Talk:Saab 35 Draken

Kite and dragon

The article lead is written using the common English expression of things. In this, "Draken" is generally translated as "Dragon", with "Kite" less often used. Therefore, "Dragon" should be mentioned first. In the section on Naming, it appears to be derived from "Kite" and the double-meaning was then adopted, so the literal translation "The Kite" should be mentioned first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Dragon is the Swedish word for both kite and the mythical creature (compare with the color orange and the fruit orange) and in this context the name refers to the former first and the latter secondly (dragon is technically a bonus meaning). The aircraft was named after its appearance to a kite and thus kite takes precedence over dragon in either case, no matter which is the most common meaning when translating to English outside the topic in question. In Sweden, the Saab 35 rarely see any association with the mythical creature in general (i can only recall one ever being painted with a dragon). Like its predecessors and successor, the Saab 35 was named figuratively: Saab 29 looked like a barrel, the Saab 32 prototype had a nose antenna resembling a lance, Saab 35 looked like a kite, Saab 37 had canards (french for duck) and was thus named after the tufted duck (with the bonus meaning of thunderbolt).--Blockhaj (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

English readers are more familiar with the translation as "Dragon". This is what the lead should pick up on. Perhaps you have difficulty appreciating this point because you are not a native English speaker? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What English readers are familiar with is utterly irrelevant: The name is derived from the scaled down test platform that got its name from the kite-like appearance. Since authorative sources takes precedence over popular ones, and the Swedish ones originating from SAAB, FMV and Flygvapnet are quite clear on the subject, those have precedence. Thus the primary translation is The Kite (note the definite form having a specific meaning in aircraft naming) with the secondary translation being The Dragon.

BP OMowe (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Q-Feel, not correct.

The article presently states: "As there is no natural feedback placed upon the stick, artificial forces were generated by a q-feel system".

This is not correct, or misleading, at least. Q-feel (ie. control forces being a function of dynamic pressure) in Draken is for rudder only. Artificial feel in pitch/roll are just cam-and-roller devices, (trimmable in pitch). At least in the F/J verisions, for which i have seen manuals, but i suspect the other verisions are essentially the same. Viggen has a similar setup with q-feel being yaw only and pitch/roll feel being cam-and-rollers. (to get really into this stuff, Viggen instead has Q/Mach variable ratios in pitch and roll, whereas Draken has a simpler but quite clever variable ratio as function of stick position, being less sensitive around the center position. Also, the Draken control layout obviates the need for a pitch/roll mixer, the inputs are already "mixed" at the stick base!). 90.224.28.197 (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

and is "Q-feel" really the correct term to use here? Is that the technical term for a system that functions like that? It sounds like a semi-propietary term invented by a specific company or nation for a new technology that they developed for a specific aircraft and which is being used here as a broad generic term for a similar system. Do the Swedish call it the "Q-feel" system? Idumea47b (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Radar

"The cockpit of the Draken featured mostly Swedish-sourced instrumentation. Successive models introduced various improvements to the cockpit fittings, such as the revised canopy and new avionics. For export customers, the Draken was outfitted with a Ferranti-built Airpass II fire-control radar, which was effective for acquiring various air-to-air or air-to-surface targets, along with a ground-mapping mode working in conjunction with the aircraft's navigation systems"

Why is this here specifically when you have to go significant down the article to read about how the actual production aircraft was fitted with the Cyrano radar from the Mirage III (and I wonder if they had the same issues with excessive heat and poor performance as they had in the Mirage, from trying to stuff so much capability into such a small package with the existing technology) and then a Swedish designed system specific to the Model 35. When I read that I had to go back and re-read the article again because I swore it said it used the Airpass radar. But no, that's just where it talks about the handful of export aircraft specifically, which is not mentioned again when the variants are discussed later. It would be nice if all the discussion about radar was in one place or kept to the parts talking about those specific variants. And is there a reason the Swedish system was not offered or not wanted by the export customers? Did they consider it a classified system, or did the customers not like it, or was it not compatible without the whole Swedish ADF system to work with, or was it just too expensive? For that matter, why not revert to the Cyrano?

For what it's worth the cutaway drawing in my book here says the fire control system is a "Saab S-7 collision course fire control system" which is significantly more than just a "radar gunsight", which is usually just a gyro gunsight with a small radar antenna that takes the range data. An FCS takes the range from the existing radar and numerous other factors from various sensors and integrates it into visual cues that are displayed for the pilot. And I believe at one point it says the fire control system is designed for air-to-air rockets, which the J35 didn't use, but wasn't the system designed for this aircraft specifically? And what is the point if it's not compatible with the weapons it does use? Cannon should operate very similarly but small factors can mean the difference between a hit or miss with an aerial gunnery pass at high speed.

Also wonder about the OAL as given by the table at the bottom. The long variant is less than half a foot longer than the short variant? That doesn't seem right, that should be barely visible in photos, it looks more like a couple feet longer at a glance. Is that including the nose probe and the longer version got a short probe so the OAL is not that much larger? Or am I just bad at judging sizes? Idumea47b (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)