AHC/WI: Canards and Thrust Vectoring Adopted Earlier

Canards and thrust vectoring were proposed and experimented with on a variety of aircraft starting in the 1960s, but they have only recently seen widespread adoption. In the 1960s the B-58 and F-106 had canard equipped variants proposed, and the B-70 flew at Mach 3 with them. The Ye-8, a development of the MiG-21, was built with canards and was at one point slated for mass production as the MiG-23. Later, the Control Configured Vehicle program tested canards on both the YF-4E and the NB-52E, respectively improving maneuverability and reducing airframe stress. Thrust vectoring was also developed in the 1960s. A more conventional system was planned for use on the A-6 Intruder, with the prototype featuring Pratt & Whitney J52 engines with rotating nozzles. It was also used for VTOL aircraft, being tested on the Kestrel and entering service on the Harrier.

Given the fact that they were proposed, experimented with, and even entered service on some aircraft during the 1960s and 1970s, how come canards and thrust vectoring didn't see widespread adoption on new and legacy aircraft during the Cold War?

Back in 1903, a canard aircraft achieved powered flight. In 1909, Curtiss produced a Model D with elevator surfaces front and back. Lincoln Beachey whacked his foreplane off in a fence incident, and continued flying the aircraft, and remarked that stability was improved. Since that time, designers have dabbled with canards, to perform a variety of functions, with varying success. Had all canards been successful, more aircraft would have canards. Computer controls of non-stable aircraft certainly make things easier. Beechcraft tried to replace its popular King Air with the canard Starship, while Piaggio built the Avanti, like the Curtiss, with both ends covered. The King Air still rules. There are reasons for, and reasons against, across the entire spectrum of aviation. Choices have to have been made.

The saab viggen was a canard aircraft in the 60/70s. Keep in mind that the 60s was the era of the swing wing, that was the fancy trend of the time.

But I think you're asking about earlier ccv with canards and tvc, and I think it required the development of advanced electronic flight controls. The harrier was a difficult plane to fly, mechanical tvc adds a measure of complexity to the flight controls that may be beyond average pilots.

Curtiss XP-55 Ascender

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThLNx33S_YE
37 seconds of a newsreel

Delta Force said:

Canards and thrust vectoring were proposed and experimented with on a variety of aircraft starting in the 1960s, but they have only recently seen widespread adoption. In the 1960s the B-58 and F-106 had canard equipped variants proposed, and the B-70 flew at Mach 3 with them. The Ye-8, a development of the MiG-21, was built with canards and was at one point slated for mass production as the MiG-23. Later, the Control Configured Vehicle program tested canards on both the YF-4E and the NB-52E, respectively improving maneuverability and reducing airframe stress. Thrust vectoring was also developed in the 1960s. A more conventional system was planned for use on the A-6 Intruder, with the prototype featuring Pratt & Whitney J52 engines with rotating nozzles. It was also used for VTOL aircraft, being tested on the Kestrel and entering service on the Harrier.

Given the fact that they were proposed, experimented with, and even entered service on some aircraft during the 1960s and 1970s, how come canards and thrust vectoring didn't see widespread adoption on new and legacy aircraft during the Cold War?

Click to expand...

I believe when it comes to designs, it is usually the leading engineer,scientist of the team. You also have a political decision when it comes to budget. Usually, the most innovative doesn't come as normal/standard build until decades when the leading scientist before is replaced by a newer one and the politics are more accepting of the budget.

Even though it is possible back then to make those designs, you still have to out into place factors that will play into it becoming a reality.

I don't know about aircraft using other wing designs, but delta wing designs with canards have improved performance at high angles of attack, and the close in canard configuration improves manuverability and ground handling in general. Apparently the delta wing is quite advantageous when combined with canards. Since the MiG-21 and F-106 both had high performance and bled speed rapidly in turns, it seems they could have benefited dramatically.

I think canards and thrust vectoring would have been interesting on the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, since the Soviets and Russians were able to further develop the already manuverable MiG-29 and super manuverable Su-27 using one and/or both technologies.

Also, canards could have helped other aircraft improve their performance, allowing the F-4 to gain a higher degree of manuverability and reducing airframe stress on the B-52 and F-111.

AOA plus, stealth minus

Canards help increase angles of attack. Correct me if I am wrong. Which is a great plus for air combat gun fight. But what impact do they have on stealth features? Canards in order to work require FBW technology to get the most out of them which was not available at the later stage when AOA still mattered in a gun fight. Now a days, a vast majority of air combat is missiles only where AOA do not play a role but radar, stealth, data systems and missiles play a much larger role. SO in effect if one does not need AOA or does not a desire a situation where on gets in close and dirty, one has no need for canards. Those that wish to employ canards are most likely conceding that they are unable to compete in a missile fight and therefore want to get in close and dirty. But those are rare. In the modern era the canards are more of a negative (increase RCS) then a positive (increase AOA).

Canards have a small window of when gun fights are still important but in such an early phase the FBW did not exist that made canards such a winning design feature.

Hussar01 said:

Canards help increase angles of attack. Correct me if I am wrong. Which is a great plus for air combat gun fight. But what impact do they have on stealth features? Canards in order to work require FBW technology to get the most out of them which was not available at the later stage when AOA still mattered in a gun fight. Now a days, a vast majority of air combat is missiles only where AOA do not play a role but radar, stealth, data systems and missiles play a much larger role. SO in effect if one does not need AOA or does not a desire a situation where on gets in close and dirty, one has no need for canards. Those that wish to employ canards are most likely conceding that they are unable to compete in a missile fight and therefore want to get in close and dirty. But those are rare. In the modern era the canards are more of a negative (increase RCS) then a positive (increase AOA).

Canards have a small window of when gun fights are still important but in such an early phase the FBW did not exist that made canards such a winning design feature.

Click to expand...

The Eurofighter and Rafale use canards and are modern fighters designed for low radar returns relative to older designs. The PLAAF Chengdu J-10 and newer Mikoyan and Sukhoi designs also have canards, at least as an option on some variants.

Fly by wire isn't necessarily required for canards either, and even then it could have been used on the first generation of such aircraft, which were designed with maneuverability as a high priority. The F-15, F-16, MiG-29, and Su-27 were also tested with canards at various points, although the Soviets/Russians were the only ones to adopt designs using them. I'm just wondering why something that had been theorized about around that time wasn't actually adopted for service in the post-Vietnam Era fighters of any country, with canards waiting until the 1990s to be adopted. Compared to thrust vectoring, canards are more simple to implement.

I personally think canards on fighters didn't really become very useful (outside of the Saab 37 Viggen) until the Rockwell/MBB X-31 and the British Aerospace EAP test planes with their fly-by-wire systems showed how delta wings with canards could seriously enhance maneuverability. That research was why the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab 39 Gripen (and later the Chengdu J-10) adopted the delta wing with front canard configuration.

As such, had the MIG Ye-8 been developed into a real operational fighter, the maneuverability would still be not that great, because the plane did not take full advantage of the front canards in increasing high-AOA flight.

Beech Starship

..... Beechcraft tried to replace its popular King Air with the canard Starship, while Piaggio built the Avanti, like the Curtiss, with both ends covered. The King.......Choices have to have been made.[/QUOTE]
..........................................

Starship may have been aerodynamically better, but structurally it competed directly with King Air. The problem was the scary new composite technology. Since Starship was one of the first all-composite airframes certified in the USA the FAA insisted on such large margins of error and structural redundancy that Starship weighed about the same as King Air and did not perform significantly better.
Piaggio Avanti competes in a different market sector. Avanti tries to be the fastest of turbo-props, over-lapping the slower executive jets. Avanti may be more fuel-efficient than jets, but its small wing (optimized for fast cruise) limits take-off performance. I doubt if the heavily-loaded wing on the Avanti can compete with with a King Air flying off of the same 2,000 foot airstrip.

Avanti competes in the same market niche as Mitsubishi's MU-2: fastest turbo-prop. MU-2 suffered a poor accident rate because it needed to be flown more precisely than other turbo-props. IOW MU-2 was less forgiving of the sloppy flying done by junior pilots who only recently graduated from flying piston-pounders.

riggerrob said:

..... Beechcraft tried to replace its popular King Air with the canard Starship, while Piaggio built the Avanti, like the Curtiss, with both ends covered. The King.......Choices have to have been made.

Click to expand...

..........................................

Starship may have been aerodynamically better, but structurally it competed directly with King Air. The problem was the scary new composite technology. Since Starship was one of the first all-composite airframes certified in the USA the FAA insisted on such large margins of error and structural redundancy that Starship weighed about the same as King Air and did not perform significantly better.
Piaggio Avanti competes in a different market sector. Avanti tries to be the fastest of turbo-props, over-lapping the slower executive jets. Avanti may be more fuel-efficient than jets, but its small wing (optimized for fast cruise) limits take-off performance. I doubt if the heavily-loaded wing on the Avanti can compete with with a King Air flying off of the same 2,000 foot airstrip.

Avanti competes in the same market niche as Mitsubishi's MU-2: fastest turbo-prop. MU-2 suffered a poor accident rate because it needed to be flown more precisely than other turbo-props. IOW MU-2 was less forgiving of the sloppy flying done by junior pilots who only recently graduated from flying piston-pounders.[/QUOTE]

Would thrust vectoring on a fighter work without sophisticated computers?

AdA said:

Would thrust vectoring on a fighter work without sophisticated computers?

Click to expand...

The Kestrel and Harrier were flyable without advanced computers, and the F-111 and F-14 had swing-wings that were capable of automatic or manual control. It's rumored that the F-14 won a fly-off against the F-15 in front of the Shah of Iran because the F-14 pilots manually controlled the wings, allowing it to perform more impressive maneuvers. 2D thrust vectoring (vertical deflection) would probably be possible in the 1960s, since it's more simple than what the VTOL aircraft were capable of. In particular, while it may be used to improve takeoff performance, it doesn't have to perform a transition from vertical to horizontal flight.