Admitting to valid points others make is not a shame, especially when you are wrong like this case. Actually it is a sign of work ethics and honesty, and in contrast to how your mindset is formed it will add credit to you as a senior member as well as a hardworking moderator for Iran-related topics.
You claim they made valid points and I explained why they were wrong. So just focus on discussing the facts.
Are you trying to negate the fact that ‘wing’ was devised to generate uplift for the flying objects? Do you know why all aircrafts have wings?
This is a straw-man argument, at no point did I claim wings were not related to lifts etc.
Aspect ratio, as the name suggests is just a ratio! Numerator and denominator of a ratio can be independent parameters. Force divided by the area is called pressure. So what? Does Force lose its fundamentals, importance and application because a ratio called Pressure is there? What are you trying to get at by denying simple facts?
Aspect ratio is critical to this discussion as it explains the reason why the wings are the way they are. The numerator and denominator in the above ratio relate to the wing length and man chord length, this is not qualitatively similar to pressure. You're engaging in highly erroneous analysis. The above ratio's importance in this discussion is the ratio itself. This does not mean the numerator and denominator parameter are wholly irrelevant but we're discussing the matter in a specific context. Below I explained the topic in more detail.
Arash has a relatively low aspect ratio and some UAVs likes predator have long aspect ratio. Both have their own benefits such as lower induced drag vs parasitic drag. Induced drag is higher at low speed
and higher altitude.
Some wings are short and stubby, while others are long and skinny. What's up with the difference?
www.boldmethod.com
A system like Arash will not be flying at higher altitude, certainly not during most of its all flight path. Another advantage of using a high aspect ratio is to help create a STOL, however this does not apply to Arash given it utilises assisted launching, i.e it does not require runways.
With regards to the speed, low aspect ratio in Arash are useful given it is relatively slower:
Low aspect ratio: the design
1- more useful internal volume
2-can fly slow
Link to article:
Another important factor to note is something called wing loading which I explained to you in previous post.
Given the design requirement of Arash, i.e use as a suicide UAV which spends most of its time flying at lower altitude and lower speeds, it is a matter of incorrect aerodynamics to claim it should use "larger wings" or it must fly at high altitude. What aspect ratio you use depends on many factors such as mission design, practical needs such as storing UAVs in launch containers i.e compactness, shape of the UAV etc. Thus you cannot refute the range of a system solely by looking at the wing size/flight altitude. To understand those exact details, you need objective tests such as wind tunnel testing etc.
Your statement is false, as usual. I don’t know about you, but I learned in high school about Newton Law of Attraction: The force of attraction between two masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.
You're misapplying basic physics. The only force of attraction here that is relevant is gravity, however, how does this in anyway counter any of my statements to you?
For low uplift objects with weak engines, we need to increase the distance i.e. flying at high altitude to offset the attraction force (when aircrafts such as F-104 are landing, they cannot do it because eventually they want to ‘land’. Too many pilots have lost their lives for not properly controlling their landing speed, and hitting the ground due to attraction force).
Your argument is fallacious because it is based on the assumption that Arash's engines are too "weak" to maintain lift at the altitude is is designed for. Do you have any data to support your claim or is it another mere pseudo-aerodynamic assumption?
Interestingly enough, in none of the released videos so far Arash flies at low altitude,
What videos? Post some and then given a proper analysis.
and the reason is clear. Arash was originally designed as a target drone.
Source for this claim?
It cannot fly at very low altitude like jet-powered cruise missiles.
This has already been refuted.
There is indeed a bizarre thing here, and it is you adding one 0 to 100 in my post to forge a 1,000 km range for the old version of Arash. Few months ago, Arash’ range was mentioned to be 100 km as a suicide drone during the Zulfiqar-99 exercise, which makes complete sense considering its size and its original design as a target drone. Now, how the hell they could increase its range by a factor of 20 to 40? Unless the new drone only uses the same name as the old one. Maybe, in future they unveil the new one.
As I explained when Arash's other family called Kian member was unveiled last year, they had a 1000km range.
Iran unveils Kian reconnaissance and attack drone
“This drone can undertake any drone missions we entrust it with … it can fly more than 1,000 km [620 miles] and find its target with precision,”
Iran unveiled the jet-propelled reconnaissance and attack "Kian" drone it said can find and attacking targets far from the country's borders
www.thedefensepost.com
As another member showed above, there are other variants of this UAV family, including shorter ranges ones.
Please don’t get me wrong! A drone with a piston engine (low flying speed - high fuel efficiency), flying at high altitude (low fuel consumption), and a small warhead (more internal fuel) can easily fly for more than 1,000 miles,
This has already been addressed. Flying at high altitude would go against the mission plan of these systems and make them much more susceptible to detection. Furthermore, you have provided absolutely zero data to suggest this UAV cannot reach the stated ranges whilst flying at low altitude. I have already explained why flying at low altitude is not mutually exclusive with the relatively long ranges you're seeing.
