Scorpion you will like this part ! (for MMI understanding)

Well if he doesn’t, someone else will appreciate… :diablo:

Re: Rafale 4 EF2000 0
I hope you don’t mind Jon that I posted these links over at keypublishing.
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1842

Anyway, this serie is not really new, many fractions of this programe have been up the net for some time.

About static testing:

The aim of the static tests is to take the structure of an aircraft and its major systems through extreme load conditions.

They are to simulate all the movements and loads such an airframe, including all its composite elements, can encounter during its service life.

They have to progressively demonstrate that the structure can reach the “limit loads”, which are the maximum anticipated loads the aircraft is expected to ever encounter in operations.

Subsequently, the static tests will be pursued to then demonstrate “ultimate loads”, which are 1.5 time the limit loads.

As a final step, the static tests will be continued until rupture of some elements, in order to assess the built-in margins, allowing subsequent performance increases or further developments.

http://www.eads.com/800/fr/investor/News_and_Events/news_ir/2008/20080313_mtad_a400m_static_tests.html

An aircraft designed with a higher structural load than a 6000 h/ 9.0 g one with a factor 35% above it could not only pull 11.0. g but also have a longer lifespan, = possibly up to 8100 h when limited at 9.0 g. 7.000 h with normal uses at up to 11.0 g, (and NO that’s NOT a Typhoon i compared it to).

Rafale was tested at 185% of its designed limit load before failure, that’s a 35% margin at 9.0 g.

😎

….:

Scorpion, the day wou will UNDERSTAND what is writen in such documentation, this forum will be a FAR better place.

Basically you do your outmost best to try to explain that there is not difference between 1.4, 1.5 and 1.85 designed structural loads to make up that Rafale would actually loose flight hours by pulling 11.0 g your beloved Typhoon been well unable to do so.

YOU failed.

I won’t waste anymore time with you expecially coming up with FCS structural loads settings (soft limits) vs designed ones, it takes a lot of flaming will not to comprehend what this means and use is as “Evidences”, if the Rafale designed structural “load factor” was 9.0 g it wouldn’t be pulling 11.0 as simple as that.

As for those who are interested in information instead of spins:

These are know values computed in cycles and btw as opposed to what JLKoniko was saying:

Rafale airframe was designed around the N structural design points NOT the C or D and needed only, 650 kg of structural strenghetening including a much heavier landing gear to sustain the SAME number of cata/traps as the land versions take off and landing.

When an airrame is limited to a load 0.45 lower not only it canot expect the same service life under the same stress and loads, it also is much unlikely to be able to pull as many g without coming pretty close to structural failure.

As for the Rafale itself since its design points allow for 3.5 gs more, pulling 11.0 g is the same as pulling 9.0 g for an aircraft stressed at 1.5.

Reason why i dare to desagree with OPIT.

Now, can we move on?

Trolling is your speciality, informing is mine, end of debate. 😀

No I’m satisfied with what I asked for. I comprehend enough whether you mean to know better than me what I understand or not. Why don’t you simply provide the source?

You don’t need to point this out as for an evidences of lack of evidens which is your favourite spining trick as always.

Since you ask for something classified which result can only be determined by studing the standards you keep twisting to make your false points and concluding acording to know, non-classified results and known FACTS (*).

:rolleyes:Ressorting to that lame accusations again, because you fail to prove your assertions?

Ressorting to your refucal of reality, lack of knowlege and undestranding of international standards again?

And as you bring it forward do you know the exact mission profiles for which the loads were simulated for both Typhoon, Rafale or any other combat aircraft for that matter?

Do you know what standards means?

Or is this because you want me to point out tha this looks like yet more spin and twist?

Do you believe they made this fatigue test for the Typhoon on the base of straigth level flying or what do you want to imply?

They applied the same standards conducting similar tests (*).

And what kind of conclusions do you draw from the Typhoon’s demonstrated 18000 h (3 times the requirement)?

I draw the same conclusion than i always did, you can’t distinguish between maximum values.

These”demonstrated 18000 h” were not computed under combat loads and it is well specified in the document you refers to, they were NOT destructive tests which proves my points without even digging this doc (including you twisting debates endelessely).

It wasn’t designed for 11 g/7000 h but for 9 g/5000 h, it just turned out to be more stable and lasting longer.

No, it was designed for a much higher lifespan than this and at higher loads as well, because 9.0 g/5.000 h is already below 1.5 and that 1.5/6.000 h is the load of the 2000, NOT the Rafale M (*).

Because you say so…

Because i know so and while you’re at it post the Typhoon document before i do it for you and prove once again than not only you have no clue what you’re talking about but also that you keep spining and twisting on the basis that you do not comprehend what people are writing.

If you are not capable of doing your homework others are.

READ AGAIN.

