Why so many modern planes have canards? --------------------------- Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7 ---------------------------- Ask me anything! Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below! tinyurl.com/y4g528lt
Lol at anyone who says that the J-20 is more stealth than the su 57 with its massive canards. While the su 57 has the performance of canards with LEVCONs that are flush with the wings and planform aligned.
@@mvd4436 it’s stupid for a ‘stealth fighter’ to come with canards. Remember the X-36? Yes it had canards, but was completely tailless and very stealthy. The j-20 has been *marketed* as a 5th gen stealth jet.
Here's the extent of my knowledge on the matter before watching this video. 1. Deltas have low aspect ratios, and therefore have enormous tip spillage and vortices when under G. Thus they lose airspeed and energy very quickly in tight turns. 2. They were popular for a time in the 1950s and 60s because they allowed large wing areas with the relatively weak construction methods and materials available back then. 3. They fell out of favor because people figured out how to make longer wings stronger. 4. They added foreplanes fairly early - the Kfir, Viggen, some variants of the Mirage 5 (with their "moustaches") for instance - to allow for more lift, mainly at take-off and landing, and in tight turns. Without foreplanes, to produce a pitch-up moment to lift the nose, you have to deflect the elevons up, which reduces the lift the wings make (which is why you can't use them as flaps for landing). With the foreplanes, you can avoid having to deflect the elevons up, and in fact can probably use them as flaps (deflect them down), which is why the Viggen can operate on short runways. I obviously didn't know about the vortex lift, about supersonic flight considerations, and this fly-by-wire thing, which is interesting.
Thanks for the video, really enjoyed it! I usually disregard military aviation channels because they talk about useless fluff, so seeing you discuss the actual physics in play was amazing!
Your production quality has gotten even better since I first subbed back when you did the series on missiles! I'm interested to know, will you be following this up with a video on thrust vectoring in combination with canards, like in the Sukhoi 30 models?
@@Millennium7HistoryTech you have forgotten this subject, haven’t you? I remember that you have only touched on this subject briefly on one of you videos but not more.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech If you are reading, please consider doing series about design aspects and choices of more well known and readily accessible planes like the F16 and Su27. It is more interesting to know the design choices and have concrete information to talk about and compare rather than watching a series on planes that are still having so much to speculate. I also love your discussion of tactical aspects of design choices. Really can’t find those anywhere else.
Just wanted to share with you how exciting it is to get a new video from this great channel! Watching this one several times to catch it all. Thank you again for sharing your passion with us!
Millennium 7 * HistoryTech I didn’t mind the accent at all. And usually the audio quality isn’t bad for me. Occasionally maybe these things might be a little distracting but generally I’m not focused on that. I got used to the accent and hardly notice it now, in fact it’s kind of signature ;) it’s the great content and presentation that is what I am paying attention to and truly appreciate. Like you said, won’t find anywhere else on RUclips!
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Sir, India has the second largest Internet users. Indians would love to watch amazing videos. Please use Attractive thumbnails and keywords to attract Indian viewers. I am not asking you to make India specific videos, just asking you to make couple of videos on Indian LCA Tejas and Brahmos cruise missile.
Have seen about 15 videos by this gentleman on military fighter aircrafts. Easily the best videos by genuine EXPERT. As he says 'The technical details discussed in the videos are not found on any Tube videos'. Can you please. give your introduction including your good name?
I would also suggest music isn't needed and is a distraction. The very best content on youtube, at least to my mind, is characterized by almost pure content. For serious content, less production, short intros, less filler etc is more IMHO. Good information, keep it coming plz
@@marioshadjikyriacou3381 no, Passive electronically scanning array is older but similar technology compare to AESA; they are electronically steered (non mechanical, non rotating) but contain only 1 transmitter/receiver for the whole array, rather than each antenna have its own Tx/Rx
Just because a canard has to generate more lift to trim the airplane when supersonic does not cancel its advantage. The load carried by the fore plane is subtracted from the lift needed from the main plane which can reduce it's AOA. Since the center of pressure moves aft, a jet with conventional tail a tail plane has to generate more negative lift at the tail. This not only increases drag at the tail but also the total lift (and drag) required of the main wing. So the canard has a trim drag performance benefit over a tail plane for supersonic cruise.
Thaknk you for you vidoes. About the canards, have you never eard of the negativ effect for the pilot vision in direction of the ground with the Eurofighter ? One more time, a fighter planed to be a interceptor have to ensure missions of a ground attack aircraft... With some inconvenients... The canards are placed beside the pilot. For the Grippen and Rafale they are on the rearside of the pilot, so they can have a good vision to the ground...
Thrust-to-weight is still very important when maneuvering in a vertical plane in BFM. Thrust itself is incredibly important in BFM since that's the only thing that helps maintain airspeed in high drag caused by high angles of attack.
My grudge against the Gripen is so big that there is half a dozen videos going into noticeable detail about it on the channel. J-10, I haven't covered yet.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech I briefly watched a few but your reaction to Gripen seems to be neutral while talking about how good it is. Are you sure you don’t like the Gripen?
If you stick around the channel, and I am deeply thankful for your attention, you will realize that I am pro nothing and against nothing. I just make analysis. My personal like/dislike stops at the aesthetics. I was just trying to make some irony on the Gripen.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech alright, I will stick around! I share a deep admiration for you with Greg. I have one question regarding canard and stealth, if you don’t mind spending just a little more time on a single viewer: some say canard is bad for stealth while others say not if the canards are well designed. What are your view on this? (I have watched your video on how stealth works and the best reason I have is that canard forms a 90 degree angle with fuselage, but so does the wing and that can be mitigated by angling the fuselage side)
Correct, but also is difficult, for room and aerodynamic reasons, to align the planform with the wing. Close coupled canards, also may bounce reflections between the canard and the wing.
