MiG-29
Banned Idiot
The patent says tailplane needs to be positioned, and then the integral configuration will do the rest
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
The patent says tailplane needs to be positioned, and then the integral configuration will do the rest
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
Look brat, yous simply believe things are not true, F-35 has not even better aerodynamics than the F-16, that was said even by a US pilot
[video=youtube;pteMgYPm1xM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pteMgYPm1xM&feature=player_embedded[/video]
and he says it at minute 7, plus one of the F-16 chief designers , Pierre Sprey says the same at minute 9,
This is even repeated by this article
As Majumdar says in his article, such claims are strongly disputed by other sources. Among them an experienced Eurofighter Typhoon industry test pilot, who tried to debunk all Flynn’s “theories” about the alleged superior F-35 performance
and later we go to what two named pilots of Eurofighters say about F-22
Overall, Grune says the two aircraft are closely matched in the visual range arena, but Pfeiffer says the Typhoon is the superior *dogfighter
Read more:
Last edited:
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
60-70 controllability is your fantasy, the only way these jets achieve controllability at post-stall is the duration of the maneouvre like in Cobra or TVC nozzles like in other maneuvres.
In tests these aircraft are tested to 40-50 degrees but they operational limits are much lower, your are fantasizing and the patent has a very good picture that shows how much your fantasy is set free, it shows the flight time reduction the fighter experience as it increases AoA, at 120 AoA the jet can only fly it safe few seconds.
And J-20 is no exception, of course you did not know Simonov issued his patent
Last edited:
Engineer
Major
The patent says that "flight control system disengaged from automatic to manual", whereas you claimed "flight control system is used to allow for very high pitch rate" and directly contradicts the very statement you quoted from the patent. You tried to misrepresenting what the patent says with your imagination, but that sort of disingenuity does not work with me.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
No i m not mis-representing anything, the patent says the tailplane (horizontal stabilizer) is used in manual so it can go beyond the operational setting of Su-27`s tailplane.
By exceeding the limit, the Su-27`s tailplane pitches up very fast allowing for a quick pitch up, and the tailplane is set after that in a position that allows the aerodynamic forces to recover the aircraft and the taiplane is set in a position it reduces lateral unstabilities and coning.
They never mention they need a canard or only planes with canards can do cobra, but the well designed lifting body of Su-27 is balanced in a way the lift in front and behind the center of gravity will allow recover from the Cobra.
You are claiming Triplane configuration was "inferior" so J-20 is the superduper machine, however Sukhoi`s patent says the canards only increase lateral stability by adding to the LEX lateral anti-coning movement in a Su-35 or S-54 fighter type.
In fact in graph 12, the show you how the tailplane is deflected
.
Last edited:
Engineer
Major
Nope. The writing from the SAC engineer already showed that a design with canard can maintain controllability up to 65° AoA.
Wrong again. Firstly, what was mentioned in the engineer's writing has nothing to do with post-stall flight. It has everything to do with the simple fact that tailplane is unusable at high AoA while canard still provides controllability. Secondly, Cobra maneuver is not controlled flight and is not relevant to sustained flight at high AoA.
On one hand, we have aircraft such as the F-35 that maintained flight at 50° AoA using pure aerodynamic means. On the other hand, MiG-29 and Su-27 must rely on thrust vectoring to achieve similar flight profile. This means the latter aircraft have inferior aerodynamics when compared to the former. It is that simple.
It doesn't matter. Operational limits are merely computer codes, and do not impact the aerodynamic capabilities within an airframe in any manner. However, the more capable the airframe, the higher the limit can be set. Eurofighter's limit is 35°, whereas Su-27's limit is only 26°. Obviously, the former is aerodynamically superior to the latter.
Your diagram described Cobra maneuvuer, and proved that a Cobra maneuver does not equate to a sustained flight at high AoA. In short, Su-27 performing the Cobra is not the same as the F-35 maintaining controlled flight at 50° AoA.
Of course J-20 is an exception; so is any aircraft that employs canard instead of tailplane. Simonov's patent is irrelevant as it does not describe aircraft with canard layout. Here is a , describing how canard can maintain controllability at high angle of attack.