“we can safely say that Rafale design points even vs a requierement for 4.000 hours was not for 9.0 g but 11.0 g, which would be btw consistent with the result of the increased stress meet by the naval version around which all other versions are built and that its designed was also overdesigned by at least 0.2 g, giving the 11.0 g capability with the 7.000 h lifespan”

Can we see these design points and I don’t mean the FoxThree excerpt about the structural testing, but a confirmation of the aircraft lasting 7000 h, even when you expose it to 11.5 g instead of 9 g?

LOL. You want the FCS source codes too?

Why don’t you try to comprehend what these standards are for a start?

Especially as the required service life was 5000 h and it were studies in which it was found that the aircraft can safely last for 7000 h with the expected mission profiles in mind.

As i said the design was largely over….designed.

Sure but it’s maximum structural load factor is still higher than that of the Typhoon for example and that with an equal load factor requirement (9), hence its airframe breaks later (at a higher load factor) but its designed service life is just 2000 h vs 6000 h. That is why I doubt that the maximum structural load factor is the only significant factor. I’m not comparing airliner vs fighter jet here!

LOL! Who never wants to admit spining and twisting?

You can doubt what you want.

First you do not understand what these destructive load test are, they are aerodynamic simulations, meaning simulating airframe fatigue during AIR combat missions under heavy aerodynamic loads and these test are not the same for an airliner than for a fighter they use the same 1.5 safety standard, but liners are not designed for 9.0g or above.

Second, it is pretty obvious that an airframe originaly meant to last 6.000 hours having a load factor of 1.4 instead of 1.5 or 1.85 is not designed for 6.000 hours under the same loads.

Third increasing the load factor from 1.5 to 1.85 mean that not only its designed maximum load factor is increased but also casts a serious doubt about the load under which the 4.000 hours requierements were made and as a matter of FACT the Mirage 2000 is also stressed for 11.0 g only it will lower its lifespan.

So following this logic we can safely say that Rafale design points even vs a requierement for 4.000 hours was not for 9.0 g but 11.0 g, which would be btw consistent with the result of the increased stress meet by the naval version around which all other versions are built and that its designed was also overdesigned by at least 0.2 g, giving the 11.0 g capability with the 7.000 h lifespan.

End of debate, whatever way you look at it, Rafale 11.0 are still WAY below the point where it would take flight hours of the 7.000 hours they figured because it is designed for this purpose in the first place.

And YES you DO mystake civilian and Military standards.

Oh, don’t misunderstand me. I think the FSO as a brilliant idea, in the way it was implemented. And i am sad to hear that the IRST will be removed and replaced my camera only. I think the current concept is better, with both.

This is true only in the case of OSF IT, the NG will incorporate a new generation of IRST with all the inovative advanced technologies i mentioned.

And the other yes, had to do with the way to calculate the kill, because more or less the F16 HUD shows you when a shot fails (HUD indication “loose”), while there is no such indication in the Rafale so each shot was regarded as kill.

It might have played but fact is that AIM-120 have a much smaller NEZ than a MICA and that the Greek pilots weren’t daring shooting them out of this zone weither the French were more confident about their AAM capabilties at longer range.

then we can say they are all the best plane in the world

In their role, F-22 are, this is what our own analysts told the French assemblee Nationale, no braging here only FACTS and even the French pilots would say so, i say so.

In A2A there is no beating F-22 today appart perhaps in WVR if the F-22 pilot makes the mystake of flying in the Rafale best altitude/speed bracket.

Apparently they didn’t but the Rafale lost only once which is way better than “expected” and affirmatively claimed by some.

And btw, i dont think they said Typhoon slaped the F-22, some noises have been sprayed about and it is also a possibility but i think this was a question and that the answers was “never heared of this score” (unless my source differs from yours that is).

I might remind you of my warning, because I’m seriously sick of being accused for spining and twisting in virtually every reply made by you and attacked by other means.

Then stop doing it (see your last posted line).

You want to be taken serious? You want people to take on your arguments and not your person?

Scorpion, you CANT take people arguments at this level. 😎

Start as a good example yourself, rather than demanding others to treat you in a way youself aren’t willed to treat others.

😀

[QUOTE]Just out of interest what part of the equation can the maximum load factor be found with regards to turn rates, except for permitted g?

Figure it for yourself instead of implying that pulling g needs permition instead of an international standard safe limit of 1.5.

There is certainly much more about airframe service life than the maximum structural load factor.

Considering that this is the determining factor in airframe fatigue there is certainly a lot LESS other than Maximum Structural Load to determine airframe service life.

These are know values computed in cycles and btw as opposed to what JLKoniko was saying:

Rafale airframe was designed around the N structural design points NOT the C or D and needed only, 650 kg of structural strenghetening including a much heavier landing gear to sustain the SAME number of cata/traps as the land versions take off and landing.

When an airrame is limited to a load 0.45 lower not only it canot expect the same service life under the same stress and loads, it also is much unlikely to be able to pull as many g without coming pretty close to structural failure.

As for the Rafale itself since its design points allow for 3.5 gs more, pulling 11.0 g is the same as pulling 9.0 g for an aircraft stressed at 1.5.

Reason why i dare to desagree with OPIT.

Now, can we move on?