Talk:Saab 35 Draken/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Any citation on LEX for Draken?

There are several coments in bibliography as well as a couple of videos (e.g. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jqiDEcfSnXs ) performing a high AoA manouver (some call it Swedish Cobra). It makes sence aerodynamicaly to suggest that the 80° section of the Double Delta acts like a LEX thus enabling controled flight in very high AoA. Additionaly the high leverage from the flaperons that are located well back could explain the rapid rate of turn demonstrated at these videos. This effect can also explainthe fact that the cobra manouver is short in duration and sharp only at the initial part. The LEX induced vortex reduces in intencity as the plane acts as a giant airbrake (very high AoA), therefore the lift of the main wing is reduced and the plane is basicaly at the limit of stall. The inherent stability of the plane causes the nose to dive and regain tha normal flying position.

Are there any objections to this theory? (it would be interesting to discuss..) Even more...are there any relative citations? (I cannot find any)

georgepehli (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No Cobra

The Draken can not perform Pugachev's Cobra. What it "performs" in these popular videos is a dangerous pitch up as the result of a deep stall (superstall) over the lifting surfaces, a stall that is then terminated. The Drakens aerodynamic layout made it prone to this and that had a nasty tendency to lead to irrecoverable spins and subsequently, the loss of many airframes and pilots.

This tendency was noticed already during early flight testing but the full implications did not become apparent until well into the 1960's. To try to manage this, the Swedish Air Force modified four Draken trainers (Sk 35C) based at the F10 Air Force Wing (Scania) with extra wing fences and spin recovery chutes. Starting in 1969 they then had their Draken pilots deliberately enter this deep stall in these trainer aircraft (the deliberate stall initiation can easily be seen visually as a quick roll jolt/dip at a moderate AoA of 15-16 dgs that causes a violent, uncontrollable pitch-up of the entire aircraft). These exercises were supervised by experienced test pilots and exclusively carried out at high altitudes (around 35000 ft, for better safety margins) and of course, the purpose was to teach pilots how to recover from it properly should it occur unexpectedly, as it often did. This is what these videos show. With all the safeguards in place and with immensive training, they eventually arrived at these Cobra-esque displays, but it is far from a Cobra regardless.

Other Draken operators such as Finland and Austria also sent pilots to Sweden for this kind of training over the following decades, as the superstall tendencies were equally problematic for them. The most recent videos of such exercises are in fact with Austrian AF pilots and Swedish instructors in the back seat.

This should be corrected in the article, so I'm removing the Cobra assertions (that reference a blog post containing some very basic misconceptions).

References: http://www.f10kamratforening.se/Kamrat/Word/?page_id=404 (F10 Air Force Wing on the Draken)

http://www.fht.nu/bilder/Flygvapnet/Flygvapennytt/fv_nytt_3_93_tema_f10.pdf (Airforce News #3, '93, regarding the Draken work at F10 Air Force Wing)

http://www.aef.se/flygvapnet/notiser/SK35C%20Notis%202.htm (SweAF Electronics History, regarding the Draken)

http://www.flygtekniskaforeningen.org//site/page/449?nid=14593 (Aerospace Engineering Organization, a lecture about Draken superstalls headed by test pilot Lt Col Göte Marcusson)

http://www.smb.nu/index.php/svenska-flygplan/skolflygplan/642-sk-35c-1962-1998 (Swedish Library of Military History on the superstall problem and the modified Sk 35C's that were used in training)

The pilots did use the manouver though, but they never called it the cobra. It was called kort parad (short parry), wich I guess can be compared to half a cobra :) . One of your references actually state that too btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.200.37 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Airfields vs Airbases

Just to clarify: the swedish runways placed on roads were/are not solitary runways right smack in the middle of nowhere. Each such road-runway is an auxilary runway part of an airbase, complete with infrastructure such as command center, storage facilities, hangars, ammo dumps etc. As such teh article shall - for correctness sake - state that the Drakens were supposed to operate on these auxilary runways, part of airbases, not airfields.

