What's new

Defense Official: Qaher 313 Home-Made Fighter Jet to Protect Persian Gulf

Status
Not open for further replies.
In F-5,you can see the intake is above the wing and everyone knows F-5 is the best when it comes to maneuver.
AFD-080827-125.jpg
Its not above the wing, its beyond the wing.

I wonder that there are people who still take the Joke-313 seriously.
 
.
The F-5's intakes may be in a higher plane than the wing roots, but they are not behind the wing roots where pitch up AOA would block air flow to the engines.

Exactly, that was the explanation I was looking for. Thank you.

My whole point of bringing you, @Penguin and @Oscar into this thread was to get a few doubts cleared on some general fighter design philosophies, not to discuss the 313 in particular. Thank you for your input.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
In F-5,you can see the intake is above the wing and everyone knows F-5 is the best when it comes to maneuver.
AFD-080827-125.jpg

I should have better phrased my question. Is it good to have the inlets above and behind the wing root? Anyway, gambit has explained it in a simple sentence.
 
.
In F-5,you can see the intake is above the wing and everyone knows F-5 is the best when it comes to maneuver.
AFD-080827-125.jpg

Shia aerospace industries ?


Any aircraft may be characterized with the positions of the wings in respect to the rest of the fuselage.
If the wings are higher, as in the case of C130, it will make the aircraft very stable.
As the wings are moved lower the design becomes unstable.
Designers try to beat with with a dihedral angle, or other mechanisms.
 
.
Shia aerospace industries ?


Any aircraft may be characterized with the positions of the wings in respect to the rest of the fuselage.
If the wings are higher, as in the case of C130, it will make the aircraft very stable.
As the wings are moved lower the design becomes unstable.
Designers try to beat with with a dihedral angle, or other mechanisms.


by the way,F-313 has been tested in wind tunnel and its RC model's flight is in sight @gambit is there any difference between RC model and full-sized plane in case of aerodynamic feature?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. .
Wahhabi,in the middle of discussion,you shouldn't jump into it cause it has nothing to do with a terrorist wahhabi.unlike your desert -that can not even make a single parachute- Iran at least have produced some other types of aircrafts so STFU.

by the way,F-313 has been tested in wind tunnel and its RC model's flight is in sight @gambit is there any difference between RC model and full-sized plane in case of aerodynamic feature?
Yes, a great deal of difference.

I learned from my years in aviation that there are several things in life that we cannot scale to suit our liking: water, fire, smoke, and air.

If you ever seen those early pre-historic (Internet) sci-fi movies, like the cult Godzilla series, you will notice that 'buildings' that are on fire looks odd. The flames looks ridiculously outsized for the 'building'. That is simply because we cannot scale DOWN the flame to the proportion of our scaled DOWN building. Same thing with water where waves from wakes looks ridiculously large for a 'tanker' in motion. Special effects are much much better today because we are able to scale up or down those four items through computers.

Any way...The only purpose scale down models serves is to confirm the basic air flow behaviors over the basic airframe that will allow it to fly and remain airborne. Because we cannot scale down air molecules and aerodynamic forces, small features can be 'ignored' by air flow and those small features can affect air flow in unexpected ways on the real much larger airframe.

NASA - Wind Tunnels at NASA Langley Research Center
Reynolds number is a nondimensional parameter representing the ratio of the momentum forces to the viscous forces in fluid (gas or liquid) flow. Reynolds number expresses the relationship of the density of the fluid, velocity, the dimension of an object, and the coefficient of viscosity of the fluid relationship. Osborne Reynolds (1842-1912) demonstrated in experiments that the fluid flow over a scale model would be the same for the full-scale object if certain flow parameters, or the Reynolds number, were the same in both cases.

For example, the Reynolds number of 1/4-scale models tested at flight velocities at atmospheric pressure would be too low by a factor of 4. Because the Reynolds number is also proportional to air density, a solution to the problem could be to test 1/4-scale models at a pressure of 4 atmospheres. The Reynolds number would then be the same in the wind tunnel tests and actual full-scale flights.
Notice the highlighted.