The variable-sweep wing or swing wing jets of 60's and 70's tried to overcome the defiencies of the delta wing because at speed the swept wing configuration was effectively a delta shape. Much cheaper and easier to stick a canard and let the onboard computer sort it out.
Awesome video. It's a crime only 12k subscribers. Please if possible do a video of a possible future fighter balancing stealth with aerodynamics or maybe completely backward step by aerospace industry in that they make tiny uavs like the gremlins concept. Will fighters always be able to dodge missiles even in the NEZ environment.
Io volevo ringraziare di cuore l'autore della serie di video sull'ala a delta. Parlando con calma e scandendo le parole, aiutandosi con gesti e disegni, riesce a far capire tutto anche a chi, colpevolmente,non conosce la lingua Inglese. video interessantissimi.-----I wanted to thank the author of the video series on the delta wing. Speaking calmly and articulating words, helping himself with gestures and drawings, he can understand everything even to those who, guilty, do not know the English language. Very interesting videos.
I'm no engineer, but what I don't get is: how is such a thin plane as a canard attached to the fuselage strongly enough to withstand the forces on it?? I mean, if we stick a hand out of a car window on the highway, we're impressed by the force of air at 100km/hr (60 mph). But these skinny little foreplanes have to be attached firmly enough to hold up under multiple-G manoeuvres - at speeds sometimes approaching Mach 2! Can you imagine the engineering at the joint? And then you have servo systems to twist them, also against those forces!! Boggles the mind.
The rods attaching the wing to the plane is not really that thin. Look on crane hooks for a reference, a hook with the diameter of 50mm is strong enough to carry a yacht.
@@TheDanielsweden Thanks for the observations. I understand the designers have this covered - the canards are not going to fall off! I was just expressing a layman's naïve amazement. :^)
They are far from the center of rotation(fulcrum) of the plane. Is the same principle that make easier to unbolt a bolt with a longer rod (far from the center) than with a short one.
Very interesting the differences in canard foreplane usage in different parts of the globe. The Americans experiment a lot with them such as the XB-70, X-29, X-31, and F-15 STOL/MTD yet never put them into operational practice. The Europeans have gone full-on canard with the Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen. The Russians meanwhile like the Americans experiment with the likes of the MiG 1.44 and the Sukhoi Su-47, yet adopted a sort of 'tri-plane' approach with the Su-30.
I always thought that canards had a real advantage at take off because they generated POSITIVE and rotational lift. Compared to conventional aircraft where the elevator had to generate NEGATIVE lift to impart rotation at take off 🤔.. I now know more 👍
Father of Canards is Alberto Santos Dumont, a Brazilian inventor, wich in 1906 made his flight with 14-bis, the airplane Wich have the canard configuration.
Only the name "canard" came from his plane. Due to the resemblance with a duck (canard in french). There were several planes and gliders before Santos Dumont, most notably the Wright Flyer, and the gliders used to develop it.
your videos are great and by far the most informative anywhere on the internet . I basicaly studied your videos about the gripen wich iam a huge fan of and i would really like to know more about this plane. Do you have detailed information on the cost of the gripen , like initial cost,per flight hours and maintenance ? Especially compared to the eurofighter ... Thank you very much and please keep em coming .
Though you briefly covered it with the ending comments the Gripe and Euro fighter are much more tail heavy so they don't deploy the elevons in a flapped lifting configuration and in most subsonic flight envelopes you see the canard acting as flow control devices where they pitch opposite the vectored direction of flight i.e in a pitch up the canard mainly pitch down NOT to compensate for the crafts tail heaviness but to reduce detached air flow over the root much like the leading edge flap pitch down to help maintain laminar flow from detaching from the top side of the wing....most airshow routines displaying their maneuverability is both subsonic and show the canard pitched down the most...
Just note that at 11:30 the flaps at the rear of the main wing should be directed upwards, and not downwards to create the upward lift force direction shown.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech perhaps I should have been clearer in my initial statement. The position drawn is correct for flaps, but to create an upward pitch the flaperons will be deflected upward. You drew them correctly in other vids (I binged a bit). This was the only place where you changed the deflection position versus induced force direction which confused me as to why.
@James Van Allen that makes sense, but only in the case where an straight high alpha flight position is used. I understood the video to be talking about an upward pitch rather than high alpha flight which is what I think the picture refers to. Is there an associated article with the photo?
Well the Chinese still have chosen a delta + canards configuration while having stealth as a main concern when they designed their most advanced fighter. They're the only ones doing so however and questions arise about how low observable is the J20.
If the fighter jet is equipped with two engines should they be rotating in different directions ? Just asking from curiosity because wouldn't it be beneficial for that vortex on top of wing to rotate in the same direction as engine?
They normally rotate in the same direction, so there is no left and right type of engine to be kept in stock, with all that follows. Why would you think that about the vortex?
@@Millennium7HistoryTech It was just a thought that came in to mind without thinking thoroughly... Just having a feeling that thrust from an engine would be in sort of a circular motion due to spinning engine but of course after exiting nozzle it can't be the case (mindfucked this detail)... And those vortexes on top of the wing are rotating to different directions between each other (different sides of fuselage)... Then I thought engine exhaust would interfere with that vortex and if engines are rotating to same direction if would result in on the other side of the fuselage to strengthening the vortex and on the other side to weaken it... But like said this was just a brain vomit ;) Don't know anything about flying physics
@@philv3941 Not exactly. The canards on the Viggen are fixed and their small flaps are really only used in takeoff and landings. The modern aircraft mentioned in the video employ fully steerable canards which actually steer the aircraft and are part of a system designed to overcome these newer aircrafts' naturally-unstable, but more maneuverable design. The Viggen is not an naturally unstable aircraft. It pre-dates the era of these kind of designs. The ability to use fully-steerable canards to overcome the problems associated with naturally-unstable designs only became possible once advanced digital fly-by-wire systems became available. The Lavi was one of the first aircraft to employ this configuration which is now common on many current fighters.
