Canards can generate lift, strakes do not.
Strakes only destabilize airflow in high angles of attack and do not provide additional lift themselves.
next question.
Can you show me how much lift the Kfirs canards generate in level flight?
Yeah in the appropriate thread go ahead and ping me there.
The reason I ask is because the primary purpose for them on the Kfir is the same as what leading edge flaps do for the M2K. If you wish to dispute that you can do so with a source on either M2K or Kfir.
Close coupled Canard provides the airflow and vortices, M2K has the leading edge flaps and the “strakes” to create vortices.
The difference is that one of them has no trim drag at low speed because the nose naturally wants to pitch up. It has improved low quality handling over conventional tailed designs contrary to your rant.
To tie this in to the MiG-29 thread, the MiG-29 doesn’t get lift from the elevators since they are constantly trimming to keep nose attitude. The F-16 at maneuvering speeds has additional lift generated from the elevators to assist in energy maneuverability and allows them to get away with a smaller wing. The benefits are reduced drag, smaller fighter, and unlike pure deltas have better deep stall recovery with a separate elevator. Despite all this, the F-16s stability margin proves too unstable for such low speed flight and was limited irl to avoid AoA overshoots and departure. Such conditions would cause deep stalls and spins. In-game there is no such thing for the F-16.
MiG-29s neutral stability between 14-26° AoA allowed for rapid pitch-up moments and overshoots to ~60° AoA. It is precisely these areas of total airflow separation (50-60°) that it is able to dynamically decelerate and then nose down again for a recovery without worry of instability. The regions before this (35-45°) there is still turbulent airflow over the wings and around the nose that cause wing rock, adverse roll or yaw conditions.
This is why the MiG-29’s only capable of briefly doing 60° AoA and sustaining only 26-28° in level flight.
@MiG_23M trying to break in and derail the Mig29 thread with “F-18 is superior, F-16C is overperforming & now M2k/Kfir.”
I am going to start calling you the T-1000, bro.
1 Like
The reason you ask is because you have a Napolean complex and just cannot take an L on anything.
Everything just stated about the Kfir and leading edges was made up and all of your interpretations are rooted in fantasy and end up being proven as such. You are not qualified to discuss the Mig29 if you can barely comprehend 3rd Generation aircraft and basic wing designs.
IAI Kfir (Lion Cub) (militaryfactory.com)
Do you know why do they say “main wings”? because canards are called “forewings.” Do you know what wings do? GENERATE LIFT.
Where the canard surface contributes lift, the weight of the aircraft is shared between the wing and the canard. It has been described as an extreme conventional configuration but with a small highly loaded wing and an enormous lifting tail which enables the centre of mass to be very far aft relative to the front surface.
A lifting canard generates an upload, in contrast to a conventional aft-tail which sometimes generates negative lift that must be counteracted by extra lift on the main wing. As the canard lift adds to the overall lift capability of the aircraft, this may appear to favor the canard layout. In particular, at takeoff the wing is most heavily loaded and where a conventional tail exerts a downforce worsening the load, a canard exerts an upward force relieving the load. This allows a smaller main wing.
Theres a source, stick to tractors.
Gave you nearly an entire day to respond with something worthwhile and you didn’t.
Here is something to read on close-coupled canards, but as you said… let’s get back to the topic at hand.
Lol entire day? I got bored so now Iam dunking on you sound definitions of what a canard is.
Find us a source that states canards are some bootleg substitutes for leading edge flaps.
Find it. in this entire naval study please.
Do not throw entire books out there. Be a big boy and find it for me.
If you’d like to discuss it we can, although I’d prefer not to drag this off topic further. You want to use militaryfactory.com as a source that’s up to you, but a quick google search will get you what you want.
The Kfir’s canards act much in the same way as leading edge flaps do, maintaining airflow over the wing at higher angles of attack than they would otherwise be able to without… as well as creating vortices for improved rudder control.
You have to throw insults in all your replies because you feel attacked. It’s okay, you don’t need to be rude. You’re not being attacked.
and you think throwing a whole study out like it’s a mic drop without pointing to anything that proves your point suffices?
Yes
You spent 2000 comments without a single source and shown false about 2000 separate particular things and the response was always a wall of text from wiki. Stepped up to militaryfactory.com tho so we gucci.
1 Like
Don’t. Read the sources I’ve linked instead.
Wait. DO YOU WANT THE NASA DEF?
Do you want me to provide the nasa definition of canard? Yes or No?
Which study from NASA on close coupled canards is your favorite?
Lol now show us where you determined that canards are substitutions for leading edge flaps.
This is getting too far off topic, I’ve given you plenty of materials so I’ll just DM you.
I would say that too if I were clueless. (not really I have integrity to admit).
A close-coupled canard is a wing configuration in which a small forewing or foreplane is placed forward of the main wing of a fixed-wing aircraft or a weapon. It has been shown to benefit a supersonic delta wing design which gains lift in both transonic flight (such as for supercruise) and also in low speed flight (such as take offs and landings). In the close-coupled delta wing canard, the foreplane is located just above and forward of the main wing. This configuration ensures a wide range of center of gravity positions for all flight conditions as well as benign handling throughout the whole flight envelope.
Would you like some links? Or you going to point to studies you have no clue and never read. But collect them like a little packrat?
I’ve gone out of my way to help you understand and DM’d you proof. Now you try to bait me back into the public thread after seeing what I’ve said is true.
If anyone wants to see the study and specific paragraphs just DM me. Done here.
2 Likes