For mroe information, read up on the swedish BAS60 and BAS90 systems. --J-Star (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation

I request that the translation should be reinserted, the Swedish noun "Drake" is singular and the noun "Draken" is the definite form of the same word. The only problem here is that an editor is not aware of Swedish morphology and grammar and therefore takes translation into his own hands. A literary translation should include the other language's definite article, for the english language that ought to be "the". The Swedish noun "Drake" has two possible meanings (source: Swedish Academy Dictionary (SAOB), D2072, Göteborg 2010 and Swedish Academy Dictionary (SAOB), D2075, Göteborg 2010), either it means the Swedish word for the mythological creature that translates to "Dragon" (complete translation has to include definite article, therefore "The Dragon") and the second meaning is the tethered cloth/paper aircraft; "Kite" (complete translation has to include definite article, therefore "The Kite"). Any other ambiguity in the Swedish language can be found going back to the the 16th century where "Drake" could refer to a male duckling (source: Fauna och flora, Uppsala 1906). Any other ambiguities are not related to the Swedish to English translation. It does not refer to the bird "Kite" , the Swedish name for that bird is "Glada"; using definite article "Gladan". Anyone saying that the definite article should not be kept in the translation should supply a source so we can then edit every translation here on Wikipedia.

Any word that has a definite article in Swedish ought to have the definite article preserved during translation unless any good source indicates otherwise. On "Saab 32 Lansen" = "The Lance" and "Saab 29 Tunnan" = "The Flying Barrel" Wikipedia editors has preserved the correct translation. I will not cave just because one editor do not want an exact translation, especially when no logical reason or source as to why has been given.

I understand that it is an easy mistake to overlook, but when using translation dictionaries they will translate from the normal form therefore a quick check on Google, Lexin, or any similar translation service will look like the definite article should not be translated, however, you should note that the translator has stripped the definite article from both words since it defaults to showing the normal form. This is especially true for nouns. NiklasBr (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about the aircraft, not a dragon or a kite - it is written in the English language, not Swedish, so it is English language useage that is important here, not Swedish. All the engligh language sources I have seen translate Draken as Dragon - not The Dragon, otr The Kite.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed. NiklasBr (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a cite where draken is translated as Dragon, * Peacock, Lindsay. "Saab Draken Variant Briefing". World Air Power Journal, Volume 17 Summer 1994. London:Aerospace Publishing. ISBN 1 874023 43 3. ISSN 0959-7050. p.116. - "...more familiarly known as the Draken (Dragon)" - later in the article, it refers to the Drakem and Drakens - showing normal english use.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of sources that differs though: Folke Schimanski, New Scientist 1973 (No. 858) uses definite article on both "Lansen" and "Draken". So is NASA via their US Centennial Flight Commision (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Scandinavia/Aero63.htm). Surhone et al. in "Saab 35 Draken: Fighter Aircraft" (No print year, it is recent) are also referring to the plane as "The Kite" and "The Dragon" as well ass this Norwegian museum: http://www.luftfart.museum.no/Engelsk/Exhibitions/SAABDraken.htm. X-Plane (the simulator) uses "The Dragon" but that is not the best source, I know. However googling some more I have found out that I might have to yield and keep your version, SAAB omits the "The", as seen here: http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2004/041007_HUdraken.htm Any other sources I have are non-english and therefore more or less useless in this context.I have learned something today. Thank you. NiklasBr (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Niklas, your statement, "The only problem here is that an editor is not aware of Swedish morphology and grammar and therefore takes translation into his own hands", is incorrect, I actually am aware of the grammar, as the issue has been discussed several times on this article, and on several other Swedish fighter aircraft articles. This is actually a common dispute. What I have stated is is what several Swedish speakers in those discussions have stated. Using "the" is the hyper-correct literal form, but it's unnecessary in English, which I do speak fluently, and do understand its grammar very well. We are giving the English equivelant of the name, not it's woodenly literal translation, as "the" is very rarely used in names in English. I have never seen a published source covering Swedish aircraft ever translate the "the" in reporting the names of the aircraft, and those sources can be cited for the article. We can't assume that every wrtier and editor on the subject of military aircraft was ignorant of Swedish grammar, and only you know the correct form. They can be cited for the "translation" of the name in relation to the aircraft, as all we are doing is verifying it from a published reliable source, per WP policy. Verifiability, not "truth", is WP's standard. - BilCat (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So far you have not given me any source that dictates that the definite article should be omitted during translation. I will give you the benefit of doubt and not undo the edit yet, but so far you have shown very little knowledge. Can I ask you to actually show that knowledge to the table so we can settle this? Perhaps you can teach me something? NiklasBr (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right that I have no direct knowledge of Swedish, but I have direct knowledge of translating non-English words into English as part of my college education. By itself, "draken" means "the kite" or "the dragon", and in certain contexts, the article would be written out in English. When translating names into English from non-English words, one follows English usage, which doesn't always include the gramatical article. (In some cases, we would add an article to a word that doens't have it in the original language, if the transaltion needs it.) If this were an WP article on Swedish vocabulary, we'd use the "the" in the translation. Since it is about an aircraft, we don't. I can cite several well-known aircraft books by knowledgeable aircraft authors, including several by Bill Gunston, that give the translation of the Swedish words without the article. Since this is an article about an aircraft, that is all that is needed. The problem is that none of these books translate "draken" as "kite", and only a few of the older ones, and one recent one, translate the word at all (as "dragon"). However, almost oll of them translate the other Swedish aircrft names, including "Gripen" and "Viggen", without the "the". There are footnotes in both those articles to cite the translation, one of which I believe I added. - BilCat (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally, kite is the article on WP about the flying toy, which is what you and others keep saying it refers to, but you keep reverting it to the Disambiguation page, which is unhelpful to the readers. - BilCat (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I did it because YOU told me that the english word "Kite" was ambiguous. I did it because you implied it was needed when deleting my contributions. Sorry if I offended you or whatever, I was only trying to soothe this personal editing vendetta of yours. NiklasBr (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That was my explanation of why I needed a source on the definition of "draken" as "kite". The dictionary your provided answered that question, which is why I linked to kite, about the child's toy. I mentioned that it can also mean kite (bird) in the context of a name for an aircraft as an illustration that just as "draken" has two meanings, so "kite" can have two meanings. I'm sorry you misunderstood that, but I thought the fact I kept changing it would be enough explanation of which link was correct. Sorry! - BilCat (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about my tone in this discussion, but I have seen so many Wikipedia regulars/old-timers take advantage of their knowledge of the system to promote their own agenda. In my mind all I did was help the community by filling in a small gap in this article… And got deleted just because someone disagreed despite (what I considered) the obviousness of the translation. I was a bit passive-agressive, sorry about that. However, I feel I have some valid criticism regarding the edit deletion; please do not just justify your action with what is more or less a comment saying "because I say so". Why not just quote the source to begin with and/or explain using relevant knowledge. I am sure we all would have spent much less time and energy that way. NiklasBr (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I was specifically addressing the kite link in my post directy above. You yourself said you had added the DAB link based on what I had said. I wasn't refering to the other issues at all, nor trying to justify any other action taken. We both should have stopped to discussthis after the first mutual revert, and we're fortunate some admin didn't happen by and block us both for edit warring. Anyway, we are discussing it now. - BilCat (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Modified performance specs