I found a mistake which makes me proud because there are almost none in this channel. 11:30 a canard and a horizontal stabilizer work in opposite because they are on the opposite side of aerodynamic center.
I would like to point out that canard configurations are not inherently unstable. Lifting canards with a wing giving a center of lift behind the center of gravity are stable designs and have been used in designs without fly-by-wire such as the Kyushu J7W and several designs by Burt Rutan. Additionally, while the canard delta wing combination is very good for aircraft with neutral stability, some modern fighter aircraft might prefer instability. For a canard delta wing combo to be unstable, the canard would have to produce downforce while in steady level flight, robbing it of one of its key aerodynamic advantages, meanwhile and unstable wing and tail design would have a lifting tail, reducing overall drag. There are more reasons than just stealth to choose a conventional wing and tail design.
What is rational behind selecting between closed coupled and long couples canard ? J10 and typhoon looks to be long coupled and gripen and rafale looks like closed couple canard. Indian mwf tejas with ge414 97kn engine most probably use close coupled canard.
if i may ask- why not use thick deltas (generating lift at low angles of attack) for subsonic aircraft? wouldn't the lack of a pronounced trailing edge reduce the induced drag?
@@Millennium7HistoryTech (if i understand the subject correctly) the aspect ratio, when used in terms of induced drag, indicates the difference in pressure (and the ease of air volume exchange) across the wing; this should be impossible in an uncropped delta though, or at least only present at the very tips of the wing
Helps them move faster in turning performance ah and in also have good angles off attack rafale gripen eurofighter su 30 mki su 34 mig 1.44 j 20 chitah f 15 advanced j 10 etc...
James Van Allen Right manufacturer, wrong plane. He should have mentioned the IAI Lavi, which was one of the first fighter plane designs in the world to use this configuration.
If vortex lift is so beneficial to deltas and delta canards, why not enhance the phenomena even further with leading edge root extensions, or even LEVCONs? And is there any benefit to adding a forward sweep to the trailing edge of a delta and turn it into a diamond shaped wing like the YF23, like further extending the duration that vortex lift provides benefits?
Do not fall in the "more is better" fallacy. Every design element is a compromise among different requirements, aerodynamics even more so. The YF23 diamond shape is the result of a stealth requisite and I believe it has nothing to do with vortex lift. Actually I suspect it is penalizing at high speed and high AoA.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech You're right, there are some trade offs with every design choice. Do you think that the requisites of VLO or signature reduction militate fatally against canards, or do you see them as part of VLO designs going forward? The Chinese J-20 seems to have no issues with using canards on a VLO aircraft - would doing so necessitate using RAM and parallel edges to mitigate against the signature increase, or would the signature increase be unmitigable and so the J-20 would not be VLO?
As an interesting adjunct to this video, it would be cool if you could do another video analysing why the designers of the gripen/rafale went with a close-coupled arrangement of the canards, and the designers of the typhoon went with a long-arm arrangement. I get the feeling the designers of the typhoon missed a trick by not positioning the canards to strongly interact with the main wing, a view supported by the fact that Airbus developed the AMK to remedy these shortcomings. Short of directly asking the designers what their intentions were, a video from you could help clear up the advantages and disadvantages of each solution
@@Millennium7HistoryTech The long arm gives you a long lever arm for rotating the nose of the aircraft around the center of gravity. Therefore, the aerodynamic penalty (drag) introduced by rotating the cannards is minimized while providing lots of rotational force for pitching the aircraft. That's the explanation for this design choice that I am familiar with.
The Viggen has a double delta wing with canards, however, as opposed to these modern fighters, the viggens canards are not movable control surfaces. The Viggen does however have it’s flaps located in the rear of the canards.
But, the Eurofighter Typhoon doesn't have close coupled cannards, correct? The cannards are placed at a long distance from the wings! So this design deviates from the Gripen and Rafale, correct?
It is designed to reduce specular reflections but the canards should negate part of the advantage. Stakeholders have probably accepted the compromise but I can't tell the reason from the plane design.
This is sound like strong wind who hit the aircraft in any direction ?Are they foreplanes like propeller (in smaller speed ) to cut strong wind or atmospheric pressure?
So Delta / Canard design with Non-loaded Canards steers like a Car ? Rudder obviously counters Yaw or induces it , as required , but it seems to me the Plane FRONT steers . Less like a Boat than Conventional Configuration . Comments ?
Back in the 1980s, USAF "Aim High" logos featured canard configuration jet profile. I think that at the time, the HiMAT was really hot stuff, so the USAF logo designers must have just assumed the next USAF fighters would be canard jets. Oops!
The problem i dont understand that canards have is that they have a steeper aoa then the plane itself, thus they will stall out sooner. thats why i still think rear horizontal stabilizers are better.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech but i mean like, lets say youre in level flight and want to do a sharp horizontal turn, you roll your plane and then you increase the pirch of your canards so they produce lift, thus causing the nose of the plane to rotate upwards.... now lets say you want your main wing to have an aoa of 25 degrees to achieve the best turnrate, well then your canards would have an aoa of 25 degrees + the pitch that is needed to keep the nose up... so your canards would have an aoa of like 35 degrees and thats crazy. iam certain i make a mistake in my thinking but i dont know where.
Very Very interesting. Very cool Maybe we should go back to Supermarine Spitfires. Back in the sixties the Brits flew a Griffon engine Spit against an English Electric Lightning because they thought the Lightning would come up against Indonesian P-51 Mustangs. Would like to hear your comments on this one for sure. Just how far can we take this fighter technology. Will the 6th generation fighters be pilot-less?
