About the only thing I would think the EF2000 has over the Rafale is the EJ200 may be a slightly stronger engine than the Snecma M88-2.

The Rafale has a much closer coupling of the canard to the wing, while this may make the L/D slightly less efficient in cruise with the lift distribution variation on the main wing, the vortices given off at higher AoAs should give a slightly better higher alpha performance. Against that, the canards on the EF should have slightly more pitch authority by dint of their longer distance from the cg position.

they have absolutely nothing to fear from West. there only fear is that 1 billion muslims who are blindly following there ideology will stop believing the nonsense that they represents.

No, you misunderstand the context. We both mean fear in terms of findings of any inquiry.

:rolleyes: Not again..

A Ferrari F1 can outperform Renault. And vice versa.. And guess what, sometimes even McLarens win the race.. It all depends on the pilot and conditions.

McLaren? Not this year anyway :diablo:

Anyway, I think the accounts came from Greek airforce pilots who have access to both :confused:

Going back to the original post –

Question: If the Saudi’s have nothing to fear, why block the investigation?

Answer: ….

Where are the undercarriage doors?

any source?

HA HA HA… PMSL…

Comments on all the Hornets A through to F

Notice the rudders both canted inboard? They are like that because the elevators don’t have enough authority to get the nose up on take-off.

See the wing sweep? No neither do I, how many modern supersonic aircraft have wings with such pathetic sweep angles, none – there is a reason for that you know!

NASA’s involvement with the F/A-18E/F began in the early stages of the proposed aircraft development when the Office of the Secretary of Defense became concerned with range estimates for the vehicle. A three-member NASA/DOD/industry team conducted an independent review of fighter- escort mission range estimates in April 1992. A NASA Langley engineer was a member of this team. Favorable results from this review were critical to the airplane program proceeding forward to the Defense Acquisition Board for funding advocacy. A series of tests in a Langley wind tunnel (8- Foot Transonic) the following month indicated that a spoiler on theleading-edge extension, designed to improve stability at high angles of attack* and reduce aerodynamic buffeting of the vertical tails, caused unacceptable reductions in maximum lift. As a result of these tests, a reassessment of the leading edge extension design was begun.

Initial results from flight evaluations at Patuxent River in 1979 indicated that the cruise performance of the F/A-18 was significantly below expectations, with a shortfall of about 12 percent in cruise range. The performance deficiency became a weapon for those who sought the termination of the F/A-18 Program. A number of reasons for the poor performance were identified. Modifications to the engines, computer-controlled schedules for the deflection of leading- and trailing-edge flaps, and other changes reduced the cruise range deficit to about 8 percent, but aerodynamic drag remained a problem. Modifications included increasing the wing leading-edge radius, variations in the LEX camber, and filling in the slots in the LEX-fuselage juncture. These changes were implemented on the F/A-18 test aircraft at Patuxent River where they were found to favorably increase the cruise range of the aircraft. The impact of filling in the LEX slot on high-angle-of-attack characteristics was found to be acceptable in additional F/A-18 flight tests.

With increased service experience, an unexpected problem appeared. It turned out that the Hornet was flown more than initially anticipated in the high angle of attack regime, where aerodynamic loads on the tail from turbulent air generated by the LERX were particularly severe, resulting in fatigue-related cracks in the tail area. The F/A-18 fleet was grounded for a brief time in late 1984 while a fix was developed. In order to correct the problem, McDonnell developed a modification kit which consisted of the addition of four-inch long steel doublers to two of the tail mountings and replacing a non-structural fairing with a stronger fairing. Later, an airflow fence was added to the top of the LERXs to divert airflow away from the fins and enabling pilots to continue to fly their aircraft at high angles of attack without risking damage to the tail.

To be honest, I think large scale open warfare is obsolete.

No-one will attack NATO, same as no-one will attack Russia, or China…

WWIII may be fought initially with jets, rifles, tanks – that would soon become ICBMs.

WWIV would then be fought with sticks and stones [if even that].

Yes and no, if long wavelength radars are located near enough to the AWACS they will disclose the general location of any and all aircraft – an AESA equipped AWACs can then concentrate all power on precisely locating the VLO aircraft, increasing its chances of doing so.

But no long wavelength radar and smart tactics would allow the attackers to drag the HVACAP away with legacy aircraft then swing in behind and nail the AWACS with VLO fighers before the AWACS protection can re-position to defend it.