posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:06 PM
originally posted by: boomer135
Yeah but it lost the competition. So maybe it wasn't as stealthy? It would be certainly more manuerable than the other ones in the comp. Only thing I
can gather is less stealthy.
Well, retracting the canards into the strake might help minimize the signature problems in most flight regimes. You could potentially make them out of
a composite material with good properties to also minimize the effect on the signature -- as sketched, however, they introduce several new lobes,
which would certainly be less than ideal.
The F-14's glove vanes were to move the CL in supersonic flight and avoid nose pitchup. If these were to increase maneuverability as you've stated,
then deploying them in a knife-fight might make sense when your signature isn't really a dominant factor in the engagement. All-moving, - or canards
with flight surfaces would be ideal from a aerodynamic standpoint, but either of those solutions would further complicate the issue with the lobes --
and it's not in a very good spot. If you think of the aircraft as a lever with the CG/CL as the fulcrum, the closer to the nose we put the canards,
the better the input will be. One would think thrust-vectoring would have provided sufficient pitch control to eliminate them completely.
Other possible reasons for losing a competition might be the very low internal fuel capacity and weapons load out... The F-35 has an impressive fuel
capacity, and with it's big, thirsty F135 it is still going to be considered relatively short-legged. This aircraft would be in a much lower weight
class for sure. Could probably use a less thirsty engine, but has substantially less internal fuel volume.