Thanks 😊 for discussing this topic in detail. But can you after wards discuss the possibility of increasing stealth performance of a canard Delta configuration aircraft!!??
The delta wing is on the F-15, even though it has an empanage. The F-18 has a double delta wing. The canards help greatly with low speed handling. The brilliant and imaginative Burt Rutan used the canard is many of his designs.
@Bobby Brady Size has nothing to do with it! It's all about shape. A delta wing is a delta wing because it's planform is a delta. The Greek letter delta is a simple triangle. No US fighter since the F-106 has had a delta wing. The F-5, F-15, F-16, YF-17, F-18 and F-20 could all be described as cropped deltas at best, at least the early YF-15s could. The wing tip design was altered to eliminate a buffet problem found in flight testing, making it even less like a delta. I don't understand how you and that fool ZXEJ cannot grasp this: it really isn't hard.
did you know that the 1st jet aircraft to break the 1000 mph barrier was delta wing & british? yip so in classic style the brits gave the Fairey Delta 2 data to the french who were so impressed they made 1000s mirage's with that wing concept!
The Dassault MD.550 Delta flew months before the Fairey Delta 2 (respectively on the 25 June 1954 and on the 6 October 1954). Nonetheless: "The Delta 2 confirmed Dassault's theories, and provided additional supporting evidence for the viability of the Mirage III development" (english wiki).
why the canards ... simple ... added nose lift and stability because the delta wings start so far back to reduce drag as much as possible by minimizing wing area the canards provid fron end stability because the tendency of those aircraft are to pitch down when thrust is applied ... and down for a plane is NOT the direction it wants go by itself . the avro arrow is a true delta wing aircraft ... and the first to be able to exceed mach 2 also 15 other first included in ALL modern jet fighters today ... yup thats right ... 15 firsts ... First Fly by wire system ... first look down shoot down radar ... first over the horizon scan radar ... first air conditioner in a fighter craft ... first internal weapons bay ... first super cruise jet fighter (mach 1.3) ... first to use more than 50% titanium and other composites in a fighter craft ..(even more than the sr71 and u2) first triple redundant flight controls ... ( fly by wire ... fly by hydraulics and fly manual with minimal hydraulic assist ... also added bonus .. the criteria to which it was designed HAS NOT BEEN MATCHED TO DATE ... not even the f18 f22 or f35 match the design spec of the arrow ... and the arrow started back in 1952 ... and was first rolled out on Oct 4 1957 ... at the same time the sputnik made its first chirp in orbit ...
CANARD Must be better on take off -contributing LIFT to nose during rotation , rather than conventional tail which produces DOWNFORCE during this critical phase ?? Especially when you design a high speed fighter , and then wan to strap-on tons of tanks , air to ground etc ?? Wales UK
Why so many modern planes have canards?
---------------------------
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
tinyurl.com/y4g528lt
The Father of canards is the 14-bis of Santos Dumont, the very first plane who have an homologated and registrate flight in history.
Because, with the mustache, everything looks more cool.
Wow it’s such an underrated channnel, glad found this one.
Lol at anyone who says that the J-20 is more stealth than the su 57 with its massive canards. While the su 57 has the performance of canards with LEVCONs that are flush with the wings and planform aligned.
@@mvd4436 it’s stupid for a ‘stealth fighter’ to come with canards. Remember the X-36? Yes it had canards, but was completely tailless and very stealthy. The j-20 has been *marketed* as a 5th gen stealth jet.
Here's the extent of my knowledge on the matter before watching this video.
1. Deltas have low aspect ratios, and therefore have enormous tip spillage and vortices when under G. Thus they lose airspeed and energy very quickly in tight turns.
2. They were popular for a time in the 1950s and 60s because they allowed large wing areas with the relatively weak construction methods and materials available back then.
3. They fell out of favor because people figured out how to make longer wings stronger.
4. They added foreplanes fairly early - the Kfir, Viggen, some variants of the Mirage 5 (with their "moustaches") for instance - to allow for more lift, mainly at take-off and landing, and in tight turns. Without foreplanes, to produce a pitch-up moment to lift the nose, you have to deflect the elevons up, which reduces the lift the wings make (which is why you can't use them as flaps for landing). With the foreplanes, you can avoid having to deflect the elevons up, and in fact can probably use them as flaps (deflect them down), which is why the Viggen can operate on short runways.
I obviously didn't know about the vortex lift, about supersonic flight considerations, and this fly-by-wire thing, which is interesting.
Quite a fair bit of Delta wings remaining for something that 'fell out of favour' in the late 60s
this is exactly how i would describe it 👍
Thanks for the video, really enjoyed it! I usually disregard military aviation channels because they talk about useless fluff, so seeing you discuss the actual physics in play was amazing!
Your production quality has gotten even better since I first subbed back when you did the series on missiles!
I'm interested to know, will you be following this up with a video on thrust vectoring in combination with canards, like in the Sukhoi 30 models?
Interesting subject. I didn't think of it.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech you have forgotten this subject, haven’t you? I remember that you have only touched on this subject briefly on one of you videos but not more.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech If you are reading, please consider doing series about design aspects and choices of more well known and readily accessible planes like the F16 and Su27. It is more interesting to know the design choices and have concrete information to talk about and compare rather than watching a series on planes that are still having so much to speculate. I also love your discussion of tactical aspects of design choices. Really can’t find those anywhere else.
Just wanted to share with you how exciting it is to get a new video from this great channel! Watching this one several times to catch it all. Thank you again for sharing your passion with us!
Thank you very much! What is that could be improved? On Reddit some say my accent and the sound quality.
Millennium 7 * HistoryTech I didn’t mind the accent at all. And usually the audio quality isn’t bad for me. Occasionally maybe these things might be a little distracting but generally I’m not focused on that. I got used to the accent and hardly notice it now, in fact it’s kind of signature ;) it’s the great content and presentation that is what I am paying attention to and truly appreciate. Like you said, won’t find anywhere else on RUclips!
