… than the circumsised look on the Pratt&whitney and GE has to offer. 😀

Ahh, now I now why I prefer the PW and GE engines and somehow feel “at one” with them. 😀

No they didn’t, the navalised F-16 was a Vought project. The Navy chose the YF-17 variant (which became the F/A-18) over the YF-16 variant for a number of reasons, but one of the main selling points was twin-engine reliability for overwater operations. And why couldn’t a navalised F-16 be done? The A-7 and F-8 had underslung intakes, albeit larger ones. A U-2R operated from a carrier for a period under the EPX program, and it is a much more fragile airframe than an F-16 (although it didn’t use a cat launch, it did use a hook to land).

Hi SOC
As regards the marketing of the naval F16, thanks for the correction.
SOC, neither the A7 nor the F8 were designed to have the same agility as the F16. They don’t come close. The problem is not just the nosegear- what do you attach the nosegear to? The airframe needs massive reinforcement right there where the nosegear hinges, (or else you end up with a fighter sans nosegear sitting on the deck). And that would massively complicate the design of the air intake. The amount of air that a Typhoon requires per second positively dwarfs that the requirement of the A7 and F8. Oh, and maybe a midlife thrust increase 10 years later that requires a larger intake. Even for the current Typhoon that is going to be a challenge.

Hi Phil.
The lack of wing fold is certainly not a plus point. Unfortunately the considerable use of synthetics in the wing (of which I’m no great fan) obviates a hinge mechanism. Although the Rafale wingspan is 10.8 metres which is admittedly 2.4 metres more than the F18C it is also about 1.8 metres shorter than the Hornet. And the Hornet is small compared to the Super Hornet. The lack of a wing fold helps maintenance so it is perhaps not the great disadvantage that many believe it to be.

Winning aside…we actually stand and fight them. 😉

Against little desert bound countries with less than one tenth of the US population you most certainly do. You will not be invading North Korea, neither will you be invading Iran or Syria.
Grenada was inspiring- what grit. What heroism.
You lost a few hundred marines in Lebanon- you packed your bags and left. You lost a few soldiers in Mogadishu- you packed your bags and left.
Truly inspiring.

And the wings dear boy…

The A380 would be a mere paperweight (admitedly a rather humungous one) if not for BAe’s wings 😉

Of course. I was referring to the engines only because all AB’s have BAe wings. Not all AB’s have RR engines. Thank God. I don’t like the full length cowling on the A330.

Mine was an AMD 386, 4 MB memory and – hold onto your seats- a 387 co-processor. That was needed for Falcon 3.0 Hi Fidelity Mode 😀

Goodrich I believe.

But on the whole… more UK percentage in value terms to the A380 than anything else.

As subsequently noted only with RR engines. Nothing new of course- the same applies to the A330.

Isn’t that a surprise. A french company trying to steal the credit. :rolleyes: 😉

I beleive it was BFGoodrich along with a few other manufacturers in the US. Infact information pointing tio this has already be posted.

Who’s right and who’s lying?

BF Goodrich is the single largest subcontractor on the entire programme.

“Which just goes to prove the truly global nature of the aerospace industry, and highlights the folly of much of the US vs Europe nonsense that seems so fashionable at the moment. 🙂 “
Amen.

In the Rafale were incorporated many gains from develepment-costs related to other fighters. See the Mirage 2000 FBW as example. Mica a.s.o.
We do not know if France was willing to share all the gains from that with its partners?
The Typhoon enabled all partners the same knowledge base and industrial capabilities.

Yes, Dassault was. Some years ago Flight International had a Typhoon special edition. In it they detailed the planes’ development and quoted a German programme manager who mentioned that althought the co-operation with France was only of short duration it was of great benefit to Eurofighter because of Dassaults’ extensive knowledge of delta designs. Dassault did share it’s knowledge. It’s doing it right now with NASA with regard to hypervelocity vehicle propulsion.

Is my accusation with regard to Britain based on vague circumstantial evidence? Perhaps- I would like to remind you that even after settling on a 250- 300 seat design with a 222″ fuselage which was just what the market wanted (particularly the Americans) British officials kept on pestering Airbus to increase the size of the plane and couple it with RR engines that were hopelessly inadaquate for the job. Some senior Airbus managers at the time believed it was simply a ploy by the government to run the project into the ground. This would have benefitted RR and Lockheed (they were partners at the time).

Lightning? Well I guess that we’ll all judge the plane in our own way. The RAF pleaded with EE to increase the canopy size, all to no avail. The Red Top was rubbish but was carried anyway because it improved the handling characteristics 😮

An excellent British aircraft that we have all neglected is the Buccaneer.
That plane with modern low volume avionics? You can keep the Tornado, give me the Bucc.

French avionics no good? They weren’t anything to write home about that’s for sure(compared to what the Yanks were producing). I would ask you to remember that the Mirage 3/5 and F1 are all pretty small. The F5 and F104 avionics were also extremely modest in terms of performance. Don’t forget, the Yanks used to build planes around a powerful radar!