Specifications were in parts "slightly" optimistic (as is often the case in popular literature), so I modified the data based on Finnish performance reports. In fact, service ceiling and range are still probably much too high. Finnish sources report maximum altitude as 18 kilometres using zoom climb, and just 14.5 kilometres for service ceiling. Ferry range is reported as 1500 kilometres, but fuel configuration is not reported (external fuel or not) so I left it there. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note, you are using an earlier version of the Laukkanen work; also, please find page numbers to go with the changes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC),

Yeah, I forgot the page numbers. I'm not too good with refs. Is there a newer version? I'm only aware of 2006 edition, these books have pretty small print runs. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Number Built again

From the article i count 651, and someone has 52 going to Denmark, which makes 652. Any body have the real figures?--Petebutt (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Kite / Dragon

The Swedish word for a kite is indeed "drake", however in this context, most, if not all, would interpret the word as dragon. "Draken" The Dragon. Bo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.3.63 (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, except the origins of the name stems from the kite-like shape of the aircraft, the testcraft "Lill-Draken in particular. BP OMowe (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

But according to Erik Bratt, the chief designer of the entire SAAB 35 project, the name is referring only to a kite due to its double delta configuration seen from above! He writes about it in his auto biography "Silvervingar" and I've heard him in person confirming it! Any translation to "Dragon" in English is not correct! --Towpilot (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bombs on the Swedish Drakens

Swedish Draken's never carried bombs however during the prototype phase it was envisioned the Draken would be able to carry bombs in a secondary strike role but this never happened. There's a picture of a Draken during the trials with all of it's possible armament placed around the aircraft and it includes bombs and this fools people into thinking operational planes carried bombs. I don't know if it had something to do with the bombs themselves because 10 years later when the Viggen was being developed it didn't get any of the older generation of bombs either, the Mach 1 A32A Lansen was the last aircraft to carry heavy bombs in the Swedish air force before the JAS 39 C/D Gripen got the Paveway. 37.247.12.181 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Values of Rate of Climb

In section Rate of Climb is curently stated value of 250 m/s, which is Unreal Figure that correspond with 4th gen. F-15 !