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Sir, India has the second largest Internet users. Indians would love to watch amazing videos. Please use Attractive thumbnails and keywords to attract Indian viewers. I am not asking you to make India specific videos, just asking you to make couple of videos on Indian LCA Tejas and Brahmos cruise missile.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech sir, when you pronuounce, pronounce words more explicitly and imporve sound quality. Otherwise great videos
Have seen about 15 videos by this gentleman on military fighter aircrafts. Easily the best videos by genuine EXPERT. As he says 'The technical details discussed in the videos are not found on any Tube videos'.
Can you please. give your introduction including your good name?
plz reduce the volume of music in between pause's, its really annoying
I would also suggest music isn't needed and is a distraction. The very best content on youtube, at least to my mind, is characterized by almost pure content. For serious content, less production, short intros, less filler etc is more IMHO. Good information, keep it coming plz
This video really need subtitles
Raise your voulme of recording and lower music pls. Otherwise everything is great
Amazing content!, could you do a video on the differences and purposes of the PESA and AESA radars??
Thanks! Electronics is on the radar, it will come out at some point int the not so far future.
PESA radars? Do you mean mechanicaly scan radars??
@@marioshadjikyriacou3381 no, Passive electronically scanning array is older but similar technology compare to AESA; they are electronically steered (non mechanical, non rotating) but contain only 1 transmitter/receiver for the whole array, rather than each antenna have its own Tx/Rx
The instability of delta-wings is compensated by "fly-by-wire" system and helps aircraft stop on landing too.
Very good video 👍 perfect explanation very helpful 👏👏👏 Great work keep it up 😁👌
Just because a canard has to generate more lift to trim the airplane when supersonic does not cancel its advantage. The load carried by the fore plane is subtracted from the lift needed from the main plane which can reduce it's AOA. Since the center of pressure moves aft, a jet with conventional tail a tail plane has to generate more negative lift at the tail. This not only increases drag at the tail but also the total lift (and drag) required of the main wing. So the canard has a trim drag performance benefit over a tail plane for supersonic cruise.
SPECIAL MANEUVERS FOR CANARDS: 10:40
These videos are a treat for last minute revision before exams for aeronautical engineers
Thaknk you for you vidoes.
About the canards, have you never eard of the negativ effect for the pilot vision in direction of the ground with the Eurofighter ?
One more time, a fighter planed to be a interceptor have to ensure missions of a ground attack aircraft... With some inconvenients... The canards are placed beside the pilot.
For the Grippen and Rafale they are on the rearside of the pilot, so they can have a good vision to the ground...
Thrust-to-weight is still very important when maneuvering in a vertical plane in BFM. Thrust itself is incredibly important in BFM since that's the only thing that helps maintain airspeed in high drag caused by high angles of attack.
OOOH good follow up would be a video on the F-4 and it funny aerodynamic fixes!
You mean when they added foreplanes to the Phantom II?
Such an underrated channel
Lovely pic of the two Aussie Mirages from 2OCU!
Your knowledge is profound & deep.
Bro, why does this guy hold a grudge against Gripen and J-10? Those were like two of my fav fighters XD
My grudge against the Gripen is so big that there is half a dozen videos going into noticeable detail about it on the channel. J-10, I haven't covered yet.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech I briefly watched a few but your reaction to Gripen seems to be neutral while talking about how good it is. Are you sure you don’t like the Gripen?
If you stick around the channel, and I am deeply thankful for your attention, you will realize that I am pro nothing and against nothing. I just make analysis. My personal like/dislike stops at the aesthetics. I was just trying to make some irony on the Gripen.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech alright, I will stick around! I share a deep admiration for you with Greg.
I have one question regarding canard and stealth, if you don’t mind spending just a little more time on a single viewer:
some say canard is bad for stealth while others say not if the canards are well designed. What are your view on this?
(I have watched your video on how stealth works and the best reason I have is that canard forms a 90 degree angle with fuselage, but so does the wing and that can be mitigated by angling the fuselage side)
Correct, but also is difficult, for room and aerodynamic reasons, to align the planform with the wing. Close coupled canards, also may bounce reflections between the canard and the wing.
This channel is gold. Cheers 🥂
WHAT A JAM! YOUR VIDEOS ARE AMAZING
Great Channel, thanks for your incredible content
Like the paintings, in the background
Good analysis.
This is one of good utube channel I have seen on defence tech.🙏🙏👏👏👏👏👌✌️
On recent delta wing designs, an honourable mention on the F-16X and the IAI Lavi.
Could you Do a Video on LERX(Used on Super-Hornet) and Chine(Used on F-16 & F-22)? Which is Better?
Excellent delivery of clear concepts. You do a good job please dont overdo the background music your voice is inherently sensationalizing! :D
You should have been my teacher! Really like your vids 🖒😎
i love the eurofighter
You forgot the Mirage 4000
The variable-sweep wing or swing wing jets of 60's and 70's tried to overcome the defiencies of the delta wing because at speed the swept wing configuration was effectively a delta shape. Much cheaper and easier to stick a canard and let the onboard computer sort it out.
Awesome video. It's a crime only 12k subscribers. Please if possible do a video of a possible future fighter balancing stealth with aerodynamics or maybe completely backward step by aerospace industry in that they make tiny uavs like the gremlins concept. Will fighters always be able to dodge missiles even in the NEZ environment.
Io volevo ringraziare di cuore l'autore della serie di video sull'ala a delta. Parlando con calma e scandendo le parole, aiutandosi con gesti e disegni, riesce a far capire tutto anche a chi, colpevolmente,non conosce la lingua Inglese. video interessantissimi.-----I wanted to thank the author of the video series on the delta wing. Speaking calmly and articulating words, helping himself with gestures and drawings, he can understand everything even to those who, guilty, do not know the English language. Very interesting videos.
