Speeder 2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 2,391
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
That "j-10 is derived from Lavi" is one of the most absurd claims of fanboys/laymen of all time:
Successful (due to successful aerodynamic design) canards in modern history: Euro canards, J-10
Failed (due to flawed aerodynamic design) canards in modern hostory: Lavi.
Lavi only test-flied for dozons times before was found out that it had critical design flaws that Israel couldn't, and most likely still can't, solve. The failure of Lavi was partially because that the US pulled the plug on the finance, but most importantly the US pulled the plug on technical support so that Israeli designers can't fix it.
To sum up: J-10's aero design profile is one of best out there, while Lavi was the worst, a failed concept, an example of how NOT to design a working canard.
How a successful aero design is derived from a cuc-de-sac-flawed hence doomed-to-fail design?
If that had been true, then Bruno's theory must have had been derived from Christian Church's doctrines.
What Israel sold to J-10 thank to its US tech connection, according to what I've read, were mostly, among some inspirations, a pile of Lavi test fly data (containing flawed data) and modern concept of how to make F-16 alike FBW, upon which Lavi's FBW was based.
As to which part of data was good which was not and why so, even Israel had no clue, else Lavi would have been flying today.
J-10, though, had to do painstaking data-mining on its own to have identified useful data from flawed one among all those highly-priced Lavi crap, concluded where Lavi went wrong, how to fix it, and made its own FBW from scratch and independently since F-16's FBW don't need to deal with canards while Lavi's is a flawed one. J-10 designers are masters while Lavi designers are layman desasters.
Successful (due to successful aerodynamic design) canards in modern history: Euro canards, J-10
Failed (due to flawed aerodynamic design) canards in modern hostory: Lavi.
Lavi only test-flied for dozons times before was found out that it had critical design flaws that Israel couldn't, and most likely still can't, solve. The failure of Lavi was partially because that the US pulled the plug on the finance, but most importantly the US pulled the plug on technical support so that Israeli designers can't fix it.
To sum up: J-10's aero design profile is one of best out there, while Lavi was the worst, a failed concept, an example of how NOT to design a working canard.
How a successful aero design is derived from a cuc-de-sac-flawed hence doomed-to-fail design?
If that had been true, then Bruno's theory must have had been derived from Christian Church's doctrines.
What Israel sold to J-10 thank to its US tech connection, according to what I've read, were mostly, among some inspirations, a pile of Lavi test fly data (containing flawed data) and modern concept of how to make F-16 alike FBW, upon which Lavi's FBW was based.
As to which part of data was good which was not and why so, even Israel had no clue, else Lavi would have been flying today.
J-10, though, had to do painstaking data-mining on its own to have identified useful data from flawed one among all those highly-priced Lavi crap, concluded where Lavi went wrong, how to fix it, and made its own FBW from scratch and independently since F-16's FBW don't need to deal with canards while Lavi's is a flawed one. J-10 designers are masters while Lavi designers are layman desasters.
