Often overlooked:
– balancing asymetric external loads without much additional drag.

I think the FCS on the typhoon will be extremely capable of doing that as efficiently as possible, not to TVC standard but not far off, think of when it displayed the capability of the system in farn 2006 with the huge bomb payload.

When true, such details are burned into the head of every pilot.
Date and time, aircraft and number, unit and airbase. Time and location of engagement.
Time landing back and the related fuel state. All that for the three claimed kills please. 😎

someone seems on the ball 😎 I do hope he doesn’t make a fool out of you

And while better on the carrier, Rafale and Super Hornet are inferior in the air.

Precisely! Especially a latter tranche 3 eurofighter, assuming this would have been the version for converted naval use.

Aside of the cost/difficulties that may occur with navalising the typhoon, which happen with any fighter program don’t forget, what would make it a lesser to rafale/F-18E,F?

Surely it would be the sensible way to go, if JSF is canceled :(, as in the end you would have a splendid fleet defense fighter.

All in all the typhoon would be inferior in this role to the F-35 and theres no way around that.:(

another exceptional demo;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0f5EStDOF4&feature=related

Roll-out inches closer…….and I feel all giddy!! 🙂

I’m not a follower of the program, can I ask how close? Has there been any proper images published of what the design will look like? 🙂

EF is certianly not second best to F-22 in acceleration, turn rate, climb rates etc. There is some thing called Su-27SM. It has 27 tons of thrust. lighter than original Su-27SK. New FBW, LCD etc. In aerodynamics aspects nothing short than 5th generation. unless comparable performance is not made. there is no point making claims.

lol, so by your wonderful logic, how can you deny the EF isnt second best?

BTW it is superior to the raptor in certain envelopes of flight

“I would presume that a display by an FGR.4 or T.3 would be even more punchy?!”

I wouldn’t!

The production jets have more thrust, and higher g limits, but the best displays were by DA1/2/5, which had less cautious AoA limits.

Tdriver on PPRuNe (and we can guess exactly who Tdriver is….) said:

“Few idle thoughts on the string. You’re right, Lomcevak, in the effect of power on turning radius in these jets: setting idle power at the top of a loop will lower base height by 500 – 1000 ft, depending on start conditions, height, speed and so on.

It also depends a lot on just where the AOA limiter is set, and that tends to fall out of the clearance processes that define what you’re allowed to test. For all these aircraft, all the initial clearance work comes from lots of modeling in seriously good simulations. For example, before Typhoon’s first ever flight clearance, a minimum of 500 hours qualification testing was flown in the simulator, looking not just at the basic aerodynamics and handling, but also all the worst case tolerances on things like air data accuracy and CG management – and that’s on top of the many more hours spent before that in just developing the design and aerodynamics.

However (and here, put on your Health and Safety at Work mindset) it’s still a simulation based on lots of estimated data, e.g. wind tunnel data and lots of computational aerodynamics, as opposed to “real” aircraft data, so there needs to be a degree of caution in how you apply the simulation results. This might mean, for example, that you won’t clear the aircraft to fly to the maximum AOA you fly in the sim, because you haven’t the necessary level of confidence that the data (in these non-linear, difficult to predict areas) adequately predicts the real performance.

That’s a good philosophy to start with, but then you go fly the real aircraft, match flight data with aero model data and explain, understand and remove the differences, and your flight clearances get better. Or do they? You can actually end up in the Catch 22 situation where you can’t get improve the data because you can’t get the clearances to get the data to improve the clearances. As the exceptionally capable, and often very frustrated flight control system design team test pilot said, the only truth is from God’s wind tunnel, so we have to go and fly to get the truth. But in a heavily politicised, process-driven and risk-averse development environment (and that’s the customer as well, don’t just blame the contractor) it can be impossible to find anyone prepared to sign their name to the clearance. (And no, pilots are never invited to sign clearances until well after others have deemed it appropriate.)

It’s an interesting philosophical test dilemma. I flew the first carefree trials in Typhoon with an AOA limiter set higher than the current service limit, but subsequent modelling (not related to the flight test results) made the clearance empire reduce the limits for general testing, and that inevitably ended up in initial service. Notwithstanding that, the jet was absolutely solid at the peak AOAs, no matter what I did to it and I remain certain that there’s still more usable lift (at much higher drag) at and beyond the AOAs I saw. No, I don’t have the numbers to prove it (Catch 22 again) but I do have judgement and feel – which is why you use human pilots for this, instead of an autopilot.

Back to the subject matter of displays. I also flew some displays in the jet, both with the earlier (higher) AOA limit and the subsequent service limit. The fundamental difference was that with the higher AOA I had some extra drag to play with, which made a big difference in speed control – I had something to help balance out the stunning thrust. In contrast, at the service AOA levels I could fly much of the display at full back stick but still had to sometimes play with the throttles to keep speed under control. (As Tarnished says, you don’t have a problem getting speed back in these jets , but you can have a problem getting rid of it!)

Indeed I did, although I don’t recall doing anything that challenged the envelope. It’s one of those deceptive things: I used to just fly the jet slow, but not at or near the AOA limit, because a) with lots of wing even a non-limited but reasonable AOA you’re still a fair bit slower than guys at the time were used to, b) because it means you’re around longer so people have more time to look, and they tend then to see more than there is, c) it means the turn radius is small = close = looks impressive and d) with all that wonderful thrust on tap, getting speed or going up through the vertical is no challenge at all. In addition, the prototypes (that was DA2) had lower g limits than production aircraft, so going faster would potentially make you g limited and in the worst case make you look like a USAF F16 display pilot who’s ordered to keep his speed above 400 kts at all times. I also tried to tell guys that although it was a prototype, it weighed much the same as a production aircraft, courtesy of a ton and a half of test instrumentation. And only 92% production thrust too…. Sigh!”

So, let’s see some video of KH’s displays at Farnborough ’98/2000.

Brilliant post!:D

This thread has turned into a bit of joke.:rolleyes:

In normal operating circumstances the typhoon is not allowed to “post stall”, ie negative velocities, much like the F-16, F-15. Maybe it can be “switched off” in test flights as it can be in the two american jets, but as many people have said; For what point?

Regarding airshow displays. When seeing an F-16, mirage 2000 they are always brilliant, the pilot is getting the maximum performance from the aircraft.
Any in service Eurofighter display, that anybody has seen, will be buy a limited FCS version. Max 8g and many more particulars. This carnt really be used as an excuse however and you can only simply put it down to one display pilot flying better than his counterpart.

The Eurofighter does have better acceleration, turn and climb rates than any other fighter (bar F-22 and post stall) and its up to the display pilot how to use them!

Another point, RAF and GAF (in some cases with italian and spanish) pilots have never had a jet with so much perfomance before so it may take time until they are fully comfatble to display it an very aggressive manor. F-16s have been flying for years, and there well healed display shows it.

Watch this and you will see some very high speed, high G manouvers ; http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Eurofighter_Typhoon-Airline_EADS____WTD61_Aviation_Video-9430.html I have not seen any other plane do anything like some of those turns.

And finially a true, fully functioning FCS Typhoon, bar the 15% performance dissadvantage compared to production aircraft;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNoaAU2U70w&feature=related (about 7 mins into it)

also note its got 4 amraam and 2 aim-9