I'm no engineer, but what I don't get is: how is such a thin plane as a canard attached to the fuselage strongly enough to withstand the forces on it?? I mean, if we stick a hand out of a car window on the highway, we're impressed by the force of air at 100km/hr (60 mph). But these skinny little foreplanes have to be attached firmly enough to hold up under multiple-G manoeuvres - at speeds sometimes approaching Mach 2! Can you imagine the engineering at the joint? And then you have servo systems to twist them, also against those forces!! Boggles the mind.
The rods attaching the wing to the plane is not really that thin. Look on crane hooks for a reference, a hook with the diameter of 50mm is strong enough to carry a yacht.
@@TheDanielsweden Thanks for the observations. I understand the designers have this covered - the canards are not going to fall off! I was just expressing a layman's naïve amazement. :^)
I’ve wondered the same.
They are far from the center of rotation(fulcrum) of the plane. Is the same principle that make easier to unbolt a bolt with a longer rod (far from the center) than with a short one.
Engineering is wonderful and you understand a lot about how the world works. Plus you get to create new things that never existed before.
Thank you for making this video.
This is your best video!!!
Very interesting the differences in canard foreplane usage in different parts of the globe. The Americans experiment a lot with them such as the XB-70, X-29, X-31, and F-15 STOL/MTD yet never put them into operational practice. The Europeans have gone full-on canard with the Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen. The Russians meanwhile like the Americans experiment with the likes of the MiG 1.44 and the Sukhoi Su-47, yet adopted a sort of 'tri-plane' approach with the Su-30.
Good explanation! Thanks!
See you all in 5 years time when RUclips recommends this again.
I always thought that canards had a real advantage at take off because they generated POSITIVE and rotational lift. Compared to conventional aircraft where the elevator had to generate NEGATIVE lift to impart rotation at take off 🤔.. I now know more 👍
Father of Canards is Alberto Santos Dumont, a Brazilian inventor, wich in 1906 made his flight with 14-bis, the airplane Wich have the canard configuration.
Only the name "canard" came from his plane. Due to the resemblance with a duck (canard in french).
There were several planes and gliders before Santos Dumont, most notably the Wright Flyer, and the gliders used to develop it.
Where are you from? I also used to say 'surfeises' to pronounce surfaces (séerfases). Enjoyed so much this FBW explanation
Italy, I believe.
your videos are great and by far the most informative anywhere on the internet . I basicaly studied your videos about the gripen wich iam a huge fan of and i would really like to know more about this plane. Do you have detailed information on the cost of the gripen , like initial cost,per flight hours and maintenance ? Especially compared to the eurofighter ...
Thank you very much and please keep em coming .
Though you briefly covered it with the ending comments the Gripe and Euro fighter are much more tail heavy so they don't deploy the elevons in a flapped lifting configuration and in most subsonic flight envelopes you see the canard acting as flow control devices where they pitch opposite the vectored direction of flight i.e in a pitch up the canard mainly pitch down NOT to compensate for the crafts tail heaviness but to reduce detached air flow over the root much like the leading edge flap pitch down to help maintain laminar flow from detaching from the top side of the wing....most airshow routines displaying their maneuverability is both subsonic and show the canard pitched down the most...
love those canards
My favorite canard, even though it is not technically a canard, is of Piaggio Avati's two whiskers.
Just note that at 11:30 the flaps at the rear of the main wing should be directed upwards, and not downwards to create the upward lift force direction shown.
Nope, it is right like this. You can check on any fundamentals of flight book.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech perhaps I should have been clearer in my initial statement. The position drawn is correct for flaps, but to create an upward pitch the flaperons will be deflected upward. You drew them correctly in other vids (I binged a bit). This was the only place where you changed the deflection position versus induced force direction which confused me as to why.
@James Van Allen that makes sense, but only in the case where an straight high alpha flight position is used. I understood the video to be talking about an upward pitch rather than high alpha flight which is what I think the picture refers to. Is there an associated article with the photo?
Well the Chinese still have chosen a delta + canards configuration while having stealth as a main concern when they designed their most advanced fighter.
They're the only ones doing so however and questions arise about how low observable is the J20.
It should have a minimal impact on the frontal RCS, but probably another story for other angles.
RadarCS depends on the angle of constr... Of the jet
What about on a/c which could suddenly loose "canard control" during landing ? Is it an unstable or critcal condition ?
If the fighter jet is equipped with two engines should they be rotating in different directions ? Just asking from curiosity because wouldn't it be beneficial for that vortex on top of wing to rotate in the same direction as engine?
They normally rotate in the same direction, so there is no left and right type of engine to be kept in stock, with all that follows.
Why would you think that about the vortex?
@@Millennium7HistoryTech It was just a thought that came in to mind without thinking thoroughly... Just having a feeling that thrust from an engine would be in sort of a circular motion due to spinning engine but of course after exiting nozzle it can't be the case (mindfucked this detail)... And those vortexes on top of the wing are rotating to different directions between each other (different sides of fuselage)... Then I thought engine exhaust would interfere with that vortex and if engines are rotating to same direction if would result in on the other side of the fuselage to strengthening the vortex and on the other side to weaken it... But like said this was just a brain vomit ;) Don't know anything about flying physics
The IAI Lavi was one of the first aircraft to use this configuration.
True
don't forget the flyer of the Wright brothers......
No, it was inspired by the fantastic SAAB 37 VIGGEN.
