Lavi

Israels Lost Winged Lion

An Engineers
Perspective
by John Golan

Reflections of an Aerospace Engineer

John Golan 2016

Material derived from openly published sources

No technical data subject to the EAR or ITAR

John Golan A Brief Biography

Designer, structures analyst, and
engineering manager in the aerospace
industry for over two decades

Participated in design, development and

field support for jet engines that power a
variety of civil and military aircraft:
Bombardier C-Series to the Airbus A380
Boeing F-15 to the Lockheed-Martin F-35
As well as developmental programs

Past publication credits include articles in Air Forces Monthly,

Combat Aircraft, Aviation History, and the Jerusalem Post
Magazine
The opinions expressed are my own, and do not necessarily
reflect those of my employers, either past or present
2

An Engineers Perspective
First studied the Lavi as a graduate engineering student
Teaching assistant for a senior-level airplane design class
Explored the Lavi as an example of fighter design principals

As an aerospace engineer trained in airplane design you

see aircraft differently
Aircraft features can be recognized as the product of different design
trades
Evaluations made on the basis of
calculated metrics not arbitrary
aesthetics

To such a perspective:
the Lavi was the product of
specific and unique Israeli
requirements
3

Comparison: Mission and Fuel

F-16 and Lavi provide a contemporary comparison in
contrasting aircraft design objectives and philosophies
F-16 was designed as a
lightweight air-to-air fighter

Wing Fuel Capacity:

1,290 lb
19% of Total Internal Fuel Volume

Immediate antecedent was

Northrops F-5E Tiger II
Thin, trapezoidal wing
Minimal fuel capacity in wing
Wing Fuel Capacity:
3,250 lb
54% of Total Internal Fuel Volume

Lavi was designed as a

lightweight strike jet
Immediate antecedent was the
Douglas A-4 Skyhawk
Delta wing with thick root-section
Maximum wing fuel capacity
Also frees up fuselage volume
4

Comparison: Structural Weight and Payload

Deeper wing root section of the Lavi also increased wing
stiffness: allowing the Lavi to carry more load at less weight
Load-carrying wing spars are essentially
I-beams
Moment of inertia will increase with the
height cubed
Bending stress will decrease

=
with the height squared
12

t
d

Allowed Lavi to achieve a maximum take-off weight 13

percent greater than a Block 30 F-16C with an empty weight
that was 10 percent less
Allowed Lavi to achieve more than 50 percent greater
combat radius than a Block 40 F-16C with an empty weight
that was 20 percent less
5

Comparison: Structure and Payloads

Lavi structure was 22%
composite by weight

Composite Ply Lay-Up for Reduced Weight

Wings, vertical tail, canards,

air brakes and ventral strakes
Composites allowed for
lighter structural weight
Also reduced drag and
allowed aeroelastic tailoring
to be employed
Aeroelastic Tailoring to
Reduce Flutter for
Weapons Under-Wing

Majority of Bombs Carried

Semi-Conformally on Fuselage
Image Credit: Shmul, et al, Int. J. Control, p. 160

Lavi carried bombs semiconformally on fuselage

In combination with aeroelastic
tailoring, semi-conformal
carriage weapons reduced
stores drag by 50 percent
6

Inlet Design Trade Studies

Extensive evaluations of alternative inlet configurations
preceded the launch of the Lavi program
Both side-mounted (shielded pitot) and ventral inlets were shown to
have low levels of distortion at high angles of attack
Ventral inlet eventually selected due to lower structural weight

Early Lavi concept featuring

side-mounted inlets
Image Credit: Tsach and Peled, 16th ICAS, p. 829

Vertical Tail Trade Studies

Both single and twin vertical tail concepts were examined
Tail-boom configuration was among the more unusual concepts
Tail-boom improved control and stability at highest angles of attack
Single vertical tail eventually selected due to lower structural weight

Early Lavi concept featuring

tail-boom configuration
Image Credit: Tsach and Peled, 16th ICAS, p. 838

Canard Configurations: A Tale of Two Families

Canard aircraft fall into two broad categories
Close-coupled
Long-coupled
Dassault Rafale

Close-coupled designs leverage

canard-wing interactions to
improve aerodynamic efficiency
Includes Lavi, Kfir, Rafale, Gripen, and
most canard fighter designs to date
Canard located above and in close
proximity to wing

Long-coupled designs focus on

superior control capabilities in high
angle-of-attack
X-31 and Eurofighter Typhoon
Canard located further from wing to maximize
moment arm and reduce canard size
Also reduces canard-wing interaction

Rockwell-MBB X-31A

Influence of Canard on Aerodynamic Efficiency

Close-coupled canard increases aerodynamic efficiency and
lift-to-drag ratio increasing aircraft range
Canard above and in close proximity to wing for maximum effect
Canard-to-Wing Axial Distance
= 0
Canard-to-Wing

Vertical Distance
Canard Influence Factor: = 1 +
1+
1 + 0

Aerodynamic Efficiency:

Lavi featured large canard optimized

for improved transonic performance
Influence of Canard on Aerodynamic Efficiency - M = 0.90

Airplane

IAI Lavi
IAI Kfir
JAS 39 Gripen
Dassault Rafale
Eurofighter Typhoon

Canard
Area Ratio
(Sc/S)