The real figure achieved by 2th generation J-35E Draken

Maximum Climb Rate is 34,450 (ft/min) or (10,500 m) / min , which is 175 m/s.

and real rate of climb for J-35F is 39,370 (ft/min) or (12,000m) / min, which is 199 m/s

Early version J-35A have max speed of 1.6 mach at 36,090 ft. rate of climb is 22,000 ft. / 6,706 meters per min, which is 111.76 m/s

Those Performances are published in book called:

"Saab J35 Draken (Aerofax Minigraph 12)" Written by Jay Miller, Rene Francillon, Robert F. Dorr Published by Aerofax (1987)

ISBN-13: 978-0942548174

ISBN-10: 0942548175

here is upload of page from book where is presented correct rate of climb and other values.

rate of climb

also the same values you can find on many sites on net,

etc. or http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/draken/

TRUTH, JUSTICE & RIGHT WAY (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Change of picture in infobox.

Currently the info box features an image of a Danish TF-35 Draken. This is on my opinion a bad representation of the aircraft as it is a training aircraft with a 2 man cockpit and equipped with the WDNS reconnaissance nose. In my opinion the info box should feature a fighter variant of the aicraft as that was its most common role. On top of that i would also prefer if the picture shows a Swedish variant as the aircraft is of Swedish origin.

This is my preferred image

What does the rest of the community think? --Blockhaj (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Update, i recently got this image from a facebook friend. I think it leeks even better than the previous one.--Blockhaj (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, these pictures are more representative of the aircraft. - Sirroj (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I really didn't think anyone would respond to this suggestion at all.--Blockhaj (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems no one else will ship in so following Wikipedia:Be bold i'l add the bottom one as the new box picture.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Saab SK 35C Draken (DragonKite) SE-DXP810.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Ford and HAC before missile variants

Missiles used on the J 35F and J 35J (from left to right)

Robot 24B
Robot 24J
Robot 27
Robot 28 RB 24B
RB 24J
RB 27
RB 28 Ford AIM-9B
Ford AIM-9J
HAC HM-55
HAC HM-58

First of all this is unnecessary info it looks cluttered and secondly it's incorrect in many ways. There is no logic in the manufacturer names, for Sidewinder it's one of the producers while the missile was developed by China Lake. Meanwhile Huges was the developer of the Falcon missiles but the Swedish missiles where built under licence by SAAB, so we have two different naming conventions here

Also Philco-Ford built Sidewinder missiles not "Ford" but i have seen no sources as to which subcontractor built the AIM-9B missiles for Sweden. Philco-Ford would later be the builder for Air Force sidewinders like the AIM-9J but Swedish RB-24J missiles where rebuilt from the RB-24 in Sweden.

My argument is that HAC and Ford should not be there and the missile designations is good enough like they are in almost all other places.

Darkwand~commonswiki (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Aviation History 1979 gives Ford Aerospace for Rb24B and 24J, but they nuked their archive a few years back: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1979/1979%20-%201945.html. Robotmuseum Arboga gives HAC HM-55 for RB27 and HM-58 for RB28: https://www.robotmuseum.se/ROBOT/Robothistorik/10_Jakt/ARM_rb_27-28.htm.--Blockhaj (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Flight controls artificial feel, slight error.

"As there is no natural feedback placed upon the stick, artificial forces were generated by a q-feel system"

Not correct, q-feel on draken was rudder only. Stick forces were only spring loaded cam-and-roller devices with no q-function, altough i guess the stick might have been its own bobweight (increased stick force on g). Stick-to control surface movement ratio was a function of stick position however and the stick was less sensitive around the center position. Appropriate source for this would be Speciell Förarinstruktion (SFI) or Flygplanbeskrivning. 90.224.28.197 (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)