No that is not how it works. The control surface (the red part) changes the overall lift of the entire surface. Therefore it is not only the control surface, but the entire canard that generates the lift.
Fixed canard with moving control surface on viggen
View attachment 692041
Moving canard on gripen
View attachment 692042
Obviously, gripens moving canard is a much more efficient design and the lifting surface can be made smaller because the entire surface is moving.
No its not really!
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The force needed to create pitch is dependent on the distance between the neutral point and centre of gravity. Hence it does not really matter how the aircraft looks like when it comes this, rather what matters really is how the aircraft is trimmed (design trimmed not pilot trimmed), meaning that dependent on where the overall lift and overall weight of the aircraft is located. The smaller the distance is between CoG and NP, the less dF is needed to rotate the aircraft around the pitch axis.
View attachment 692046
still not convinced. we do not even know what the requirements of this aircraft is. So how can we even judge it when we do not know the full mission spec?
I would appreciate if you would stop miss-quoting me. I did not say F-5 or Kowsar is comparable to F-14. I said, and rightly so, that the 1970s design of F14 is completely outdated and today a small Gripen can do pretty much the same mission. If you want to argue against than then be my guest, but don't make up my arguments please.
What tools are you referring to?
No it is not. F-5 is mainly chosen to prepare for a future industrialisation of an Iranian aircraft. In contrast to F14 it is a simple and rational design and we have an abundance of them. The managers that had the foresight to begin simple and learn the basics first are heroes, just as Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam started with simple solid rockets before moving on to more advanced designs.
If you do not have an industrial base (as Iran did not have), this is not a viable plan. It is better to chose the most simple design to actually learn, not only reverse engineer, and then build your own products based on your own requirements. It's the only viable way.
Wrong! Sub Viggan uses high angled delta wings so it's flight dynamics are completely different
Also the Saab 37 had a jet engine with a diameter greater 1 meter and +28,000lbf max thrust and that allowed many of the design flaws to be overcome by pure thrust the F-4 is the same way many of the design flaws get overcome by pure thrust! Q-313 does not have that!
Q-313 due to the angle of the wings and canards + the end section of the wings (Wing tips) + 2 stabilizers will have trouble turning at high speeds and high altitudes (Comparatively)
Q-313 lack of thrust and absurd design flaws will have limited speeds and limited cruise speeds.
Q-313 is built to achieve most of its lift using it's wings while modern fighter jets mostly use their engines to do the heavy lifting for them!
I very much doubt the Q-313 could even approach Mach 1 but if it did the aircraft will likely start to shake which is the last thing you want on a composite frame with likely limited flexibility and stress capability
As for pitch and roll just listen to what your saying! You can't just take a single factor and totally disregard everything else! If that was the ONLY factor in maneuverability then Aircraft designers would have to be idi0ts to design and build control surfaces any larger than your hand and the fact that the aircraft can turn is not in question!
And again let me emphasize that the limitations of it's turn radius will mainly show itself at high speeds and or high altitudes!
As for Iran's F-5 projects it's one thing to start off with a simple design and quite another to fixate on one! Tehrani Moghadam NEVER fixated and get stuck on one thing because if he had he would have still been alive and working on artillery systems and in terms of missiles in a 20 year time span he went from the Frog-7 to the Fatteh-110 then to the Sejil and then the Qaem
And everything they worked on was better than the last and if he was to go based on your mentality he would have still been stuck on improving the Zelzal and Fateh series
And instead of looking at a 70's era Saab you should instead look at the improvements Saab made to that design and ask yourself why?