Last edited:
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
Doing the cobra is pointing ability like Kolokol, which is the horizontal version of the Cobra which is included in the patent and is done by Su-35 which is a triplane
what does it mean that the fighter will do a vertical cobra
so tell me what advantage you get with 60 AoA if the other guy with a triplane can do Kolokol, and by the way
here is the graph that shows the deflection of the tailplane during the cobra and it is from the patent showing tailplanes are used still in post stall
SAC engineers have not even built a domestic Triplane, Sukhoi has built 2 aircraft Su-33/34/35/37 and Su-47 Berkut they have much more experience than SAC that has only copied Su-33 from Ukraine
Last edited:
Engineer
Major
No. The doesn't mention anything operation limit of the tailplane. What is being disengaged is the angle of attack limit within the flight control system, because with the aircraft cannot exceed an angle of attack of 24° with the limit in place.
The aircraft is recovered via shift of center of pressure, and does not involve the actuation of the tailplane or any other control surface.
The tailplane is only used to initiate the maneuver, and doesn't offer any control throughout the entire maneuver. If you aren't misrepresenting on purpose, then you are imaginging the tailplane to do something it cannot.
I never claimed such a thing, but yes, the triplane configuration is indeed inferior to J-20 because J-20 won the competition.
Canard enhances lateral stability, yes, which is one of the reasons why canard allows sustained and controlled flight at high angle of attack. The ability of canard to not stall and maintain control is another one of those reasons. SAC's original design was a tradiational configuration, which loses controllability at 40° ~ 45° angle of attack. Installation of canard increases the flight envelope to 65° angle of attack. These are the words of the SAC's engineer.
Last edited:
Engineer
Major
Irrelevant, since Cobra maneuver is not sustained flight at high angle of attack. Without thrust vectoring, the MiG-29 and Su-27 cannot sustain flight while keeping their nose pointing at 50°. F-35 can sustain such a flight, but is still inferior to the 65° shown in SAC's design.
Irrelevant. Having won the design competition, J-20 already does what SAC's triplane design could do, and does so better. In other words, the J-20 would also be able to sustain flight at 65° angle of attack. In fact, the Canard is specicially used to enable control at high angle of attack. Quotes from Dr. Song:
Last edited:
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
In this picture of Graph 12 they show you the angle of deflection of the tailplane.
Angles of deflection are not random, they even say after positioning the stabilizer the forces will start.
Triplane configurations or canard delta or tailplane configuration are not what make design better but the balance of the design it self, on Su-35 the Sukhoi bureax achieved a design that can do Kolokol, "hook" which basicly has not been replicated by any other fighter without Thrust vectoring.
Show me Kolokol by J-10 or J-20 and you will prove your point Cobra is not even proven by J-10 in air shows after almost 16 years of its first flight.
F-22 has shown it, F-16 too, but with thrust vectoring, the rest is the myth of the forum lore, no video.
You simple do not understand that stealth fighters are compromised and they need TVC nozzles or HMS as the Eurofighter pilot says.
Is either HMS and highly offbored missiles or Thrust vectoring what F-22 and F-35 use.
Eurofighter and SU-35 are more aerodynamic fighters.
J-20 is not different, its aerodynamics are compromised, its canard positioned in a way it limits its max effectivity, while Rafale has a better positioned canard.
Its large frontal cross section its huge, the jet has huge bumps on the intake increasing the cross section swelling the aircraft frontal cross section add to that the large nose and large and long body.
If the jet adds external wing pylons the performance will reduce substantially.
It is just a big F-35 with canards
In fact Su-35 carries L band UHF radar on the wing to detect Stealth fighters
It means simply Europe and the Russians are relying on aerodynamics and UHF radars to design a counter stealth force.
Europe has passive radars.
Your are thinking J-20 has advanced while others are not trying to go other ways, the american concept of stealth is not followed as many think, in Europe and Russia are going for cheap alternatives.
Eurofighter and rafale can lightly armed with the right sensors perhaps give a good run for its money to stealth fighters like J-20, J-31 or F-22
Last edited:
- Status