Qaher F313 l News & Discussion

[kollang]

These are not facts, but your baseless guesses.
can I ask what's the thickness of X-32?!

can you show us it's angle of incident?!

First of all that X32 was among the most embarrassing design that boeing came up with.and the STVOL X32 was a subsonic jet.thirdly that jet was powered by a F119(max thrust 156 kN) and not two ridicules and outdated J-85(13 kN), fourthly even that stupid X32 had a relatively thinner airfoil.

As for angle of incidence, please educate yourself with the link below
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_incidence_(aerodynamics)
This design produce a lot of induced drag which is a byproduct of the production of lift due to high angle of incidence.the reason is simple the moving air around the the airfoil which has an angle of attack have an angular difference with the relative wind which is in opposite direction of flight path. This causes induced drag.now see the qaher wing design and how its installed to the fuselage. Also the curve on the wing midpoint generates a huge interference type of parasite drag. And the thickness of airfoil generates form type of parasite drag. This thing is subsonic, that's crystal clear to me.

 

[mohsen]

First of all that X32 was among the most embarrassing design that boeing came up with.and the STVOL X32 was a subsonic jet.thirdly that jet was powered by a F119(max thrust 156 kN) and not two ridicules and outdated J-85(13 kN), fourthly even that stupid X32 had a relatively thinner airfoil.

Yeah, we have plenty of experts here, which surpass Boeing engineers in aerodynamics!
X-32 max speed is mach 1.6, the same is F-5.
and regarding it's wing thickness, firstly it has the same thick wing design, being relatively thinner doesn't change the fact, you already said thick wings can't go supersonic and secondly even this claim that it's wing is relatively thinner is baseless; if you can back up your words.

As for angle of incidence, please educate yourself with the link below
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_incidence_(aerodynamics)
This design produce a lot of induced drag which is a byproduct of the production of lift due to high angle of incidence.the reason is simple the moving air around the the airfoil which has an angle of attack have an angular difference with the relative wind which is in opposite direction of flight path. This causes induced drag.now see the qaher wing design and how its installed to the fuselage. Also the curve on the wing midpoint generates a huge interference type of parasite drag. And the thickness of airfoil generates form type of parasite drag. This thing is subsonic, that's crystal clear to me.

I said show us the angle of incidence in Qaher, didn't you calculate it. show it to us.

 

[Penguin]

View attachment 391498

http://www.mil.be/sites/mil.be/files/styles/galleryformatter_slide/public/material/f16_01_1.jpg

On F-16, you only see shoulder and up. Not elbow up and torso.

[Edit]Granted, open canopy is different

Regarding the exhaust: check 1:25 in the video posted on the 1st page. We know that its engines work since taxiing tests seem to have begun.

'know' v. 'seem to'
I'm not taking anything for granted.

 

[gambit]

someone who is familiar with aviation knows that opposite of what you claimed can easily be found among the modern fighters. so either you are not what you calim or you just like to troll aout Qaher313.

independent rudders on Rafele during taxi and turn:

You better get your eyes check, son.

For the Rafale, timestamp 9 sec is when we can see the wing's aileron fluttering up/down. At timestamp 1:48, as the jet turn to starboard, we can see the rudder deflect slightly to match.

Fixed stabilator and aileron of F-22 during taxi:

maybe your F-22 & F-35 don't have the gyroscope and accelerometers.

If the ground is even enough, the deflections would not be noticeable, but as you wish...

Timestamp 1:10 is when the F-16 pulls into chock, we can see the rear starboard horizontal stab fluttering up/down.

I can explain avionics better than ALL of you.

