You are on page 1of 4

26/11/2017 Alternative Gripens

How Gripen could have looked


In 1979 design studies for what was to become JAS 39 Gripen was started. By 1982 the basic conguration
had been decided upon, before that several alternatives had been investigated.

In the end an unstable canard layout was adopted, as it would give the greatest benets to performance,
as it gives a high onset of pitch rate and low drag enabling the aircraft to be faster, have longer range and
carry a larger useful payload.

Canard or aft tail conguration?


2102

One of the two basic variants were 2102,


which was a F-16 look-alike, but smaller and
with side intakes.

2105

The other basic variant was 2105 which was


of delta canard conguration. It was also
tested with a chin intake.

2108
2108 was an other canard layout.

For an instability of 5-10% at subsonic speeds,


which was desired, Saab decided that a canard
layout would entail a lower technical risk as the
canard can be weathercocked turning the aircraft
into a slightly stable one. This cannot be done with
an unstable aft tail conguration.

Other advantages with a canard is more lift during


take off and landing, 10% better supersonic turning

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/gripen/39altern/altdesigns.html 1/4
26/11/2017 Alternative Gripens

performance and lower supersonic drag. Also envisioned was the possibility to point the nose off the
direction of travel. The canard can also be used as an air brake after landing.

2107
The version most likely to compete with the
canard layouts had a dorsal intake, which
meant a short and straight duct. Wind tunnel
tests showed that it would work well at high
angles of attack and that 2107 had better
turning performance than 2105. Saab judged
the risks with the dorsal intake as too large.

The HIMAT wing


2111-4
2111 had a HIMAT-like, Rockwell designed wing.
Subsonic turning performance was increased due
to a lower induced drag and its aeroelastic
properties, without performace reductions in other
regimes.

Note the leading edge ap on the canard, the


double slotted leading edge aps on the main wing
and the small control surfaces near the engine
nozzle.

Span was 9% greater than for 2105, sweepback


10% less, wing area 13% less but weight 3% greater. It was cancelled in 1982 as at that time it wasn't
possible to manufacture it with the correct aeroelastic properties.

The nal result


2110

The image actually depicts JAS 39 Gripen, which is a slightly rened form of Saab 2110.

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/gripen/39altern/altdesigns.html 2/4
26/11/2017 Alternative Gripens

This is a three
view plan from
SAAB.

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/gripen/39altern/altdesigns.html 3/4
26/11/2017 Alternative Gripens

Main source: Mach 47

(Back to) more on JAS 39 Gripen.

Aerodynamic highlights of a fourth generation delta canard ghter aircraft - The ingress of this
document is in Swedish, but the main part is a very interesting article about Gripen's aerodynamics.
Of relevance to this subject, see for example the the image of different planforms tested.
Document created 1995 June 29, one paragraph added 2000 Aug 16, external links added 2002 May 30 by
Urban Fredriksson

griffon@canit.se

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/gripen/39altern/altdesigns.html 4/4

You might also like