That area in red is the canards main elevator it is the main component that allows the aircraft to turn on it's Pitch and Roll axis
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
Moving canard on gripen
Obviously, gripens moving canard is a much more efficient design and the lifting surface can be made smaller because the entire surface is moving.
now i'm hoping I don't have to go into great detail as to why this Airframe has a comparatively limited ability to turn at high speeds because it's rather obvious
No its not really!
The size of your control surfaces, it's design and the degree of how they elevate and move up and down
put up against what they have to counter (Air frame's fuselage + two main wing + 2 fixed sections of the canards + 2 stabilizers + wind and airflow resistances + Gravitational resistance)
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.
As for the speed of the Q-313, the angle of the wings, the fixed section of the canard, the thickness of wings and lack of slats,.... all put limitations on your cruise and max speed output
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?
And the idea that today's upgraded F-5 kosar is even comparable to the F-14 in terms of capability is beyond absurd! F-5's shortcomings in combat range & payload capacity is NOT something you can makeup for with a bunch of new electronics
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 I said, and rightly so, that the 1970s design of F14 is completely outdated and today a small Gripen can do pretty much the same mission.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.
And I don't care about the F-14 wings for all I care they could have replaced them with fixed wings
And the whole point in reverse engineering the F-14 would be to develop the tools needed to produce a viable domestic fighter and NOT get stuck on an outdated American design
What tools are you referring to?
And investing in the Q-313 and fixating on the F-5 is literally throwing away money at dead end projects! So clearly you have got that backwards!
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 they had chosen the F-14 we would of had many of the infrastructure needed to build our own Fighters, bomber, transport & passenger aircrafts!
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.