In order to simulate the same air flow behavior on a 1/4 scale model as the full and theoretically real aircraft, we would have to pressurize the chamber to 4x atmospheres. This means a simple wind tunnel or open atmosphere flight of the scaled down model would not give us any accurate assessment on how the theoretically real aircraft would fly and behave, especially in maneuvers. All it does is say: 'Yep, this thing is shaped just good enough to get airborne.'

Even so, we still need the real aircraft to actually fly with all sorts of measurement data in order for us to say our new aircraft is production worthy. That is why we have test flights and test pilots. And then, problems can still come up well after the aircraft is in production or the production line have been closed.

Example...The F-18 developed stress cracks at the vertical stabilators' roots. Several F-18s were sent back to more wind tunnel testings and structural modifications installed. These were not revealed under scaled down model testings during R/D and production.

The bottom line is that scaled down model testings can only guide us so far. An aircraft is much more a complex structure -- aerodynamically speaking -- than most people realize. And the more sophisticated the design to do multiple and complex tasks, the longer it will take from paper design to full production. As in ten yrs or more. And a lot of money to boot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
I wonder that how much you are idle to check these threads out time to time when you believe it's not serious and is nothing.
Last time I replied to this thread was 4 months ago and it was not related to Joke-313.

Now every time I click on "my replies" this thread appears. I ignored it for 4 month, but then finally decided to check what is going on. And I could not believe that there are people who still believe in that poor joke.
 
.
Last time I replied to this thread was 4 months ago and it was not related to Joke-313.

Now every time I click on "my replies" this thread appears. I ignored it for 4 month, but then finally decided to check what is going on. And I could not believe that there are people who still believe in that poor joke.

You are the number 1 poster in this thread and people still believe in this plane. It means that you are not doing a good job.
 
.
When I was reassigned to the F-16, the first time I saw the jet I was somewhat surprised by the size of the vertical stabilator -- outsized for such a little aircraft.

One of the primary factors in angle-of-attack (AOA) limitation is air flow across the vertical stab to maintain yaw axis control. As the aircraft gain pitch up AOA, not pitch down AOA, the fuselage increasingly blocks air flow across the vertical stab, reducing yaw axis stability and controllability.

Continuing Ed Uncoordinated flight - Flight Training

So General Dynamics gave the small F-16 that outsized vertical stab to assist it to have that famous pitch up AOA and formidable agility and maneuverability. Any larger and the vertical stab would begin to structurally compromise the aircraft under stress.

Air supply for the engine coming from topside is not unknown. The American UAVs have them. But then they are not designed to maneuver like the F-16. So what is a 'good design philosophy' depends on the mission YOU designed the aircraft to do.

Now look at all the successful fighters since the Korean War era and see where the designers have those intakes.

answer: unstable aircrafts plus fly by wire.
Iran said clearly that it is not the case of the Qaher-313.
 
.
If they have all that, how come we've not seen ANY kind of 'normal' combat plane being developed over the past decades. Why do they soldier on with F5s and F14, local copies of Huey helicopter, derivatives of Chinese missiles etc.?
What is normal for you, maybe you should have a look at the Saeqa.

"They have even succeeded in cold fusion reactors, witch, I do not think your country the Netherlands has done."

Possibly because we've not attempted any such thing! Pakistan's Dr. Kahn did steal civilian nuclear technology from NL, which aided that country's development of a nuke weapon... Technology which subsequently found its way to Iran.
See
http://www.nirs.org/les/khanreportfinal29404.pdf
More advanced Dutch Urenco nuclear technology leaked to Pakistan, Iran and Libya Dutch government withholds crucial information | Campagne tegen wapenhandel
http://www.nuclearactive.org/docs/LES021904a.html"
A.Q. Khan

Dr khan designed those technologies for you and for Pakistan, since he went only to finish his studies in the Netherlands, he felt some debt towards his country Pakistan threatened by Indian nuclear weapons.
Why make up all these stories, everyone knows who the thieves are in the nuclear domain, it is well documented from France till the US, how the Israelis stole nuclear material and technology.


