Very nice chanel, although the video you linked is not very helpful for our discussion [yours and mine], his other video actually is
Look at 11:15
Yes we agree. The video I linked talked about the beneficial interaction of the canard to the wing on a close coupled layout.
I don't think they had stability on their mind because anhedral angle is used for the opposite reason [unlike dihedral angle],
It can be both, depending on the position of the plane re. the CoG. If the first is higher than the second, the anhedral will be actually stabilising. But probably your theory below is better.
but maybe they wanted to direct canard vortex closer to the main wing when the plane is at higher AoA for increased maneuverability. If the canard tips vere at the same plane as the canard root, the vortex interaction with the main wing would most probably be absent at desired level.
When the flow above the main wing has begun to experience turbulence, the vortex core from the canard will hit the flow above the wing and make it re-streamline.
Yes, close coupled canards frequently have the tips of the foreplane lifted upwards. The Eurofighter seems to me a less optimized design re. for instance Rafale, but maybe the drag requirements / supersonic flight requirements as you say were the reason for the long coupled canards and their consequences.
Anyway, I think that the PAK FA solution is the most "elegant" one regarding performance and also RCS!
It does not have the vortexes of close coupled canards but they probably compensated for that with the small LERX right besides the LEVCONs, in general I think the layout of the PAK-FA is very smart and a very good compromise.
Backman wrote:I just made a post about the western defense media in general (https://www.russiadefence.net/t8342-the-western-defense-media) and the J-20 featured in it. I was thinking the exact same thing. The J-20 is hyped just as a means of cutting down the su 57. I wish we could have good objective and respectful discussion about all the fighters. But we cant. Because the US is so partisan and full of hate for the su 57.
Not to be dismissive of Chinese, since they are progressing by leaps and bounds and will certainly come at the forefront in short to medium term, but the J-20 is a first attempt of a top of the line fighter while the Su-57 has superior design solutions compared to US 5G fighters and will force the design of new platforms able to compete in the crucial range / speed / payload characteristics. Add to that the diverging approaches to VLO among others, and you have the perfect receipt for denial and bashing from the US side.