 

[mohsen]

How can I calculate the angle of design you dumb fool, and who the hell are you to order me what to do? I don't have the time to waste on an uneducated basiji who have probably never touched a plane so far.those things I mentioned are aerodynamic laws and I as a pilot student have studied them well.unlike you paid basijis I mentioned all ups and downs about qaher aerodynamic characteristics.those so called engineers in HESA or whatever probably didn't wanted their plane to be supersonic.you are a total maniac to compare F-5 which is designed for supersonic missions with X32 which is a failed project with failed aerodynamic design.a fighter with total thrust of 26 kN may cruise supersonic while the STVOL X32 with that state of art F119 with 156 kN is a subsonic plane, that's why drag matters. Obviously qaher won't fly with this huge amount of parasite drag and induced drag with only 26 kN of thrust no matter how much propaganda is spewed out.

You said qaher has a negative angle of incidence, I said show it to us, cause I know your claim is pure B.S.

and yes, a pilot student knows more about aerodynamics than Boeing engineers, your arrogance is exemplary.
X32 lost on the competition, first try to understand the meaning of competition them claim it's a failed project. you better go selling Labu!

F-35 with your favorite design and a 191KN thrust has a mach 1.6 max speed too. find another excuse for your B.S. the only failed one here is you.

 

[gambit]

It might be that the mechanisms that move the flaps are still not connected. As they are not needed for a slow taxi test.

Not likely. Avionics are usually tested to their full functionality prior to rolling tests.

For example...How can we simulate altitude and airspeed ? Thru a ground test equipment call a TTU-205.

https://www.testvonics.com/ttu-205.html

You can buy a used one on ebay for $27K cheap.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/TTU-205J-RV...205-Testvonics-4920-01-512-7743-/181446044694

To use with the -205 is the necessary pitot/static probe kit...

https://www.testvonics.com/p-psakits.html

The adaptor goes over the pitot/static probe, covering the hole in front (airspeed) and a smaller hole on the underside of the probe (altitude).

Basically, the -205 provides ram air at the probe's tip to simulate airspeed, and create vacuum at the smaller hole to simulate lower baro pressure (altitude).

You can see an example of the pitot/static probe here...

http://www.zoombd24.com/basic-aircraft-instruments-system-pitot-static-probes/

 

[mohsen]

You better get your eyes check, son.

For the Rafale, timestamp 9 sec is when we can see the wing's aileron fluttering up/down. At timestamp 1:48, as the jet turn to starboard, we can see the rudder deflect slightly to match.

the one who should check his eyes is you grandpa. I mentioned the Rafale for it's fixed independent rudder not the aileron.
secondly Rafle's rudder has a free movement, it's not because pilot is guiding it, whether before the turn or after the turn it has this free movements. you can check the other videos of Rafale taxi too.

If the ground is even enough, the deflections would not be noticeable, but as you wish...

Timestamp 1:10 is when the F-16 pulls into chock, we can see the rear starboard horizontal stab fluttering up/down.

I can explain avionics better than ALL of you.

looks like your eyes have serious problem grandpa.
I said F22 has fixed stabilators, you mention the F-16 !!!

 

[Blue In Green]

You better get your eyes check, son.

For the Rafale, timestamp 9 sec is when we can see the wing's aileron fluttering up/down. At timestamp 1:48, as the jet turn to starboard, we can see the rudder deflect slightly to match.


If the ground is even enough, the deflections would not be noticeable, but as you wish...

Timestamp 1:10 is when the F-16 pulls into chock, we can see the rear starboard horizontal stab fluttering up/down.

I can explain avionics better than ALL of you.

Which air force base is that? I know it's in Las Vegas Nevada.

 

[gambit]

the one who should check his eyes is you grandpa. I mentioned the Rafale for it's fixed independent rudder not the aileron.
secondly Rafle's rudder has a free movement, it's not because pilot is guiding it, whether before the turn or after the turn it has this free movements. you can check the other videos of Rafale taxi too.

No, YOU better check your eyes, young pup. The Rafale video shows both aileron and rudder movements as I explained why.

looks like your eyes have serious problem grandpa.
I said F22 has fixed stabilators, you mention the F-16 !!!