@@philv3941 Not exactly. The canards on the Viggen are fixed and their small flaps are really only used in takeoff and landings. The modern aircraft mentioned in the video employ fully steerable canards which actually steer the aircraft and are part of a system designed to overcome these newer aircrafts' naturally-unstable, but more maneuverable design. The Viggen is not an naturally unstable aircraft. It pre-dates the era of these kind of designs. The ability to use fully-steerable canards to overcome the problems associated with naturally-unstable designs only became possible once advanced digital fly-by-wire systems became available. The Lavi was one of the first aircraft to employ this configuration which is now common on many current fighters.
@@MaxPower-11 my bad, thx for those good précisions.
I found a mistake which makes me proud because there are almost none in this channel. 11:30 a canard and a horizontal stabilizer work in opposite because they are on the opposite side of aerodynamic center.
I will have a look. Thanks for the heads up.
I love your voice ..can hear you for hours.....you should do asmr videos too...u have the talent
I would like to point out that canard configurations are not inherently unstable. Lifting canards with a wing giving a center of lift behind the center of gravity are stable designs and have been used in designs without fly-by-wire such as the Kyushu J7W and several designs by Burt Rutan. Additionally, while the canard delta wing combination is very good for aircraft with neutral stability, some modern fighter aircraft might prefer instability. For a canard delta wing combo to be unstable, the canard would have to produce downforce while in steady level flight, robbing it of one of its key aerodynamic advantages, meanwhile and unstable wing and tail design would have a lifting tail, reducing overall drag. There are more reasons than just stealth to choose a conventional wing and tail design.
The video doesn't say that stealth is the only reason. Thanks for pointing out.
What is rational behind selecting between closed coupled and long couples canard ?
J10 and typhoon looks to be long coupled and gripen and rafale looks like closed couple canard.
Indian mwf tejas with ge414 97kn engine most probably use close coupled canard.
if i may ask- why not use thick deltas (generating lift at low angles of attack) for subsonic aircraft? wouldn't the lack of a pronounced trailing edge reduce the induced drag?
Because it has a low aspect ratio-> high drag.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech (if i understand the subject correctly) the aspect ratio, when used in terms of induced drag, indicates the difference in pressure (and the ease of air volume exchange) across the wing; this should be impossible in an uncropped delta though, or at least only present at the very tips of the wing
Helps them move faster in turning performance ah and in also have good angles off attack rafale gripen eurofighter su 30 mki su 34 mig 1.44 j 20 chitah f 15 advanced j 10 etc...
The Atlas Cheeta & Israeli Kfri all so had canards back in the 80's
James Van Allen Right manufacturer, wrong plane. He should have mentioned the IAI Lavi, which was one of the first fighter plane designs in the world to use this configuration.
Can someone link me the videos he mentioned? also id like to know what whould be the effect of forward swept canards.
If vortex lift is so beneficial to deltas and delta canards, why not enhance the phenomena even further with leading edge root extensions, or even LEVCONs? And is there any benefit to adding a forward sweep to the trailing edge of a delta and turn it into a diamond shaped wing like the YF23, like further extending the duration that vortex lift provides benefits?
Do not fall in the "more is better" fallacy. Every design element is a compromise among different requirements, aerodynamics even more so.
The YF23 diamond shape is the result of a stealth requisite and I believe it has nothing to do with vortex lift. Actually I suspect it is penalizing at high speed and high AoA.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech
You're right, there are some trade offs with every design choice. Do you think that the requisites of VLO or signature reduction militate fatally against canards, or do you see them as part of VLO designs going forward?
The Chinese J-20 seems to have no issues with using canards on a VLO aircraft - would doing so necessitate using RAM and parallel edges to mitigate against the signature increase, or would the signature increase be unmitigable and so the J-20 would not be VLO?
As an interesting adjunct to this video, it would be cool if you could do another video analysing why the designers of the gripen/rafale went with a close-coupled arrangement of the canards, and the designers of the typhoon went with a long-arm arrangement. I get the feeling the designers of the typhoon missed a trick by not positioning the canards to strongly interact with the main wing, a view supported by the fact that Airbus developed the AMK to remedy these shortcomings. Short of directly asking the designers what their intentions were, a video from you could help clear up the advantages and disadvantages of each solution
Details I believe are still classified. Anyway, it is a balance between aerodynamic efficiency and maneuvrability.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech The long arm gives you a long lever arm for rotating the nose of the aircraft around the center of gravity. Therefore, the aerodynamic penalty (drag) introduced by rotating the cannards is minimized while providing lots of rotational force for pitching the aircraft. That's the explanation for this design choice that I am familiar with.
Canards allow for maneuvers that change elevation without changing the pitch of the airframe. Is this same maneuver possible using LEVCON/active-LERX?
How come you didn't mention or show a video of the F-16 AVTI when talking about Direct Force Maneuvering
What is the configuration of Saab viggen
The Viggen is not part of this category. It is a stable design aircraft.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Id argue Swedish aircraft are a category unto their own generally.
The Viggen has a double delta wing with canards, however, as opposed to these modern fighters, the viggens canards are not movable control surfaces. The Viggen does however have it’s flaps located in the rear of the canards.
But, the Eurofighter Typhoon doesn't have close coupled cannards, correct? The cannards are placed at a long distance from the wings! So this design deviates from the Gripen and Rafale, correct?
I’m just curious, how do you think the J-20 can be stealthy if they have these huge foreplanes
It is designed to reduce specular reflections but the canards should negate part of the advantage. Stakeholders have probably accepted the compromise but I can't tell the reason from the plane design.
Love the segues.
Su 30 su 34 also have cannard but why its there in conventional wing plane?
Also can you make a video about j20 unusual proportion configuration?
This is sound like strong wind who hit the aircraft in any direction ?Are they foreplanes like propeller (in smaller speed ) to cut strong wind or atmospheric pressure?
no
So Delta / Canard design with Non-loaded Canards steers like a Car ? Rudder obviously counters Yaw or induces it , as required , but it seems to me the Plane FRONT steers . Less like a Boat than Conventional Configuration . Comments ?
