 2 x RBS 15F under the front wings, 2 x tanks under the fuselage the countermeasures pods U22 and KB (as on Viggen) and outboard of them Sidewinders or RB 28 Falcons under the outer wings. It would have retained the one built in 30 mm gun and also be capable of carrying Mavericks and the 6 x 135 mm rocket pods."

 

[Lockon]

Hi Jschmus,

Thanks for your info was a big help!

I will head to the website and have a read, I was hopping there would be more people out there that would know more about this aircraft or even give there ideas on it.

I still hope that a 3 view drawing will show up here some day.

Lockon.

 

[Thiel]

Hi, I'm looking for info on the proposed JA 35 MOD upgrades to the J 35 Draken.
Here's what I got so far:
http://www.aircraftinformation.info/art_draken.htm#proposed
http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/35draken.htm#projected

 

[datafuser]

FPL 35 MOD NIVA 4 was a proposal to modify the J-35 Draken to make it a RBS-15 shooter. The proposal was made before the 1982 decision to go ahead with the JAS-39 Gripen.

The drawing was shown in the transcript of a lecture given at the Royal Aeronautical Society in 1983, and "FPL JAS 2 105" single seat fighter project was also mentioned in the transcript.

 

[GTX]

Some better drawings

 

[Basil]

GTX,
very interesting concept drawings. From what kind of source is this?

 

[GTX]

Not sure of the book (yet) though I found the images on the IPMS Uppsala website.

 

[TsrJoe]

ref. Draken, Bo Widfeldt, Air Historic Research AB, Nassjo, 1996, ISBN. 91-971605-4-7

 

[riggerrob]

Those dogs' teeth on outer wing panels would help with Drakens' deep stall problem.

 

[LowObservable]

Has anyone ever heard of a major flaw with folding canards on a delta, that would explain why they never caught on? It would seem to be a relatively simple way to mitigate some classic delta limitations, and applicable to some of today's supercruise ambitions.

 

[TomcatViP]

Probably that their management were far more interested in selling new built airframe than retrofitted old ones.
The Mirage III Milan even never passed airshow success either.

Milan: origins, characteristics and performance data

The Milan 01, based on the Mirage III E, was equipped with retractable whiskers. It completed its maiden flight at Melun-Villaroche on May 29, 1970, with Guy Mitaux-Maurouard at the controls.

www.dassault-aviation.com

 

[iverson]

Fixed canards proved successful on the Mirage. I suspect that the retractable ones did not have all the same advantages (such as better in-flight maneuvering) while costing more, creating potential reliability issues, and adding weight and maintenance headaches.

On the Draken, I suspect that the aerodynamics are a bit mroe complex, in that it already has what amount to giant leading edge extentions.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Fixed canards proved successful on the Mirage. I suspect that the retractable ones did not have all the same advantages (such as better in-flight maneuvering) while costing more, creating potential reliability issues, and adding weight and maintenance headaches.

On the Draken, I suspect that the aerodynamics are a bit mroe complex, in that it already has what amount to giant leading edge extentions.

I suspect folding canards are excessively heavy and complicated. The rationale for folding canards on older supersonic designs was to deploy them to compensate for CG shift at high speed, which isn’t relevant with CCV / fly by wire. Then there’s the Milan which deployed its tiny canards for takeoff and landing only. Modern canard deltas are designed such the canard / wing interaction is a key part of the wing aerodynamics so not sure putting them away is a good idea.