And you are wrong. Basic avionics are the same. I have seen plenty of F-22 at many airshows, the next one is Dayton OH and the F-22 is scheduled to be there. How many jet fighters have you been around ?

Further, before taxi, the FCS are cycled thru their self tests where the surfaces moves in a predetermined pattern. Like this...

We can see the F-22's surfaces moves in that pattern. Once the flight control computer (FLCC) is done, the pilot cycles the surfaces on his own. Every pilot does this, from fighter to bomber to tanker.

Where is such a test for the F-313 ?

Which air force base is that? I know it's in Las Vegas Nevada.

Nellis AFB.

 

[Penguin]

You guys needs seriously stop taking things PERSONALLY. Quit the negative tone of voice.

 

[SOHEIL]

On F-16, you only see shoulder and up. Not elbow up and torso.

So what!?

Still close ...

I am optimistic about this project...

...but one thing that I'm sure of, that reporter pisses me off, so annoying and stupid. Claims F22 & F35 are "no match" for F313, yea ok...so counterproductive and just brings down credibility of the video report.

He is talking about it's design ...

Not capabilities & technology

 

[Aramagedon]

کشوری که زمانی توان تولید فشنگ رو هم نداشت الان به درجه ایی از علم و فناوری رسیده که تو همه زمینه ها جزء کشورهای طراز اول دنیا محسوب میشه. این پیشرفت ها فقط در نظر ادم های کوچک ناچیز دیده میشه. وقتی ژاپن با کمک امریکا جنگنده کپی میکنه همه میگن به به.. ولی وقتی ایران در اوج تحریم ها که حتی توانایی وارد کردن یه قطعه رو هم نداشت جنگنده صاعقه رو ساخت بعضی ایرانی های کوچک مغزی که در عمل هیچ دانش مهندسی ندارن تمام سعیشون رو میکنن تا کوچیک نشونش بدن. الانم که قاهره همون داستانه! هرچند تا معرفی نسخه نهایی فاصله است اما این کارها رو نباید دست کم گرفت. نباید ایران رو با امریکا و روسیه و ژاپن و چین مقایسه کرد چون این کشورا مخصوصا امریکا از جنگ جهانی اول به این صنعت وارد شدن و بعد چند ده سال به اینجا رسیدن ولی ایران این مسیر رو تو ۱۰ سال رفت که این نشون میده پیشرفت شرکت های زیر مجموعه وزارت دفاع تا چه حدی بالا بوده.

زمانی که امریکا روسیه و چین وجود نداشت ما ایرانی ها جهان رو با تمدنمون حکومت میکردیم اما الان کارمون به جایی رسیده که فقط دوست داریم خودمون رو ضعیف و کوچیک نشون بده. حتی اگر پیشرفت های بزرگی هم در داخل انجام بشه ازش بد میگیم!

 

[OldTwilight]

Well , if wager fly ( or doesn't fly ) , the engineers will find any problem ....

 

[Blue In Green]

You guys needs seriously stop taking things PERSONALLY. Quite the negative tone of voice.

Lol, yeah I agree but with the History between the USA and Iran it's hard for each countries respective citizens not to get emotional especially when it comes to a jet that can potentially protect Iran from a future US attack. (We Americans are incredibly jingoistic and have a hubris so that doesn't really help the situation either.)

I've stressed civility in the forum on multiple occasions.

 

[500]

You once again proved that your knowledge about aerodynamics is lower than a 5 years old kid with an Internet!

neither flaps nor slats have nothing to do with an aircraft being subsonic or supersonic. both flaps and slats are aerodynamic surfaces used to decrease stall speed, mostly during take off and or landing.

While slow aircraft can manage without flaps, for supersonic and transonic they are must. Modern (since 3rd gen at least need slats too).

Qaher is tandem wing aircraft, on the front wing it has flaperon controls and on the rear wing has the elevon controls.

You call these elevons?

Funny kid with toy plane on avatar.