Aerodynamics thread

[MiG-29]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

:





At 16 and 22 degrees AoA means the paragraph talks about low angle-of-attack. In other words, the paragraph doesn't support your claim that active deflection of the tailplane is used in recovery in the Cobra maneuver. :

hahaha

what does it say here let me say it

"stability at high angle of attack

aft-tail aircraft becomes aerodynamically stable above 25 degree of AoA (desirable)
canard aircraft remains aerodynamically unstable to 80 degree AoA (undesirable)"

at what angle?

aft-tail aircraft becomes aerodynamically stable above 25 degree of AoA (desirable)
ah figure 37 shows that is not it hahahaha but your selective memory did not say

canard deflection (delta_c) influences the angle of attack in the below-stall range, see Fig-10, but does not influence in the post stall range.......


hahahaha so at 22 degrees of AoA canard aircraft are still with positive pitch up hahahahaha and graph 37 proves it hahahaha

---------- Post added at 11:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 AM ----------

As usual, you're missing the point, and you just can't expect people here to forever point out your error for you.

Do you think the tailess canard-wing model, as shown in Fig. 1 in the study, is even flyable? It's meant to collect experimental data, basically to be used in conjunction with the rest of the experitmental data to determine how the canards, wings and horizontal tails interact with each other. The model configuration in Fig. 1 is nowhere near the configuration of any flyable aircraft in existence in this world, but you even has the audacity to compare it with the J-20.

audacity? wow now you think JAST was not tested? or do you think the americans did not test JSF concepts with canards? hahahaha of course is not a matter of audacity is just a matter of knowing history of aviation and by the way do you know the LFI by Yakolev?
Chinned and with canards and twin vertical fins ah but according to you canard studies are of no use

see

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Engineer]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

hahaha

what does it say here let me say it

"stability at high angle of attack

aft-tail aircraft becomes aerodynamically stable above 25 degree of AoA (desirable)
canard aircraft remains aerodynamically unstable to 80 degree AoA (undesirable)"

at what angle?

aft-tail aircraft becomes aerodynamically stable above 25 degree of AoA (desirable)
ah figure 37 shows that is not it hahahaha but your selective memory did not say

canard deflection (delta_c) influences the angle of attack in the below-stall range, see Fig-10, but does not influence in the post stall range.......


hahahaha so at 22 degrees of AoA canard aircraft are still with positive pitch up hahahahaha and graph 37 proves it hahahaha

Quite the opposite, it proves absolutely nothing with regards to active deflection of tailplane in recovering the aircraft at high AoA. All it does is show the same observation made in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, which states that pitch-down moment is caused by shift of the aerodynamic center:

The recovery from high angles of attack to the classical flight mode in a few seconds only is possible due to moving the center of pressure on main wing the center of pressure on main wing back and creating the strong nose-down aerodynamic pitching moment about the center of gravity.

The use of the word "only" excludes active deflection of tailplane as the mean of recovery, and you are still unable to provide proofs for the contrary. Furthermore,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

points out that tailplane loses effectiveness at high AoA:

A concentration of characteristic curves C[sub]m[/sub] for the tailplane setting angle φ[sub]t[/sub] being varied at post-critical AoA (i.e. very low sensitivity of pitch moment with respect to the tailplane setting angle) reflects the loss of effectiveness of a horizontal tail at higher AoA.

What does it say? Let me say it: the tailplane becomes ineffective at high AoA.

So why does the tailplane becomes ineffective? It's because of stall. Canards on the other hand maintain zero AoA with respects to the oncoming air, and deflect into negative AoA region to provide pitch-down moment. Thus, canard does not encounter the same problem of stall as a tailplane would, making canard superior to the tailplane at high AoA. This is explained in Dr. Song's paper:

Control surfaces placed in front of the center of mass, like the canards, are negative load control surfaces. Since the main wing's ability to generate lift tends to saturate under high AOA conditions, the positive load control surfaces' pitch down control capabilities tend to saturate under high AOA as well. Therefore it will be wise to employ negative load control surfaces for pitch down control under high AOA conditions. Figure 7 compares the pitch down control capabilities of the canards and horizontal stabilizers. From the high AOA pitch down control stand point, it will be wise to use canards on the future fighter.

So, quite simply, an aircraft with traditional configuration relies on positive stability to recover because the tailplane has become ineffective. In contrast, an aircraft with canard can still actively use the canard for recovery.

 

[Quickie]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

audacity? wow now you think JAST was not tested? or do you think the americans did not test JSF concepts with canards? hahahaha of course is not a matter of audacity is just a matter of knowing history of aviation and by the way do you know the LFI by Yakolev?
Chinned and with canards and twin vertical fins ah but according to you canard studies are of no use

see

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Again, you're detracting from the central point of discussion. I was asking the question:

"Do you think the tailess canard-wing model, as shown in Fig. 1 in the study, is even flyable? It's meant to collect experimental data, basically to be used in conjunction with the rest of the experitmental data to determine how the canards, wings and horizontal tails interact with each other. The model configuration in Fig. 1 is nowhere near the configuration of any flyable aircraft in existence in this world, but you even has the audacity to compare it with the J-20."


It doesn't matter what studies, what argument you try to pull in. So far you have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding any of them. So as I've found out earlier, what's the point of discussing further if you continue to make illogical arguments based on your wrong interpretation of the studies that you grabbed randomly from the internet?

 

[MiG-29]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Again, you're detracting from the central point of discussion. I was asking the question:

"Do you think the tailess canard-wing model, as shown in Fig. 1 in the study, is even flyable? It's meant to collect experimental data, basically to be used in conjunction with the rest of the experitmental data to determine how the canards, wings and horizontal tails interact with each other. The model configuration in Fig. 1 is nowhere near the configuration of any flyable aircraft in existence in this world, but you even has the audacity to compare it with the J-20."


It doesn't matter what studies, what argument you try to pull in. So far you have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding any of them. So as I've found out earlier, what's the point of discussing further if you continue to make illogical arguments based on your wrong interpretation of the studies that you grabbed randomly from the internet?

You simply have no other way of defend your argument than claim the articles i present you, talk against me, this is common, Engineer`s tactic is the same, first tactic is claim i can not undertand the paper, second is hold on to an argument interpreting it as you wish.

You are no different, since the only one here presenting articles is me.

But you are pretty much wrong, all modern jets have basic aerodynamic characteristics, a long couple canard has the same physics regardless of the aircraft X-31 or Eurofighter have long couple canards, the efficiency of those canards is the same.

This studies are not like you are trying to say,
To start they mention several positions of the canard, these positions are vertical and horizontal, they show you different shapes of canards, deflections, speeds, how they modify the results and the trends.

So pretty much you can get an idea of how the aircraft aerodynamics are made.
But since you do not like the main conclusions your defence was it is an old paper.

---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ----------

Quite the opposite, it proves absolutely nothing with regards to active deflection of tailplane in recovering the aircraft at high AoA. :

Yes engineer, yes but the article says


canard deflection (delta_c) influences the angle of attack in the below-stall range, see Fig-10, but does not influence in the post stall range.......


So this statements means they do not agree any thing with Song`s point of view, niether with you, but you lack honesty and you interpret any thing as you wish and claim victory any time hahaha debunked


really?

"stability at high angle of attack

aft-tail aircraft becomes aerodynamically stable above 25 degree of AoA (desirable)
canard aircraft remains aerodynamically unstable to 80 degree AoA (undesirable)"

always excusing your self hahaha

 

[Engineer]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

You simply have no other way of defend your argument than claim the articles i present you, talk against me, this is common, Engineer`s tactic is the same, first tactic is claim i can not undertand the paper, second is hold on to an argument interpreting it as you wish.

That is merely

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of you own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, on to others. If you are not misinterpreting papers as you pleased, you wouldn't be trying to accuse others of the same thing.

You are no different, since the only one here presenting articles is me.

But you are pretty much wrong, all modern jets have basic aerodynamic characteristics, a long couple canard has the same physics regardless of the aircraft X-31 or Eurofighter have long couple canards, the efficiency of those canards is the same.

This studies are not like you are trying to say,
To start they mention several positions of the canard, these positions are vertical and horizontal, they show you different shapes of canards, deflections, speeds, how they modify the results and the trends.

So pretty much you can get an idea of how the aircraft aerodynamics are made.
But since you do not like the main conclusions your defence was it is an old paper.

Irrelevant. Careful study of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

shows it has little to do with J-20. Take the following statement as an example, which contains three things that are not applicable to the J-20:

TRISURFACE CONFIGURATION
The canard, if in proper position for favorable interference, is not as efficient a trimming device for a stable configuration.

The first is the tri-surface configuration, which J-20 does not use. The second is the study of closed-couple canard, which is also not used by J-20. The third is that the paper study the contribution of canard to a stable configuration, but J-20 is unstable. In short, this paper has little relevance to the J-20's configuration. Your

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on history of flight and basic aerodynamic characteristics are nothing more than excuses after you b.s. have been exposed.

Yes engineer, yes but the article says


canard deflection (delta_c) influences the angle of attack in the below-stall range, see Fig-10, but does not influence in the post stall range.......


So this statements means they do not agree any thing with Song`s point of view, niether with you, but you lack honesty and you interpret any thing as you wish and claim victory any time hahaha debunked

Wrong. From

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, it is said quite explicitly that tailplane loses effectiveness at high AoA:

A concentration of characteristic curves C[sub]m[/sub] for the tailplane setting angle φ[sub]t[/sub] being varied at post-critical AoA (i.e. very low sensitivity of pitch moment with respect to the tailplane setting angle) reflects the loss of effectiveness of a horizontal tail at higher AoA.

Losing effectiveness means deflection of tailplane cannot be used to provide pitch control. So how does the paper disagree with Dr. Song's assessment? The simple answer is it doesn't. In fact, the opposite is true as the paper agrees with Dr. Song's regarding tailplane ineffectiveness at high AoA. The following is Dr. Song's statement:

Control surfaces placed in front of the center of mass, like the canards, are negative load control surfaces. Since the main wing's ability to generate lift tends to saturate under high AOA conditions, the positive load control surfaces' pitch down control capabilities tend to saturate under high AOA as well. Therefore it will be wise to employ negative load control surfaces for pitch down control under high AOA conditions. Figure 7 compares the pitch down control capabilities of the canards and horizontal stabilizers. From the high AOA pitch down control stand point, it will be wise to use canards on the future fighter.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

also says the samething, where tailplane loses effectiveness at high AoA:

It can be explained by loosing of effectiveness of control surfaces... In the range of AoA up to 35[SUP]o[/SUP] the normal increases approximately linearly, then stabilises and practically the tail surface losses its effectiveness.

Your claim that papers do not agree with Dr. Song therefore has no basis in reality, and is debunked. Your empty accusation on others is nothing more than

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of yourself on to others, as you assume everyone else is like you who lack the honesty to admit you are wrong and have to resort to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

really?

"stability at high angle of attack

aft-tail aircraft becomes aerodynamically stable above 25 degree of AoA (desirable)
canard aircraft remains aerodynamically unstable to 80 degree AoA (undesirable)"

always excusing your self hahaha

Indeed, it is quite clear that you keep on creating ever more excuses for your incorrect beliefs. Take stability for example, it refers to how the aircraft behaves when the controls go to neutral. In other words, control surfaces do not deflect. Yet, you are trying to pass it off as a proof that active deflection of tailplane can generate pitch moment at high AoA. It is quite disingenuous on your part, I must say. In any case, this example illustrates your excuses quite perfectly.

Also, aren't you good at quoting things? If you can find a quote that says tailplane is more effective than canard at high AoA, you would have posted it already. The fact that you cannot provide such a quote and has to rely on your creativity is an evidence that you cannot find a paper that agrees with your view.

Unlike you, I can point out exact statements that prove you are wrong. For example,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

says conventional aerodynamic control is lost at high AoA:

if the aircraft can fly at angles of attack of 80[sup]o[/sup] - 120[sup]o[/sup] with the ability to maintain stability in all channels. In this flight regime the ability for conventional control is usually lost.

See what I did there? I made a direct quote which debunks your claim. You, on the other hand, are unable to provide proof for the contrary.

 

[Quickie]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

This studies are not like you are trying to say,
To start they mention several positions of the canard, these positions are vertical and horizontal, they show you different shapes of canards, deflections, speeds, how they modify the results and the trends.

As usual, you're wrongfully accusing others of saying what they never say.

As I said the problem is with your erroneous understanding of the study. How is it relevant the study of short coupled canards (with horizontal tails for the main pitch control) to the long coupled canards of the J-20 which it uses as the main pitch control surface?

You're wrong again to try to link those two types of canards. (I've explained this a few times already but looks like you're really a slow learner.) Short coupled canard has a indirect influence of the pitch moment of the aircraft by its effect on the shifting of the AC of the wing through the canards' main function of boundary layer flow control over the wing. Short coupled canards in itself are ineffective in pitch control because of its short moment arm as explained in the the study itself in the quote below.

The canard, if in proper position foi favorable interference, is not
as efficient a trimming device for a stable configuration. This is due in
part to the short moment arm as well aa to the large drag increase caused
by positive canard drflectiona. This increase in drag is particularly
severe at low angles of attack. Due to the above reasons, configurations
consisting of canards, wing, and horizontal tail were evaluated. A sketch
of this configuration is shown in Figure 20.

 

[MiG-29]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

See what I did there? I made a direct quote which debunks your claim. You, on the other hand, are unable to provide proof for the contrary.

hahaha you just interpret things according to what fits your systems of beliefs
becuase the article says the canard does not work at high Aoa and if they say usually the conventional controls are usually lost then it means canards can not work either you shot your self on your own foot.

In few words Song theories are debunked even by your self hahaha

But here is the funny about you.

you claim tailplane stops working and you say i debunked you but if it is canard not definitively still works.

However the article never says the tailplane stops working it says losses efectivenes but


"third phase, (recovery from the manoeuvre)
characterised by full deflection of the horizontal
tail for diving with the increasing,"

here is what you can not explain and simply ignore and you do not quote because you can not justify your fallacy with that






So here is where you get in your own contradiction

you say that canard works but conventional control lost effectiveness wow come you just flip flop and because is not what you want but what the paper say

and i know your tactic simple tactic is the one in which you misinterpret the paper and the example is

The paper remember says

canard deflection (delta_c) influences the angle of attack in the below-stall range, see Fig-10, but does not influence in the post stall range.......


plus


if the aircraft can fly at angles of attack of 80o - 120o with the ability to maintain stability in all channels. In this flight regime the ability for conventional control is usually lost.


Means the author says canards can not be used so continue shoting in your self in your foot hahaha

 

[Engineer]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

hahaha you just interpret things according to what fits your systems of beliefs
becuase the article says the canard does not work at high Aoa and if they say usually the conventional controls are usually lost then it means canards can not work either you shot your self on your own foot.

In few words Song theories are debunked even by your self hahaha

Nope. Canard isn't conventional controls, but part of the unconventional aerodynamic mentioned in Dr. Song in his paper:

As a result, it is vitally important to study unconventional aerodynamic control mechanisms for high AOA flights.

The canard never gets to high AoA because they are aligned with oncoming airflow, even when the aircraft itself is at high AoA. This is explained in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

In piloted supernormal flight of the aircraft of the present invention, the wing of an aircraft, such as a superagile tactical fighter, is either partially or completely stalled, while the longitudinal control surfaces, such as in a rotatable canard arrangement, are deflected to approximately the same magnitude, but of opposite sign, as the angle of attack of the aircraft, so that the canard arrangement remains effective to control the aircraft through large ranges of angles of attack, pitch,and flight path. Such angles may vary from descending flight to deep stall, i.e. -45.degree., to ascending flight in vertical climb, i.e. +90.degree..

The problem of losing effectiveness as encountered by tailplane simply isn't encountered by canard.

But here is the funny about you.

you claim tailplane stops working and you say i debunked you but if it is canard not definitively still works.



However the article never says the tailplane stops working it says losses efectivenes but

Wrong. This is a fallacy of yours called

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, where you substitute my argument with one of your own, after which you proceed to argue against your own argument. I have always maintained that tailplane loses effectiveness at high AoA, and never have I used the words "stops working".

Now let see what dictionaries have to say about the word "ineffective":
From

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

ineffective [ˌɪnɪˈfɛktɪv]
adj

1. having no effect
2. incompetent or inefficient

ineffectively adv
ineffectiveness n

Thus, the tailplane can deflect wildly but it has no effect on the pitch moment. From

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pronunciation: /ˈiniˈfektiv/
adjective

not producing any significant or desired effect: the legal sanctions against oil spills are virtually ineffective a weak and ineffective president

In other words, the tailplane is not producing the desired effect of pitch-down moment.

"third phase, (recovery from the manoeuvre) characterised by full deflection of the horizontal tail for diving with the increasing,"

here is what you can not explain and simply ignore and you do not quote because you can not justify your fallacy with that

Pointing out facts to debunk your pseudo-aerodynamic isn't a fallacy. What is a fallacy is your use of the above quote, which is a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, whereby you are isolating a single statement and distorting its meaning. As pointed out by the very

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, tailplane loses effectiveness at high AoA:

It can be explained by loosing of effectiveness of control surfaces... In the range of AoA up to 35[SUP]o[/SUP] the normal increases approximately linearly, then stabilises and practically the tail surface losses its effectiveness.

Whether the tailplane deflects doesn't make it gain more effectiveness, just as flapping your arms wildly doesn't enable you to fly.

So here is where you get in your own contradiction

you say that canard works but conventional control lost effectiveness wow come you just flip flop and because is not what you want but what the paper say

Wrong. I never referred to canard is a conventional control. As Dr. Song points out in his paper, canard is part of the unconventional aerodynamics:

As a result, it is vitally important to study unconventional aerodynamic control mechanisms for high AOA flights.

and i know your tactic simple tactic is the one in which you misinterpret the paper and the example is

The paper remember says

canard deflection (delta_c) influences the angle of attack in the below-stall range, see Fig-10, but does not influence in the post stall range.......


plus


if the aircraft can fly at angles of attack of 80o - 120o with the ability to maintain stability in all channels. In this flight regime the ability for conventional control is usually lost.


Means the author says canards can not be used so continue shoting in your self in your foot hahaha

From that

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

where you have obtained that quote from:

if the aircraft can fly at angles of attack of 80[SUP]o[/SUP] - 120[SUP]o[/SUP] with the ability to maintain stability in all channels. In this flight regime the ability for conventional control is usually lost.

What does the paper mean by conventional control? The paper is referring to tailplane, and explicitly made the following statement:

It can be explained by loosing of effectiveness of control surfaces... In the range of AoA up to 35[SUP]o[/SUP] the normal increases approximately linearly, then stabilises and practically the tail surface losses its effectiveness.

As you can see, there is no misinterpretation. Just because you use a certain tactic, that doesn't mean others employ the same tactics as you do. Your empty accusation is a classic example of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Furthermore, I never once referred to canard as conventional aerodynamic control. You just assume that I have, illustrating your typical tactic of misinterpretation other people's statements. As I have pointed out, the reason canard can be used for recovery is pointed out by Dr. Song:

As a result, it is vitally important to study unconventional aerodynamic control mechanisms for high AOA flights.

"Unconventional aerodynamic control mechanisms", which he uses to refer to the canards. Your silly little word-games with "conventional" failed.

 

[MiG-29]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Nope. Canard isn't conventional controls, but part of the unconventional aerodynamic mentioned in Dr. Song in his paper:


:

wow more flip flop.

Here is your typical tactic mixing sources to claim a source says other things

The article says


canard deflection (delta_c) influences the angle of attack in the below-stall range, see Fig-10, but does not influence in the post stall range.......


plus


if the aircraft can fly at angles of attack of 80o - 120o with the ability to maintain stability in all channels. In this flight regime the ability for conventional control is usually lost.

a but as a good falacy you claim the article says canards work because Song paper hahaha

The article says canards do not work

you just make your own concept to say something the article does not say.

What Song says in one article does not chance what the original author said

canard deflection (delta_c) influences the angle of attack in the below-stall range, see Fig-10, but does not influence in the post stall range.......


as such your tactic is avoiding what the original source says trying to mix sources and linking them in a way you think your thesis is real hahaha.

You are the real verbosity fallacy maker
Since the original article does not say the canard work at post stall.

It is you who does not quote that part and avoids it.

later you claim
"Angle of Attack and tailplane deflection depend very strongly on the flight path angle in the post stall region, and practically do not depend in the below stall region

"third phase, (recovery from the manoeuvre) characterised by full deflection of the horizontal tail for diving with the increasing,"

mean theya re not trimming so what is that? of course you need to claim the tailplane lost 100% ability but the canard does not and you do it avoiding the part you do not like but quoting song


hahaha when in reality the article says


canard deflection (delta_c) influences the angle of attack in the below-stall range, see Fig-10, but does not influence in the post stall range.......


So to avoid that you quote Song trying to imply the author said canards do work but tailplanes do not

this shows you are just the true fallacy maker since the author at no moment says the canard works


Niether the american papers say the canards are better since they say

AFT-TAIL VS CANARD
CONCLUSIONS
* WITH ACTIVE CONTROLS THE COMBATS MISSION PERFORMANCE ARE
COMPARABLE
* THE CANARD CONFIGURATION DOES NOT HAVE ANY FUNDAMENTAL COMPARISON
ADVANTAGES OVER THE AFT-TAIL AIRCRAFT


or the that the aircraft lost total control since


usually does not equal always

So you hang on a lie and misquoting by saying tailplanes can not ever being use something that is a lie since Usally means sometimes most of times but it does not mean always and here it can be talking about the F-15 or F-18 and to prove it see

the post-stall region provided that several criteria are met:
1. The aircraft has enough thrust to overcome the huge drag increase.
2. The aircraft has controls that will not be rendered ineffective by separated
flow over the wings and tail.


So your misquoting of the article does not consider that the article says canard do not work you shot your self in your foot and other articles say tailplanes are deflected

 

[Air Force Brat]

Re: J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

wow more flip flop.

Here is your typical tactic mixing sources to claim a source says other things

The article says


canard deflection (delta_c) influences the angle of attack in the below-stall range, see Fig-10, but does not influence in the post stall range.......


plus


if the aircraft can fly at angles of attack of 80o - 120o with the ability to maintain stability in all channels. In this flight regime the ability for conventional control is usually lost.

a but as a good falacy you claim the article says canards work because Song paper hahaha

The article says canards do not work

you just make your own concept to say something the article does not say.

What Song says in one article does not chance what the original author said

canard deflection (delta_c) influences the angle of attack in the below-stall range, see Fig-10, but does not influence in the post stall range.......


as such your tactic is avoiding what the original source says trying to mix sources and linking them in a way you think your thesis is real hahaha.

You are the real verbosity fallacy maker
Since the original article does not say the canard work at post stall.

It is you who does not quote that part and avoids it.

later you claim
"Angle of Attack and tailplane deflection depend very strongly on the flight path angle in the post stall region, and practically do not depend in the below stall region

"third phase, (recovery from the manoeuvre) characterised by full deflection of the horizontal tail for diving with the increasing,"

mean theya re not trimming so what is that? of course you need to claim the tailplane lost 100% ability but the canard does not and you do it avoiding the part you do not like but quoting song


hahaha when in reality the article says


canard deflection (delta_c) influences the angle of attack in the below-stall range, see Fig-10, but does not influence in the post stall range.......


So to avoid that you quote Song trying to imply the author said canards do work but tailplanes do not

this shows you are just the true fallacy maker since the author at no moment says the canard works


Niether the american papers say the canards are better since they say

AFT-TAIL VS CANARD
CONCLUSIONS
* WITH ACTIVE CONTROLS THE COMBATS MISSION PERFORMANCE ARE
COMPARABLE
* THE CANARD CONFIGURATION DOES NOT HAVE ANY FUNDAMENTAL COMPARISON
ADVANTAGES OVER THE AFT-TAIL AIRCRAFT


or the that the aircraft lost total control since


usually does not equal always

So you hang on a lie and misquoting by saying tailplanes can not ever being use something that is a lie since Usally means sometimes most of times but it does not mean always and here it can be talking about the F-15 or F-18 and to prove it

Mig, that the Su-27 can do a nice cobra is academic, it is done quickly, your thesis seems to be that to be an effective A2A platform it must perform the cobra, that my boy is nonsense. Whether or not an aircraft can do anything in post stall is not the current aim or issue, that it is able to turn and be supermanueverable is great and def adds to A2A, your obvious bias against Dr. Song and the J-21 is just a racist attack, something you have accused others of. While I have stated that you are a bright lad, I do wish you would quit trying to prove me wrong in that regard, I do hate being wrong about people. While these papers are nice and well written, I doubt the authors would approve of some of the extrapolations you have made. You seem to have no desire to understand or be fair to J-20 or Dr. Song, this is a defense forum, not a Jr. High class. Your head knowledge isn't matched by the ability to practically apply that to a "particular" aircraft. The one quality that Dr. Song posseses that you seem to lack is maturity , and that maturity allows him to be "objective"! I really don't think it serves our discussion of aerodynamics well if you continue to attack those who disagree with you personally. I go by Air Force Brat, because I want people to know that some of my knowledge is incomplete, and I do want to understand, there were a lot of guys on the J-20 thread who wanted to have an aerodynamic discussion, but the flavor of this thread, that started out nicely, is being poisoned by a nasty attitude, so please out of respect for your friends, lets drag this discussion out of the gutter, and approach it in a mature more respectfull manner. This should be the best thread on the forum IMOH, and my Daddy told me I only had one mouth, and two ears, so I ought to spend more time listening than talking. Cheers Brat, oh and Happy Easter.