The Flying Rooster proves even weird planes (except Iran’s new stealth fighter jet) can fly

Feb 10 2013 - 13 Comments

On Feb. 2, Iran unveiled a new stealth plane dubbed Qaher 313 or F-313.

Even if its shape is quite peculiar and its design shows inputs from past and current radar-evading projects (including the X-32, the X-36, the Boeing Bird of Prey, the F-22 and the F-35 Lightning II), the indigenous plane showcased during the Ten-Day Dawn ceremonies held in Tehran features a number of oddities that clearly prove the F-313 can’t fly.

Actually, as a reader of The Aviationist pointed out in a comment left to a previous article on the Qaher prototype, according to Webster’s dictionary, one of the many definitions of the word “fly” is “to move in or pass through the air with wings”.

Therefore, using that definition very loosely, if you lifted the F-313 mock up with a crane and drop it, technically it would “fly”.

Someone believes the new Iranian plane can’t take to the air just because it has an weird shape with tiny wings unable to generate the required lift and air intakes located where they can only get turbulent air at certain angles-of-attack.

Shape aside, the Qaher on display at Tehran last week will never fly for several more reasons, despite the (photoshopped) images appearing on Iranian media allegedly showing it flying somewhere above the clouds (see below).

Qaher 313

Anyway, it is interesting to notice that not always unlikely appearances imply inability to fly.

This is what the Italian Flying Rooster aircraft seems to prove. Designed by Italian aircraft designer and builder Ottone Baggio, the “Aerogallo” made its first flight on Dec. 26, 2011. Since then, the Rooster plane, in the hands of test pilot Daniele Beltrame, has become one of the highlights of last airshow season in Italy.

Aerogallo 5

Image credit: Daniele Beltrame

The aircraft features a Rooster head and neck jutting out of the high wing’s leading edge which house the engine, wooden wings, steel tube fuselage covered in fabric, and a proper paint job.

Aerogallo

Image credit: Daniele Beltrame

The control systems is as weird as the aircraft itself: the control sticks comes down from the cockpit’s roof and is counter-instictive – you have to pull it back to dive and to push it forward to climb. Hard to believe, still, working, as the above images and following video prove.

Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Paul

    The Iranian defense minister was on TV today and said very directly that Qaher 313 has not done its maiden flight yet.

    Photo appearing above appeared on a site, not any official Iranian news agency.

    • Eric

      But the remote aircraft with jet blast added in the sound track was on press tv (one of the offical propaganda networks). Not to mention the “leadership” stated it was an advanced fighter. Now this could barely pass as a B rated porno movie prop… to anyone that knows aerodynamics or aeronautical engineering

    • Artavil

      you are absolutely right.

  • http://twitter.com/Flight_Video Flight Video & Photo
    • Dario Leone

      I was there!

  • Ed S.

    Great blog, David, I came across it last week and have enjoyed all your posts, especially the ones on the Iranian fighter. Think they should have put the monkey in the cockpit, instead of a full grown adult….Thanks again, great work.

    Ed Schroeder

    http://www.militarywritersassociation.wordpress.com

  • tms

    Don’t be so quick. It would be funny how will you react , when in a year or two they show the flying prototype. It is just a mockup, with some changes it will fly eventually

  • tomweberdesigns

    Nice cock!

  • Eric

    It would clearly take a B-747 to get that pilot into the air… Anyone involved in Aeronautics, is currently laughing till they hurt… over the fact the Iranian government tried to pass it off as a current/effective fighter. (until called out by the west) Like I said, this joke of a prototype could barely be a movie prop, for a B rated porno. I have news for people, you don’t go from flying and maintaining aircraft developed in the 1960’s, built in the 1970’s and re-engineered in the last few years a locally produced reproduction of the F-5 with F-18 vertical stabilizers… (F-14, Mig-29, F-4, F-5 are the current bulk of fighters for the Iranian AF…) Straight to a 5th generation fighter on the same level as the F-22 or F-35, or European fighters. It’s like passing off you have a PhD at 5 years of age…

