…..

Boy YOUR insistance in taking me on IS tiresome as well as your (simulated) ignorance.

Now please, learn from those who knows about it (if you don’t just have decided to ignore and deny facts instead for some reasons we knew long before god decided you would become a newbie in this forum) of trying to rewrite history at all cost.

Have a nice Kit kat, Jack. 😎

What you saw here is a 5-6g turn and way too slow for more serious g load.
12.8g at 350-400 kts?? Not even HIMAT can do that…
One thing though. FCS doesn’t stick loading limit to *.0000 g.
Occasionally, loading will go over limit since FCS and aerodynamics need time to react on aerial conditions and +-0.5g (or more?) is normal.

As i thaught, first i never heared of an US aircraft built with a high enough Maximum Structural Load to pull this sort of gs in public just for fun and not poping rivets by the hundred, then look at the pitch rate of the Raptor and you’ll figure it is <> 250 kt (impressive to look at, though) using TVC.

It is a PSM on the horizontal plan and Ruet uses this (at much reduced AoA) kind of resulting instantaneous turn rates to cut airspeed (while turning an ailerons roll btw)before a low speed pass, i have to admit that to those who only can look without comprehending what is happening the Raptor figure looks the busines.

Occasionally, loading will go over limit since FCS and aerodynamics need time to react on aerial conditions and +-0.5g (or more?) is normal.

On Rafale it is a design feature inherited from its Max Structural Load, no less.

True.
However, that’s the case only with the wings of the same aspect ratio (AR) and different sweep and let’s just drop sweep and talk about aspect ratio.

You forget to mention the loss of lift resulting from the mix 40* sweep/supercritical which lead to the addition of LEX on the ATF/YF-22/F-22 design evolution, it is well documented as well.

In short it is nowhere near as simplistic as these explainations are.

About that…I don’t know what “chine” is, but I suppose you mean LERX?
Anyway, I don’t know if F22’s wing area figure includes those or not, but can only work with what has been released.

Not only LEX.

He means known inlets chin vortexes as well as LEX root vortexes and wing/LEX junction vortexes but they are not part of the wing area as normaly computed, Typhoon have some serious chin/wing interection as well btw.

Also they are well documented as being the source of intensive buffets in both cases F-22 and F-35 and resulted in the forward position of the canards in the case of Typhoon.

Agreed and no objections there. Some deviations are possible and probable, but in that case I advise reaching for empirical data from USAF, RAF, Luftwaffe, etc…and reverse engineer them to get a clear picture.

Known methods, actually also well documented…

No sweep doesn’t give better crit mach reduction than t/c – look at tier one sizing parametrics of it – a percentage change of t/c does more to reduce crit mach than a percentage change of sweep angle.

Yes it does, it actually increases with sweep angles proportionaly while t/c gains values REDUCES proportionaly so you’ll better off revising your basics.

You probably get confused because you don’t understand that the theory doesn’t match reality

Oh you mean the theory you use to demonstrate US aircraft superiority and their “novel aerodynamics”?

The one leading to fin buffet which of course according to you doesn’t influe on their drag at all. THAT theory?

– simple wing sweep theory is based on the assumption that the wing has infinite span – which in reality is not the case – which is why engineers were surprised to see that sweeping the wing didn’t give them the desired/predicted results.

I think DRYDEN/NASA theoricians doesn’t do “surprises” nor do they have their datas all wrong as you do, but insist if you wish, your consistancy in demonstrating what you want to demonstrate while getting your datas wrong in the first place demands it.

The resulting sweep on the Typhoon was not driven soley by crit mach – there are numerous other factors that came into play. Size/Cost/Fuel/Roll specifications that constrained it as such.

LOL! Of couse, you’re going to find salad dressing as a data as another forum legend maker did before you.

If this was the case they got their aerodynamics all wrong but it isn’t.

You don’t KNOW Typhoon politico-Industrial history the slightest and i’m sorry to say it SHOWS, YOU had NO clue about their respective t/c and i knew it from your first reply to my posts, more to it you’re too proud to admit that you got it all wrong in the first place… 😎

Thus you can’t say which of the two wing profiles has a lower crit mach.

Actually i CAN, and also can quantify them with quiet some precision including F-22 gainits drag rise Mach from it supercritical profile, but of course the last time you implied i couldn’t was because you pretended i didn’t have the correct t/c datas, now, i have a question for you.

Are you done with all this twisting?

The funny thing you also haven’t realised is the degree of curvature on the canopy of the Typhoon is greater than that of the lower canopy on the F-22 – the first supervelocities – could easily form on the canopy before the wing.

Of course we’re getting closer to the salad dressing by now.

Dude go and read Raymer/Torenbeek/Stinton/Roskham?

Dude, try simply the best sources available to anyone on the topic of Raptor and i know who they are, they DID sort out F-22 aerodynamics.

Stinton page 33 – the design of the aeroplane 2nd edition.