Canard-Wing
Axial Spacing
(lc/c)

Aerodynamic
Efficiency
Improvement
(Kc - 1)

0.12
0.04
0.10
0.05
0.05

0.56
0.55
0.64
0.71
1.00

34%
13%
11%
9%
3%

Data-match calibrated to
transonic conditions
10

Sizing the Airplane for the Mission

Three engine models to select from: F404, PW1120, and F100
Represented three different thrust classes of engine
Lavi program was initiated
The Lavi as Sized to its Engine Candidates
with the F404 engine in
F404-440
PW1120
F100-220
February 1980
Maximum Thrust, Tmax
16,000 lb
20,620 lb
23,830 lb
Requirements later out-grew
71.2 kN
91.7 kN
106.0 kN
Weights
the initial engine selection
Max Take-Off Weight, WT O 32,980 lb
42,500 lb
49,120 lb
Engine selection changed to
14,960 kg
19,280 kg
22,280 kg
Empty Weight, WE
11,720 lb
15,310 lb
17,830 lb
larger PW1120 engine in May
5,320 kg
6,940 kg
8,090 kg
1981
Max Internal Fuel

4,590 lb
2,080 kg

6,000 lb
2,720 kg

6,990 lb
3,170 kg

Max External Fuel

7,120 lb
3,230 kg

9,180 lb
4,160 kg

10,610 lb
4,810 kg

Wing Area, S
Combat Radius (nm)
Hi-Lo-Hi
Lo-Lo-Lo

276 sq ft
25.6 m2

356 sq ft
33.0 m2

411 sq ft
38.2 m2

970 nm
1,800 km

1,150 nm
2,130 km

1,320 nm
2,440 km

580 nm
1,070 km

670 nm
1,240 km

790 nm
1,460 km

PW1120 offered 19% increase in

combat radius at same wing loading
Image Credit: Tsach and Peled, 16th ICAS, p. 837

11

Design Trades: Thrust and Wing Loading

First estimate for trends in fighter performance can be gauged from a
simple comparison of thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading

F-16 was developed

as an air-to-air fighter
with a secondary airto-ground role
Lavi was developed
as an air-to-ground
fighter-bomber with a
secondary air-to-air
role

Superior Acceleration

Different objectives
can lead to different
design trades

Thrust-to-Weight (T/W)

Aircraft with lower wing loading will tend to have superior turn rates
Aircraft with higher thrust-to-weight ratios will have superior acceleration
Omits aerodynamic contribution

Simplified Assessment
Predicts Trends but Omits
Effects of Aerodynamic
Efficiency

Higher Turn Rates

Wing Loading (W/S)

12

Design Trades: Thrust and Wing Loading

Lavi reflected compromises to meet range and payload
F-16 emphasized advantages in thrust-to-weight ratio
In air-to-air role, Lavi emphasized advantages in wing loading
F-16 continued to add weight as
payload demands grew over the years

Lavi evolved from strike jet

experience with A-4 and Kfir

F-16 influenced by F-5E

lightweight fighter experience

13

Design Trades: Energy-Maneuverability

Energy-Maneuverability or E-M Diagrams provide a more
comprehensive means for evaluating fighter performance
E-M Diagrams plot iso-contours of specific excess power across a range of
speed and altitude or speed and turn rate conditions
Includes effects of thrust loading, wing loading and aerodynamic efficiency

Comparing E-M Diagrams of competing designs allows for a direct

comparison for the strengths and weaknesses of each
Preparing an E-M
Diagram requires
extensive knowledge
of each airplane
Aircraft weights
Engine performance
Speed effects
Altitude effects

Drag polar
External stores drag
Mach number effects
g-load effects
14

Design Trades: Energy-Maneuverability

Lavi E-M
capability
extrapolated
from published
data
Lightweight air
combat
configuration
illustrated
Drag polar
data-matched
to literature
sources
Engine
performance
corresponds to
maximum
(afterburning)
thrust
15

Design Trades: Energy-Maneuverability

Existing published data allows for an approximate comparison of
E-M characteristics between the F-16 and Lavi

Lavi would have energy

advantage at higher turn
rates
F-16A would have
energy advantage at
lower turn rates

Comparison in lightweight
air-to-air configuration
16

Design Reflects Priorities and Compromises

No single airplane can be all things for all roles
Trades that go into an airplane will be reflected in its design

Degree of air-to-air versus air-to-ground emphasis

Payload and range requirements
Budget or technology constraints
Requirements and priorities will be visible in the final product

Lavi was aimed at

developing a light
weight, long-range
strike fighter with a
secondary air-to-air role
Very different emphasis
from its contemporaries
Far exceeded capabilities
of its peers in this regard
Nati Harnik, Government Press Office

17

Bibliography
Golan, John, Lavi: The United States,
Israel, and a Controversial Fighter Jet
(Sterling, VA: Potomac, 2016).
Shmul, Menachem, Eli Erenthal, and
Moshe Attar, Lavi Flight Control
System, International Journal of Control,
No. 1, 1994: 159-182.
Tsach, S., and A. Peled, Evolution of the
Lavi Fighter Aircraft, in Proceedings of
the 16th International Council of the
Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS)
(Jerusalem: Aug. 28 - Sept. 2, 1988):
827-841.

18