Neat footage from a Rafale demo.

[Flying Toaster]

http://www.dailymotion.com/search/riding/video/x6tfu8_riding-the-rafale_sport
(check off HQ for better quality)

Unsurprisingly the music is awful, and the director is trying a bit too hard, but some of the cockpit/external angles are pretty cool, especially the view from the tail looking down at the cockpit/canards.

 

[bunk22]

Very good looking aircraft. Yes, the music sucked. Any of our resident strike/fighter types fight it?

 

[highside7r]

Surprised "bitching Betty" didn't speak French.

 

[WALI_1980]

+1 on the video....It's a good one.
Music ain't that bad either (If you actually understand the language:icon_wink)

Thanks.

 

[statesman]

Is there any particular reason why American fighter engineering has by and large steered away from canard control surfaces? I had seen a couple of experimental air craft used for NASA that had them, but never seen even proposed designs by American firms to produce an airplane that has canard control.

 

[FLYTPAY]

Is there any particular reason why American fighter engineering has by and large steered away from canard control surfaces? I had seen a couple of experimental air craft used for NASA that had them, but never seen even proposed designs by American firms to produce an airplane that has canard control.

How many fighter aircraft have we ordered in the past 15 years? Superhornet, Raptor, Lightning. Now if Burt Rutan were designing fighters for Lockheed or Boeing, that would be a different story.

 

[statesman]

Well I figured it might be a function of so few aircraft being ordered, but Ive never seen an American firm design one for a competition even. I was just curious if there was something about the characteristics of canard control that keep American designers away from it.

 

[FLYTPAY]

Well I figured it might be a function of so few aircraft being ordered, but Ive never seen an American firm design one for a competition even. I was just curious if there was something about the characteristics of canard control that keep American designers away from it.

Carrier suitability is nil. The B-1 does have a canard. The engineers did not design one therefore not necessary of applicable to the designed aircraft. Also, I do not know if vectored thrust doesn't have something to do with it. It may also have radar cross section implications. The canard in fighter aircraft simply is the "tail" ahead of the wings.

 

[Clux4]

If the Navy ever started a stealth fighter program again, that might be a concept. But then again the F-35 might be it!

Statesman,
It would be interesting to see what the engineers have to say.

 

[BENDER]

I thought this was actually a interesting question. I am curious of what some experts have to say, especially the dynamics at high mach numbers. I did some interent research, "The message seems to be clear: the selection of a canard vs. a tail is both configuration and mission dependent". I would like to see some research data, if any one can find it.

[FONT=TOMOCC+ArialMT]http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/canardsS03.pdf[/FONT]


http://en.allexperts.com/q/Aeronaut...2008/3/canard-overall-efficiency-compared.htm

 

[scoolbubba]

I think a couple of those guys ripped out of Jax last month...pretty good looking birds. That thing looks ridiculous cramped compared to the bugs and superhornets i've looked at.

 

[FLYTPAY]

I think a couple of those guys ripped out of Jax last month...pretty good looking birds. That thing looks ridiculous cramped compared to the bugs and superhornets i've looked at.

You might be thinking of ATAC's Kfirs? They were there all the time when I was stationed at NIP
http://atacusa.com/aircraft.htm