Cool.

Call again when you know anything remotly accurate about European aircraft design of this century and don’t need to spin every single basics on the subject to get your point to stick, and then tell everyone they don’t have what it takes to comment on the subject.

Don’t know if this is the video you’re talking about LmRaptor, but it was at Aviation Nation 2008 when Maj.Paul “Max” Moga was completing his final pass as the F-22A Raptor Demonstration Pilot. The Fishhook maneuver (at the beginning of the Demo) hit 12.8Gs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgaOrCYb7b0

It’s certainly a VERY fast instantaneous turn but we still have no evidence it hits this value, please provide us with one (other than the youtube comments made by viewers)…

BTW before looking impressed as you do, perhaps you would like to know the speed at which the turn was ahieved and the way TVC was used (how much was actual TVC nose pointing and how much was turn)…

It could just as easely read the same than this but with a 45* AoA instead of 13.9* and being at a much lower speed than the 440+ kt indicated. (Photo courtesy of Kovy).

So it will be interesting for you guys to inform us on this particular topic.

Alas, I don’t speak french.

However, taking that video at your word and that the Rafale did pull 11G in an airshow, is their explicit proof that the F-22, typhoon can’t match that?

Pilots comments are generally good basis but you need to validate such a claim.

For example, you need Maximum Structural Load to compute turn rates, if your aircraft is limited to say 7.0, and equiped with a modern FBW FCS it won’t allow you to pull much more because passed this you will not only overstress the airframe but also in some cases get close to the structural limit before failure.

So you will need to know more than just the maximum “carefree handling” g limit of the aircraft to have a more precise idea…

We know two things for sure:

When designed, Typhoon Maximum Structural load was lowered below the international standard to gain structural weight.

Rafale airframe was designed with a much higher Structural Load Limit than these standards.

Respectively 1.4, vs 1.86, with an international standard of 1.5.

These values gives you the loads before failure during aerodynamic g simulated destructive gound tests.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/16/52589/agile-thinking.html#FIPageTop

So at the end of the day, when a Typhoon might come close using a “relaxed” “emergency” g load over-ride it will not be able to reach 11.0 g, providing its FCS in the operational version allows for it.

In the case of Rafale, the load limit involves a higher pick value in normal use, reason why the “soft” limit is only a visual and sonor one, in the B i hav ebeen told that the alarm rings at 8.0g to allow for the pilot to keep the WSO away from risks of G-LOC.

But at 10.0 g you will only have a “Release Stick” visual clue on the HUD and some biping, not a reduction of the predicted aircraft service life because it was stressed for this sort of load.

I am not aware of US fighters been built with a higher structural load than 1.5, what i know though is that F-35 Maximum Load limits have been lowered for the same purpose of weight saving than in the case of Typhoon, only much lower in the case of two variants.

LmRaptor
Rank 5 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Studying Aerospace Engineering at Bristol University.
Posts: 736

There is a pilot quote floating around the net of the F-22 pulling 10.58 G at an airshow? I can’t remember it exactly but im sure sferrin/wrightwing or a few can find it.

This G nonesense – is just that. Just because the Rafale has apparently demonstrated it – doesn’t mean the Typhoon can’t. In addition to that the – with the Typhoons T/W ratio – you can bet it can sustain those higher Gs for as long if not longer .
__________________
We are all fanboys/girls at heart. Once we cease to become one we should forsake aviation.

LmRAptor, as usual hearsay and calling other’s informed post what yours are now proven to be.

Take a brake, have a Kit-Kat and come back with something otherwise more substantiated than that, please.

In addition to that the – with the Typhoons T/W ratio – you can bet it can sustain those higher Gs for as long if not longer

Sure!

Ask Tarnished, an honnest Typhoon demo pilot who admited they had the same cornering speed (on the assumption it was computed at 9.0 g load factor) and btw just compare their respective TWR with internal fuel for the same range for a laugh, something else, who spoke of sustained when it is obvious for any newbies that the 11.0 g figure can only be an instantaneous turn rate pick value?

Would be better for you to inform yourself properly instead of coming up with THIS.

You derail every thread you post on, Dare 2. How about giving the rest of us a Christmas present and staying out of this one?

When you will start talking technical and point out aircrafts known qualities instead of accusing people of falsly doing what you do yourself, this forum will be a far better place to be.

Granted.

Now before replying with your now usual personal attacks; you are more than welcome to demonstrate that the points i made on the aircrafts respective qualities are false.

If you canot (more to the point SINCE you can’t) please leave me the hell alone, i do not wish to respond to your flame bates with technical aspects (well documented for both btw) that you do not wish to aknowlege for obvious reasons.

Cheers.

Eurofighter is working on software fixes to address performance shortfalls with the infrared search-and-track system and some radar modes. Credit: EUROFIGHTER
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/EURO121509.xml&headline=Decision

Time For Typhoon Upgrades