Using Canards vs. Tail for aircraft control in USA and other countries

Paul Metz did claim improvement in supersonic flight regime of the raptor due to its thrust vectoring. And as I remember, according to flight global, the f-15S/MTD (later ACTIVE) test results did show improvement in supersonic flight. I don't exactly remember by how many percent, but it was very significant (enough to shock me as I always had believed it only provided significant improvement in low speed handling).
 
kcran567 said:
Nothing could be more incorrect. TVC is ESPECIALLY for high speed.
Click to expand...

TVC is useful at supersonic speeds, especially for reducing drag during manouvres. That doesn't mean it isn't useful for low speeds as well.

Example is Mig-23 the AF tested in nevada area 51, the thing could hit mach 3 but was uncontrollable and crashed killing many pilots...the control surfaces just dont work at those speeds.
Click to expand...

It was Mach 2.5 at most, and the reason the MiG-23 control surfaces were ineffective was with wings swept back and above Mach 2 the centre of lift shifts to the point where the pitch authority of the tailplanes isn't enough to control it effectively in pitch. That doesn't mean all aircraft are uncontrollable at high speeds.

American fighters have no canard because it diminishes supersonic turn rates Period. Thrust vector greatly enhances susersonic turn rates END OF STORY. Youre wrong there buddy.
Click to expand...
No, canards don't diminish supersonic turn rates. In fact, the Eurofighter selected a canard layout partly due to improved supersonic maneuverability over alternative tailed layouts. There are other reasons why canards were not used on the ATF designs, primarily due to front quarter stealth requirements.

Like others have said, aircraft design is the art of compromise. Nothing is as black and white as you seem to think it is. I'd think carefully before making sweeping statements.
 
Overscan:

Again, I apoligize about the broad statements made to TAM guess I was trying to stir things up a little, will be more careful in the future...

What I meant about canards diminishing the supersonic turn rates, and a reason for not being on the ATF program/F-22 (besides stealth) was due to canards having a drag penalty at supersonic speeds vs. thrust vectoring which is going to give you supersonic control and turn rates with less drag than a canard.

Not to say a canard wont do the job-the Valkyrie was mach 3 with canards-i know

Another question is whether or not a canard will end up on a generation 6 fighter...That I would like to know.
 
You are positing a false dichotomy here (canards versus thrust vectoring). A design can use canards, tailplanes, thrust vectoring, or any combination thereof. Having thrust vectoring doesn't preclude using canards. The F-22 used tailplanes instead of canards, supplemented by thrust vectoring. There were a number of solid engineering reasons for this choice. Mikoyan went with a canard delta platform and 3D thrust vectoring for the MFI, which was supposed to be at least as fast as the F-22 in supersonic cruise.
 
Overscan:

I agree with you on that, planes like the Mikoyan MFI, X-31, etc have the canard along with the vectoring nozzle.
But will that canard show up on the Pakfa? That remains to be seen...quite possibly yes, but we dont know for sure. The Russians might lean more towards improving a baseline "F-22 like" design or use the canard for more MFI and/or Berkut features. The designers are going to have to tally up the trade-offs pro and con. Its a given that it will have TVC. This is the pragmatic approach the Russians have always used, let others invest the billions, then take what works and improve on it.

One thing for sure a canard will increase fore body drag on an aircraft and will also take up additional internal space in the forward area of you're given aircraft...I'm just saying if I had to choose between a pure canard vs a tailed aircraft I would choose the tail for those reasons alone.
 
As you will see here thrust vectoring isn't the issue when it comes to deciding between canards or a conventional tail. :)

[flash=200,200]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGDyBCb_EsU&feature=fvw[/flash]

Cheers, Woody
 
I wonder what the T:W ratio is for that model... If it's near the real deal's T:W Ratio, then hot damn, put TVC on the Typhoon now!
 
There's no way the T:W ratio of the model is anywhere near the real deal's. If anything it's probably at least x100 greater. I forgot the exact type of foam Dave uses there but it's a pretty lightweight foam adapted from insulation material and it weighs next to nothing. A lot of the tricks, and the economical construction of those things, wouldn't be possible without it.

Dave says it's got a fatigue lifespan not unlike aluminum but I've been asking around some of the big R/C forums and they beg to differ. I myself wouldn't know.
 
Sundog said:
Somewhere I have an article on the X-36 that shows what a Naval version would like, in planform. If I run across it I'll scan it in.
Click to expand...

i know this is from a few years ago but did you ever end up scanning it? I looked through the thread but couldn't find one.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom