F313 (Ghaher) mock-up: To how extend was acceptable?

[Viper0011.]

So far, I counted about 5-6 thousand dollars for avionics and flight controls....assuming this is a latest plane, I'd add about 5 K more for the airframe, about 1 K for the paint job and about 1 k for designers cost, and 1 k for the radio control unit? So this latest jet cost you guys like about 12 G's? Not bad. Please let us know when it fly's with a pilot!!! Unless its a VERY affordable UAV that looks stealthy....?

 

[VelocuR]

Thank you, Mr.Tab for your efforts and hardworking analyze. Do you think first prototypes would be bigger than this mock up?

Maybe this is just first step of poor mock up?

 

[500]

Abstract translation (in blue):
The new fighter are designed on the bases of wide body concept. The lifting share of wings reduced in modern jets thus the lifting share of body has been changed, why? I am going to expand this: One of the fundamental aspect a fighter should have, is that it could target the gravity point (this part is not meaningful in Farsi, too!) of enemy in a surprising attack, and as the result that operational gravity point of the enemy to be disabled.

Taking unawares attack to the enemy needs you have the ability to collapse on your enemy head before he detects you! and operate on him like an eagle! You should hide yourself from the enemy radars. The RCS reduction means you should diffuse the radar waves hitting the plane body, so you should avoid any soft curve and aerodynamic surface in design!!! The material should also reduces the reflexes...

And that's how in modern planes the wing area is so reduced!!!

Well I guess he was talking that gravity center of F313 is behind aerodynamic focus, that makes plane unstable and more maneuverable.

 

[Ir.Tab.]

Well I guess he was talking that gravity center of F313 is behind aerodynamic focus, that makes plane unstable and more maneuverable.

Dear 500, I am not that kind person who converts the reality for personal purposes. What is the relation of enemy gravity point with inherently unstable design?

 

[Sinnerman108]

Dear 500, I am not that kind person who converts the reality for personal purposes. What is the relation of enemy gravity point with inherently unstable design?

simple physics. There are three types of equilbrium

1. Neutral
2. Stable
3. Unstable

I am not going to write it all down, just google these three and you will find out.

Summary. In an air plane two major points are of importance.
1. Center of gravity
2. Center of lift.

Center of gravity is where the resultant mass of the aircraft is concentrated.
Center of lift is where the resultant lift of the wing section is concentrated.

Both these forces are in opposite directions

If lift is more than mass the air plane will go up and come down if viceversa.

since these two forces are displaced ( not resultant on the same physical point) it makes the air craft unstable ( see defination of unstable equilbrium).

this displacement is compensated by actuation of a control surface which results in changing the AoA of the wing surface.

This whole fasade makes the aircraft very highly agile, and thus the F-16.

 

[Sinnerman108]

simple physics. There are three types of equilbrium

1. Neutral
2. Stable
3. Unstable

I am not going to write it all down, just google these three and you will find out.

Summary. In an air plane two major points are of importance.
1. Center of gravity
2. Center of lift.

Center of gravity is where the resultant mass of the aircraft is concentrated.
Center of lift is where the resultant lift of the wing section is concentrated.

Both these forces are in opposite directions

If lift is more than mass the air plane will go up and come down if viceversa.

since these two forces are displaced ( not resultant on the same physical point) it makes the air craft unstable ( see defination of unstable equilbrium).

this displacement is compensated by actuation of a control surface which results in changing the AoA of the wing surface.

This whole fasade makes the aircraft very highly agile, and thus the F-16.

Example.

Have a look at the Sukhoi Flankers. They are tail heavy planes. which means the center of gravity is behind (tawards tail) the center of lift.

This means that if all control surfaces are neutral, than the tail of the plane will drag behind , cause the plane to pitch up thus increasing the AoA on the main wing surface.

Try to find the picture of Sukhoi landing, and you will see, how the candanrds, the air brake and other surfaces are pushing the nose down.

See every thing is pushing the nose down.

Again

Once you will study and undestand what I have written, you will undestand whyy the 313's design is flawed.

 

[500]

Dear 500, I am not that kind person who converts the reality for personal purposes. What is the relation of enemy gravity point with inherently unstable design?

LOL, I dont know. I just made a supposition of what he was trying to say.

Usually forward wing/canard design is moving the aerodynamic focus forward and thus make planes unstable.

 

[Sinnerman108]

LOL, I dont know. I just made a supposition of what he was trying to say.

Usually forward wing/canard design is moving the aerodynamic focus forward and thus make planes unstable.

That is not correct. F-16's control surface is at the rear end and it is an unstable platform.

The only advantage of canards over it's contemporary is effeciency of the control surface.

If the control surface is in the front of the wing, it is more effecient.
If the control surface is AFTER the main wing, then it's effeciency will reduce because of terbulance caused by many structures in the main wing and fuselage.

 

[500]

That is not correct. F-16's control surface is at the rear end and it is an unstable platform.

The only advantage of canards over it's contemporary is effeciency of the control surface.

If the control surface is in the front of the wing, it is more effecient.
If the control surface is AFTER the main wing, then it's effeciency will reduce because of terbulance caused by many structures in the main wing and fuselage.

I did not say that canards are only way to make a platform unstable. F-16 for example has blending wing-fuselage with LERX, which generate forward lift.

 

[Ir.Tab.]

Thank you, Mr.Tab for your efforts and hardworking analyze. Do you think first prototypes would be bigger than this mock up?

Maybe this is just first step of poor mock up?

This was not a mock up but the first prototype as project manager has said today.

An interview with project manager (Feb 17 2013)

Source (in Farsi): http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13911124000700

I translated the red tittles (in the Farsi text) with important parts of text (all in blue):

قاهر هیچ نمونه*ای در جهان ندارد
Design is unique.

استتار تسلیحات در بدنه جنگنده
Weapons, camouflaged in body.

تست وضعیت قاهر با پرواز نمونه کوچک
Ghaher performance has been tested by scaled models.

طراحی سامانه*ها متناسب با نیازهای عملیاتی
System designs are based on operational requirements

توانایی عملیات قاهر در سه حوزه ارتفاع پست، متوسط و بالا
Ghaher is capable of performing in low, medium and high altitude.

رادار گریزی با جذب امواج و عبور آنها
The material used in the structure could absorb or cross the wave through.

قاهر رونمایی شده ماکت نبود
The unveiled "Ghaher" was not a maquette.

مدیر پروژه قاهر در پاسخ به این سوال که آیا نمونه رونمایی شده با توجه به نصب نبودن بسیاری از تجهیزات آن، یک نمونه واقعی بود یا مدل (ماک آ&#1662، گفت: نمونه ای که نمایش داده شد، نمونه اصلی بود که بزودی وارد مرحله تست های پروازی می*شود و در خصوص نصب تجهیزات نیز لزومی نداشت تا ما در این مرحله، تجهیزات کامل را بر روی بدنه آن نصب کنیم
ٰThe Ghaher project manager answered the question "Was the unveiled sample real or mock-up? considering the fact most of the systems had been not installed on it yet" as: The unveiled fighter was the original fighter which is going to be tested very soon and in this step it was not essential to attach all the systems.

تجهیزات به مرور نصب خواهند شد
The systems will added step by step.

همه منتظر نمونه جدیدی از نسل آذرخش یا صاعقه بودند
Everybody expected another upgraded F5 variant.

یکی از وجوه تشابه قاهر با اف 35
One similar aspect of Ghaher with F35 (stealth)

علت نصب نمایشگرهای آنالوگ در نمونه رونمایی شده
Why some analogue instead of digital display had been used. (They will replaced after tests)

نصب صندلی بومی خلبان منتظر ابلاغ مجوز
An indigenous pilot seat is underway.

تک موتوره یا دوموتوره بودن؛ مسئله این است
One engine or two engine, that's the question!

تعمیر و نگهداری قاهر آسان خواهد بود
Ghaher maintenance will be cost efficient.

دهانه ورود هوا برای زاویه حمله بالای 26 درجه
The air inlets performance has been tested for 26 degrees of attack angle and more.

قابلیت سوختگیری جنگنده قاهر در مراحل بعدی
Air refueling, in next steps.

فضای باز برای خلبان در داخل کاکپیت
Spacious cabin

قاهر به تجهیزات بومی مسلح خواهد شد
With indigenous weapons

بسترهای تولید انبوه آماده است
The infrastructures for mass production is ready.

تایید قاهر توسط متخصصان هوایی
Ghaher is a valid design in eyes of aviation professionals.

دستاوردهای نظامی تقدیم ملت صبور ایران
Military achievements dedicated to patient Iranian nation.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Everything has its beauty but not everyone sees it. - Confucious

To answer the questions

Size :
The plane is size of F16 its hight is lower then F35 , and its shorter in length then F35
F35 has vertical landing engines in center of plane which is why its slightly longer
The landing gear (Back tire) appears to be small in size but it does not mean it cannot land.


Cannopy:
Its a Bubble Canoppy , and in image there is a headlight above which is causing some visibility issue But at same time , that distortion is on the edes of the cannopy not in the area where pilot views the horizon and around the plane.

Why is there no Airlock , well there is some rubber locking mechanism visible on edges of the Cannopy

The technilogical challenge was to build a cannopy they did that


Avionics:
Iran has proven that it can still purchase parts from West undetected , all the parts are a functional requirement
for flying a plane. They relay DATA needed to fly a plane BOTTOM line. Would they look fancy fit no but would they help get the job done (YES)

However you are missing a key point

a) Iran manufactures screen and displays for Medical devices, it makes HUDs displays for F-5
jets it has engineering know how to make `dashbords for cars`so what makes you think they
will not be able to produce a state of art dashboard and Avionics package for their plane.

For a pilot the most important thing to view is
Orientationon Horizon , Radar feedback , and Target and fire controls
This is fully integrated into the Q-313 design even using basic modular items


The demonstration was pretty much a slap in US sanctions face that look we can still
access plane parts


Here is the work done by Iranian Engineers for interior of car made in Iran

How difficult would be for iran to make the plane interior preety
Evert god damn part in car interior is made in iran
If they were in a beauty contest they probbly would have made it pretty
but the requirement is to use what is available and make a functional stealth fighter


Weapons Bay:

Sure they did not disclose much detail too early (Benefit of doubt)


Stealth Design:
Yes there are no nuts and bolts on the plane, the tail and intakes all exhibit stealth design
Plus they have radars to check the design validity
And they also posses Jet Engines to use for the design


Yeah and the Avionics you see this man is using is .. a figment of your imagination hahaha

If the Simulator constructed by Iran is so sophisticated what do you think they will add to Qaher 313 ? lol

 

[500]

An interview with project manager (Feb 17 2013)

I wonder, why this guy is still alive.

The unveiled fighter was the original fighter which is going to be tested very soon and in this step it was not essential to attach all the systems.

 

[gambit]

Example.

Have a look at the Sukhoi Flankers. They are tail heavy planes. which means the center of gravity is behind (tawards tail) the center of lift.

This means that if all control surfaces are neutral, than the tail of the plane will drag behind , cause the plane to pitch up thus increasing the AoA on the main wing surface.

Try to find the picture of Sukhoi landing, and you will see, how the candanrds, the air brake and other surfaces are pushing the nose down.

See every thing is pushing the nose down.

Again

Once you will study and undestand what I have written, you will undestand whyy the 313's design is flawed.

Very good, sir.

That is not correct. F-16's control surface is at the rear end and it is an unstable platform.

The only advantage of canards over it's contemporary is effeciency of the control surface.

If the control surface is in the front of the wing, it is more effecient.
If the control surface is AFTER the main wing, then it's effeciency will reduce because of terbulance caused by many structures in the main wing and fuselage.

Suggestion...When you have to make this kind of explanation, add in the difference between a flight control surface intended to provide main lift (wing) and one intended to make attitude changes (stabilator). Location is why we see rear stabilators are always larger than canards, even though both are for attitude changes.

 

[SQ8]

It seems the Iranian government is hell bent on ensuring that it somehow justifies its laughing stock.
Unless they plan on getting midgets to fly that thing.. and If that "prototype" even holds together in air..
the ghahar is just a خجالت to them which they could have easily avoided by calling it what it is:
a mock up.

 

[Hyperion]

Hands down, this is the funniest thread @ PDF nowadays!