    With this said, I do remember an introduction of a “stealth sea plane” not long ago. This was flown (by some brave pilots I might add) and filmed. I would expect to see something like this (open cockpit, engine mounted above the airframe) flying shortly after WWI… not claimed as an ultra-modern stealth seaplane, by Press TV. I have seen home built aircraft that’s better quality than this:

    http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/09/video-irans-stealth-flying-boa.html

    Iran has a track record of claiming abilities they do not have (more for internal control, N.Korea is just as bad), however it gives the west a good laugh. The point I am trying to figure out, is if this display was built by Iran for Iran… why is everything in English? Everything from the Danger sign to the “remove before flight” plugs. Its almost if the Iranian leadership are so delusional they think the west would buy into this comical display…

    I am currently waiting for Press TV to announce local military scientist have produced a Starship…

    • David Schwartz

      While this may never be a threat to US warships and the only stealth it may posses is it’s low level flight the WIG/GEV design isn’t a scary one and this honestly looks like a kit craft being dressed up as a military craft or something similar. So while I’ll shake my head at the idea that this is is a legit combat craft I can’t deny that the aircraft design is a sound one.

      • Eric

        Just based on the fact the “news agency” stated it had a mechanical control system (not a fly by wire) by placing the flight control (joy stick)
        between the pilots legs… This type of advanced aircraft would be at a serious disadvantage or simply fall out of the sky. Now, Fly by Wire has been installed on every major fighter since the 1970’s… why you may ask… well it is simply
        an airframe such as a modern fighter or sealth is inheriently unstable. Under a Fly by Wire system the computer makes automatic adjustments (at a rate faster than the pilot can think) to keep the unstable platform in flight. Then includes the
        pilots inputs to change pitch, roll or yaw… My friend a highly stable or “sound” platform in the world of aviation would be a Cessna 172. Fighters in WWII and early jet fighters had direct/assisted mechanical systems, however they were much more stable flying platforms.

        This is before I pick apart the fact it has no access panels, no latches to hold down the canopy, the intakes which could barely supply a J85 engine, lack of space for a radar, no visable weapons bay, well hell… you get the point… So a sound design I am not willing to agree…

        I think the propaganda department that dreamed this up, watched alittle too much “Fire Fox”, and don’t get me wrong it’s a great 80’s movie

      • Eric

        Just based on the fact the “news agency” stated it had a mechanical control system (not a fly by wire) by placing the flight control (joy stick)
        between the pilots legs… This type of advanced aircraft would be at a serious disadvantage or simply fall out of the sky. Now, Fly by Wire has been installed on every major fighter since the 1970’s… why you may ask… well it is simply
        an airframe such as a fighter or sealth is inheriently unstable. Under a Fly by Wire system the computer makes automatic adjustments (at a rate faster than the pilot can think) to keep the unstable platform in flight. Then includes the
        pilots inputs to change pitch, roll or yaw… My friend a highly stable or “sound” platform in the world of aviation would be a Cessna 172 or Airliner. Even most leading Airline manufactures now use Fly by Wire (B-787, A-380)… Fighters in WWII and early jet fighters had direct/assisted mechanical systems, however they were much more stable flying platforms.

        This is before I pick apart the fact it has no access panels, no latches to hold down
        the canopy in flight, the intakes which could barely supply (if at all) a J85 engine, lack of space for a radar, the laughably basic avionics, no visable weapons bay, no HUD, well… you get the point…

        I think the propaganda department that deamed this up, watched a little too much “FireFox”, and don’t get me wrong it’s a great 80’s movie…

  • Roger88

    That picture of the Qaher 313 is obviously an artist impression, if you go and translate the orginial page it translates the Farsi ‘طرح’ into ‘designed’.

    http://www.khouznews.ir/fa/news/28522/عکس-پرواز-جنگنده-قاهر-برفراز-دماوند