YF-16 CCV canard mounts

[sv51macross]

Now, IIRC the YF-16CCV's intake-mounted canards were used only to test decoupled yaw, correct? So does that mean that the mounting points were not designed for such an arrangement (at least one that would appear externally similar w/no protruding actuator housings/ect) used in the pitch/roll domains with block 52+/60 warloads at high-G?

Edited September 20, 2009 by sv51macross

[GreyGhost]

I'm not sure but are you asking if the test version is how they would appear on a production version ?

Gregg

[sv51macross]

I'm not sure but are you asking if the test version is how they would appear on a production version ?

Gregg

This is hypothetical. Maybe I should rephrase...

Could the CCV canard mounts, as engineered [and relocated several degrees up on both sides] sustain hypothetical forces from acting as pitch/roll control surfaces with a warload eq. to current-block F-16s? that is, without needing external blisters for actuators or any externally visible reinforcement of the mount? Because I assume the forces endured by a given control surface for yaw will be much less than the forces exterted on a similarly-sized control surface sued to pitch/roll, yes?

[peacock8]

Here´s a pic from the afti that has identical canards as the ccv.

Credit: Mike Valdez

Edited September 20, 2009 by peacock8

[sv51macross]

Here´s a pic from the afti that has identical canards as the ccv.

Credit: Mike Valdez

Why is it that every other pic of the CCV I've seen, as well as half the pics of the ATFI, show canards at more of a 35-45 degree angle than the 5-10 shown in the pic?

So those small mounds on the inside of the intake would cover a sufficiently strong [again, hyothetical here] mount and actuator to make the canards [at a 45-90 degree angle] workable pitch/roll controls?

[peacock8]

Pm Viper Enforcer, he should be able to discuss tech questions.. hard for someone that hasn´t worked on the specific plane to tell you No or Yes i would think.

Edit: looking at the pic, it may be fooling you as to what angle they are in since the back of the canards is at an angle towards the middle of the plane. May be the "rest" position without hydraulic pressure.

Edited September 20, 2009 by peacock8

[C-130CrewChief]

to quote Rick James. "Titanium is a hellofa drug." I may have mis-quoted that. If the actuator mounts were of a very strong metal then I think they would take it. I'm often amazed at some of the flimsy looking things that hold together airplanes! Many engines are just held on with a few bolts etc. A giant C-130 elevator is held on with a butt fitting and just 16 small bolts, bolts about half the size of what holds the tire on your car.

Curt