But it is part of cold fusion technology, that is enough to call it cold fusion process.
 
.
So, you want that people accept & praise the claim base on computer graphics without a single demonstration. How many times Iran caught in photoshop propaganda & people blindly believe it to prove themselves patriot or pro-Iran without logical analysis.

Please kindly revise your photoshop propaganda claims, they have been proven to be propaganda and lies.

You are the number 1 poster in this thread and people still believe in this plane. It means that you are not doing a good job.
How can she do any good job when him/she is a jock him/herself.
 
.
Yes, a great deal of difference.

I learned from my years in aviation that there are several things in life that we cannot scale to suit our liking: water, fire, smoke, and air.

If you ever seen those early pre-historic (Internet) sci-fi movies, like the cult Godzilla series, you will notice that 'buildings' that are on fire looks odd. The flames looks ridiculously outsized for the 'building'. That is simply because we cannot scale DOWN the flame to the proportion of our scaled DOWN building. Same thing with water where waves from wakes looks ridiculously large for a 'tanker' in motion. Special effects are much much better today because we are able to scale up or down those four items through computers.

Any way...The only purpose scale down models serves is to confirm the basic air flow behaviors over the basic airframe that will allow it to fly and remain airborne. Because we cannot scale down air molecules and aerodynamic forces, small features can be 'ignored' by air flow and those small features can affect air flow in unexpected ways on the real much larger airframe.

NASA - Wind Tunnels at NASA Langley Research Center

Notice the highlighted.

In order to simulate the same air flow behavior on a 1/4 scale model as the full and theoretically real aircraft, we would have to pressurize the chamber to 4x atmospheres. This means a simple wind tunnel or open atmosphere flight of the scaled down model would not give us any accurate assessment on how the theoretically real aircraft would fly and behave, especially in maneuvers. All it does is say: 'Yep, this thing is shaped just good enough to get airborne.'

Even so, we still need the real aircraft to actually fly with all sorts of measurement data in order for us to say our new aircraft is production worthy. That is why we have test flights and test pilots. And then, problems can still come up well after the aircraft is in production or the production line have been closed.

Example...The F-18 developed stress cracks at the vertical stabilators' roots. Several F-18s were sent back to more wind tunnel testings and structural modifications installed. These were not revealed under scaled down model testings during R/D and production.

The bottom line is that scaled down model testings can only guide us so far. An aircraft is much more a complex structure -- aerodynamically speaking -- than most people realize. And the more sophisticated the design to do multiple and complex tasks, the longer it will take from paper design to full production. As in ten yrs or more. And a lot of money to boot.

Now what happened to those fully tested full scale f_18 and F-35 planes with cracks in their engines (maybe the engines were only tested as RC models too). And What about the F-22 shocking its pilots like bad behaving dogs.
They all have been grounded many times, and problems are still occurring, they all remind one of the most famous failure design of the world, the Israeli Merkava 4, touted to be the best tank in the world, and proved to be a total failure in the 33 days Lebanese war in 1986, more than one hundred were lost to a bunch of foot fighters armed with antitank missiles.
Iran have been very realistic about its plane, it said it is not a fly by wire plane, it said also that it was easy to maintain, meaning it does not rely on extremely complex mechanics, electromechanics, and avionics to be efficient and do the job it intends to do, it rather relies on simplicity in design to be efficient, believe it or not.
 
.
Kamikaze is respectable man . They scarified themselves for their country however they are not respected in Japan these days .

In the same way as the Waffen SS are not respected today in Germany, even though they heroically fought and died for their country.
 
.
Last time I replied to this thread was 4 months ago and it was not related to Joke-313.

Now every time I click on "my replies" this thread appears. I ignored it for 4 month, but then finally decided to check what is going on. And I could not believe that there are people who still believe in that poor joke.

LoLz. You still believe in this crappy stealthy piece of junks.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom