J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[Lion]

Su-30 MKI has both canards and TVC.

You realise MKI is Very poor design. Russian is the master of su-27, their su-35 final design is without canard. So you trust the Indian more or Russian more?

 

[Blitzo]

Don't you realise all your mention is prototype only? Of cos I am aware of these pLanes. Do you reLise why they did not make it to final design? The su-35 is a classic example. Do you know the finalize design is without canard? I don't want to say more.. Facts is there.

Yes I did realize they were all testbeds/prototypes. I do not know why they didn't go into production -- possibly they were only meant to be testbeds perhaps?
Well when I said "russian built flankers" I meant Su-30MKI, which definitely are in production. The Su-35 claim on the other hand is irrelevant.
Unless you can prove that the russians removed the canards due to conflicts with tvc you're not saying anything.

Besides, J-20 will feature TVC too... so I suppose we should all expect CAC to remove the canards on the planes featuring W-15.

 

[Blitzo]

You realise MKI is Very poor design. Russian is the master of su-27, their su-35 final design is without canard. So you trust the Indian more or Russian more?

I trust the requirements which both countries have set for their respective aircraft.
Claiming that canards+tvc is "unnecessary" is a very hard claim to back and the burden of proof is all on you.
simply saying the Su-30MKI is a "poor design" and that the Russians didn't go for a canard+tvc Su-35 doesn't help you either because they would've had their own requirements for the aircraft.

 

[Lion]

Yes I did realize they were all testbeds/prototypes. I do not know why they didn't go into production -- possibly they were only meant to be testbeds perhaps?
Well when I said "russian built flankers" I meant Su-30MKI, which definitely are in production. The Su-35 claim on the other hand is irrelevant.
Unless you can prove that the russians removed the canards due to conflicts with tvc you're not saying anything.

Besides, J-20 will feature TVC too... so I suppose we should all expect CAC to remove the canards on the planes featuring W-15.

I don't think Russian will remove something useful. Common sense tells you. No need explanation. If you talk abt cost, thrust vector is more high maintenance, not canard shall be removed.

I dont think j-20 will feature thrust vector. There is no mention of it until I see one then I will believe?G

As for su-35 and MkI I don't see any different requirement. Both are design as the same role. Multi role air superiority. Different countries and different requirement is an assumption, right?

 

[Blitzo]

I dont think j-20 will feature thrust vector. There is no mention of it until I see one then I will believe?G

Well just about every reliable poster is convinced the aircraft will feature TVC...

As for su-35 and MkI I don't see any different requirement. Both are design as the same role. Multi role air superiority. Different countries and different requirement is an assumption, right?

I don't quite understand what you mean but I'll give replying a shot.
India and Russia obviously are two different countries so that isn't an assumption. And yes it is an assumption that they would have different requirements for their respective multi role air superiority aircraft (Su-30MKI vs Su-35BM) so therefore they would have a different aircraft altogether. It is a far smaller assumption than thinking both aircraft must fill the same specs and the fact that one has removed a control surface means said control surface is redundant.

Besides being designed for the same role doesn't mean they will have the same requirements. The former is far less specific than the latter.

Look my point is that your claim, that canards make tvc redundant/tvc makes canards redundant, because no production aircraft has that configuration, is flawed because the Su-30MKI fulfills what you outlined. Any further claims about its effectiveness vs Su-35BM is irrelevant from the premises you've given for your overall conclusion.

 

[Lion]

Look my point is that your claim, that canards make tvc redundant/tvc makes canards redundant, because no production aircraft has that configuration, is flawed because the Su-30MKI fulfills what you outlined. Any further claims about its effectiveness vs Su-35BM is irrelevant from the premises you've given for your overall conclusion.

Can I say canard is on su-30MKI is flaw? The canard is there probably by demand of IAF that it will give them the physical psychological of completed with everything. We are talking about India which has the least design experience of china, Russia and UK who don't opt for these combo. If you want to add in France and Sweden....

If su-35BM never happen. Probably I will accept yr example of su-30MKI. But with the su-35BM, plus it's from the more experience Russian. I am convinced Russian do not see any merit of canard on their su-35 already install with thrust vector, no matter what countries requirement.

 

[Blitzo]

Can I say canard is on su-30MKI is flaw? The canard is there probably by demand of IAF that it will give them the physical psychological of completed with everything. We are talking about India which has the least design experience of china, Russia and UK who don't opt for these combo. If you want to add in France and Sweden....

Are you insinuating the Indians wanted the canards+tvc simply because it makes them feel like they're flying superior aircraft?
I'm sorry but that comes across as completely ridiculous.

If su-35BM never happen. Probably I will accept yr example of su-30MKI. But with the su-35BM, plus it's from the more experience Russian. I am convinced Russian do not see any merit of canard on their su-35 already install with thrust vector, no matter what countries requirement.

No, there's nothing to suggest the russians did not retain canards on the Su-35BM because they "did not see any merit". You may as well be arguing that they liked the look without canards better >_>

 

[Lion]

No, there's nothing to suggest the russians did not retain canards on the Su-35BM because they "did not see any merit". You may as well be arguing that they liked the look without canards better >_>

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Originally the Su-35 project did not contemplate the adoption of canards, however during the development of the aircraft at the beginning of the 1990s, the radar was installed then in development N-011M "Bars" in a prototype of the T-10 / Su-27. At the beginning it was noticed that the extreme weight of N-011M Bars affected the center of gravity of the aircraft, the radar was much heavier than the N-001 radar of the original Su-27. This compelled the designers of the aircraft to adopt some system that supported the frontal surface of the aircraft. The solution of canards appeared to reequilibrate the center of gravity of the aircraft. It was noticed in the flight of tests of the Su-35 that canards had improved the stability of the aircraft, improved the sustentation capacity, in closed maneuvers with very great angles of attack. This change made as much "success" that was adopted in other variants of the Su-27. The down side was that it increased the aerodinamico drag in supersonic regimen and even more increased the wing area of the aircraft, which resulted in an increase of the RCS of the aircraft.

Aiming at to reduce the RCS of the aircraft, the designers of the T-10 had opted to remove canards from the aircraft. But to make this was possible it would be necessary to reduce the weight of the embarked radar, with the purpose of re-equilibrating the center of gravity of aircraft without the use of canards. This was possible with the new radar that was in development and that will have substantially inferior weight to the N-011M, having had similar weight to the original N-001 of the Su-27. This minituarization of components and use of in the manufacture of the parts of lighter materials, allowed the center of gravity of the aircraft came back to be as the original Su-27, making possible withdrawal of canards of the aircraft.

 

[Blitzo]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So in this case they removed the canards because it increased RCS and drag an amount and they were able to lighten the radar up enough so they were unnecessary. But that write up also states canards increased aerodynamic performance, so obviously they made a decision that suited their own requirements better.

You do realize this write up, while interesting, doesn't support your overall conclusion that TVC+canards are redundant together right?

I think we're done here.

 

[paintgun]

canard and TVC are only elements incorporating the overall aerodynamics, to analyze them you need to look into the specific a/c, Flankers variants or in this case J-10

you want a specific control and response from an aircraft to achieve the spec, and you do it via control surfaces
can it become redundant? sure, if it falls below the threshold of efficiency vis a vis sacrifice/compromise
the Russians removing the canards on the Su-35 is actually an aerodynamic improvement

do the J-10 need TVC? probably not, a better engine is more useful
i don't think we will see big changes after J-10B

IMHO