Nice video. Could you please rone down the background music
Why bomber can destroy enemy radar without detecting or tracking like b52
Back in the 1980s, USAF "Aim High" logos featured canard configuration jet profile. I think that at the time, the HiMAT was really hot stuff, so the USAF logo designers must have just assumed the next USAF fighters would be canard jets. Oops!
Is delta canard the reason why variable wing design is dead?
Yes
The problem i dont understand that canards have is that they have a steeper aoa then the plane itself, thus they will stall out sooner. thats why i still think rear horizontal stabilizers are better.
Why? They are fully mobile on combat jets.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech but i mean like, lets say youre in level flight and want to do a sharp horizontal turn, you roll your plane and then you increase the pirch of your canards so they produce lift, thus causing the nose of the plane to rotate upwards.... now lets say you want your main wing to have an aoa of 25 degrees to achieve the best turnrate, well then your canards would have an aoa of 25 degrees + the pitch that is needed to keep the nose up... so your canards would have an aoa of like 35 degrees and thats crazy. iam certain i make a mistake in my thinking but i dont know where.
Very Very interesting. Very cool Maybe we should go back to Supermarine Spitfires. Back in the sixties the Brits flew a Griffon engine Spit against an English Electric Lightning because they thought the Lightning would come up against Indonesian P-51 Mustangs. Would like to hear your comments on this one for sure. Just how far can we take this fighter technology. Will the 6th generation fighters be pilot-less?
Awesome!
Does 3D vector thrust engines replace the need for canards? a la some versions of the Su-30
No, not on a Delta.
Thanks 😊 for discussing this topic in detail.
But can you after wards discuss the possibility of increasing stealth performance of a canard Delta configuration aircraft!!??
In my head: Is this a Bullpup version of an conventional fighter jet?!
you got a point though but th cockpit should be in the back then
Why delta wing config is detrimental to stealth??
Its another way around other than thrust vectoring
what about manuverabiity ?
I enjoy your very informative videos. Please consider discontinuing the annoying background music which makes it difficult to hear what you are saying
noted, not the first to say that
Pls mack video jf 17 thunder
What about lEVCONS as in su 57 , can it really act as a canards?
No, levcons are different, they do not act like canards.
Grazie, par bene!
The delta wing is on the F-15, even though it has an empanage. The F-18 has a double delta wing. The canards help greatly with low speed handling. The brilliant and imaginative Burt Rutan used the canard is many of his designs.
Nonsense. Neither the F-15 nor F-18 has a delta wing, although the Eagle isn't that far off, I suppose, if you squint hard enough.
@Bobby Brady Size has nothing to do with it! It's all about shape. A delta wing is a delta wing because it's planform is a delta. The Greek letter delta is a simple triangle. No US fighter since the F-106 has had a delta wing. The F-5, F-15, F-16, YF-17, F-18 and F-20 could all be described as cropped deltas at best, at least the early YF-15s could. The wing tip design was altered to eliminate a buffet problem found in flight testing, making it even less like a delta. I don't understand how you and that fool ZXEJ cannot grasp this: it really isn't hard.
I know one thing that Can defeat foreplanes. Five planes.
Next episode: Variable sweep canards.
Foreplanes? I always refer to them as Canard and they have been around since the beginning.. I mean literally
did you know that the 1st jet aircraft to break the 1000 mph barrier was delta wing & british? yip so in classic style the brits gave the Fairey Delta 2 data to the french who were so impressed they made 1000s mirage's with that wing concept!
Interesting story! Do you have any reference?
The Dassault MD.550 Delta flew months before the Fairey Delta 2 (respectively on the 25 June 1954 and on the 6 October 1954).
Nonetheless:
"The Delta 2 confirmed Dassault's theories, and provided additional supporting evidence for the viability of the Mirage III development" (english wiki).
why the canards ... simple ... added nose lift and stability because the delta wings start so far back to reduce drag as much as possible by minimizing wing area the canards provid fron end stability because the tendency of those aircraft are to pitch down when thrust is applied ... and down for a plane is NOT the direction it wants go by itself
.
the avro arrow is a true delta wing aircraft ... and the first to be able to exceed mach 2 also 15 other first included in ALL modern jet fighters today ... yup thats right ... 15 firsts ... First Fly by wire system ... first look down shoot down radar ... first over the horizon scan radar ... first air conditioner in a fighter craft ... first internal weapons bay ... first super cruise jet fighter (mach 1.3) ... first to use more than 50% titanium and other composites in a fighter craft ..(even more than the sr71 and u2) first triple redundant flight controls ... ( fly by wire ... fly by hydraulics and fly manual with minimal hydraulic assist ... also added bonus .. the criteria to which it was designed HAS NOT BEEN MATCHED TO DATE ... not even the f18 f22 or f35 match the design spec of the arrow ... and the arrow started back in 1952 ... and was first rolled out on Oct 4 1957 ... at the same time the sputnik made its first chirp in orbit ...
They are called “canards,” literally “ducks.”
Foreplane is equally accurate.
Yes because planes look like a duck with them haha. It is more obvious with a design like the Valkyrie though.
François Calvaresi That’s the stupidest thing I’ve seen today.
Glenn Ridsdale good for you.
The first canard airplane is the 14-bis of Santos Dumont.
Good Morning Algorithm!😉
Are you implying that 737 max instability can be solved by installing a foreplane?
No
It can be solved by keeping all 737 Max permanently grounded.
Just a suggestion. Lower the background music.
CANARD Must be better on take off -contributing LIFT to nose during rotation , rather than conventional tail which produces DOWNFORCE during this critical phase ?? Especially when you design a high speed fighter , and then wan to strap-on tons of tanks , air to ground etc ?? Wales UK