What's new

Design characteristics of canard & non canard fighters

.
as far as I know ...
both stablisers are used for stability..in absence of horizontal one, we need cambered airfoil for resultant moment for any disturbance (from angle, if plane turns) in flows..
canards are infront and into wind..so they enjoy streamline flow.. so the lift produce more therefore lift more and thus moment... plus for any turn the aircraft is in much control bcz these surface first receive airflow... as flow gradually loses energy downstream plus its not attached so trailing edge (for tailless) and horizontal flow cannot function rapidly and have large response time....
 
.
as far as I know ...
both stablisers are used for stability..in absence of horizontal one, we need cambered airfoil for resultant moment for any disturbance (from angle, if plane turns) in flows..
canards are infront and into wind..so they enjoy streamline flow.. so the lift produce more therefore lift more and thus moment... plus for any turn the aircraft is in much control bcz these surface first receive airflow... as flow gradually loses energy downstream plus its not attached so trailing edge (for tailless) and horizontal flow cannot function rapidly and have large response time....


Thanks,

I have an idea as to advantage of canard Aircrafts over non-canard ones. I wanted to know whether a simple compound delta wing design has any advantage over canard delta or not.
 
.
I have an idea as to advantage of canard Aircrafts over non-canard ones. I wanted to know whether a simple compound delta wing design has any advantage over canard delta or not.
No , As all simple delta designer`s are incorporating canard to make it more manovureable
 
.
Is there?

I want to understand the motivations of ADA for choosing Tailless compound delta design over Canard Delta for LCA Tejas.

@Manticore @gambit @MilSpec @Abingdonboy @sancho
The intention of the Canard delta is to add a higher degree of manoeuvrability over and above a tails compound delta. There may be others but the one issue that jumps out at me is increased RCS for canards especially those HUGE ones seen on the J-20. An additional control surface that is moving many times a second that is that large is going to bounce back radar waves like a shed door.
 
.
Is there?

I want to understand the motivations of ADA for choosing Tailless compound delta design over Canard Delta for LCA Tejas.

@Manticore @gambit @MilSpec @Abingdonboy @sancho

Canards give extra lift for great manuvrability while but bad for RCS while Tailless compound delta design is good for lift & good speed + much lesser RCS even with a low powered engine
 
.
Well, Compound delta is better than Canard because the canards disrupt the flow of air downstream. Hence, the flow is not streamlined over the main wings, considerably decreasing the lift produced, as the larger wings at the back are responsible for lift production and the canard is responsible for manoeuvrability. The entire canard moves, not just a small portion of it as is the case with wings, where only the tip (ailerons) move. So larger disruption downstream.
The flow wont get much disturbed in Compound delta design.
 
. .
Well, Compound delta is better than Canard because the canards disrupt the flow of air downstream. Hence, the flow is not streamlined over the main wings, considerably decreasing the lift produced, as the larger wings at the back are responsible for lift production and the canard is responsible for manoeuvrability. The entire canard moves, not just a small portion of it as is the case with wings, where only the tip (ailerons) move. So larger disruption downstream.
The flow wont get much disturbed in Compound delta design.

Wrong Taj, mate! This is an old school view that only applies to improperly coupled canards or
to decoupled ones as the long moment arm types.
In fact, when the Rafale, which has the most coupled airflow system ever with the canards responsible
for generating and modulating the airflow over the wing, was in demo, the French Navy thought it could
not be done and that the approach landing speeds would never be low enough for their requirements.
A traditional delta comes in at 160-170 knots. The Rafale has a 110 knots carrier landing speed due to it.

You can check what this implies by grabbing any good clear close-up video of that plane in flight.
The movement of the canards will easily be seen as counter-intuitive. They go up when you'd think
they should go down and vice-versa. That's simply because they are not acting as control surfaces
but rather modulating the airflow on the combo, body and wing for the elevons, flaps, trim tabs to use.
It is also then evident why this has to be done by computer and cannot left to the pilot to sort out.

Your reasoning was not wrong in and of itself, just outdated.
Have a good day, Tay.

P.S. zahidiqbalnara, Novi avion is a Rafale copy with one engine. Not bad but unlikely to get past drawing board.
 
.
Canards give extra lift for great manuvrability while but bad for RCS while Tailless compound delta design is good for lift & good speed + much lesser RCS even with a low powered engine
JF 17 Thunder should have canards like Gripen/J-10 aircrafts to increase its maneuverability sir?
 
.
Wrong Taj, mate! This is an old school view that only applies to improperly coupled canards or
to decoupled ones as the long moment arm types.
In fact, when the Rafale, which has the most coupled airflow system ever with the canards responsible
for generating and modulating the airflow over the wing, was in demo, the French Navy thought it could
not be done and that the approach landing speeds would never be low enough for their requirements.
A traditional delta comes in at 160-170 knots. The Rafale has a 110 knots carrier landing speed due to it.

You can check what this implies by grabbing any good clear close-up video of that plane in flight.
The movement of the canards will easily be seen as counter-intuitive. They go up when you'd think
they should go down and vice-versa. That's simply because they are not acting as control surfaces
but rather modulating the airflow on the combo, body and wing for the elevons, flaps, trim tabs to use.
It is also then evident why this has to be done by computer and cannot left to the pilot to sort out.

Your reasoning was not wrong in and of itself, just outdated.
Have a good day, Tay.

P.S. zahidiqbalnara, Novi avion is a Rafale copy with one engine. Not bad but unlikely to get past drawing board.
Didn't notice the post earlier! Thanks, Yeah will closely look at them. :)
 
.
@JamD Thanks, for now I have found this thread, will try to go through it first before I pick your brain.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom