I haven’t accused for for saying such things. And by that I can just return the “stop wtisting words on other’s mouth.”, because its your metiert monsieur.

Is that SO? Who alleged that some people were making claims of superiority?

YOU or I? :diablo:

while people are quick in claiming it’s better than Typhoon

YOUR comments.

For someone with consistent grammar and spelling errors and a tremdous ability to misread what is stated you shouldn’t be to loud.

See what Loke and you wrote:
Loke

So yes YOU wrote it at least and didn’t alter Loke’s question at all.

Yet more stwist and spin. 😀

Grammar has little to do with reporting FACTS accurately does it? AND you are most welcome to stop twisting words on other’s mouth.

—-

No need for loosing yourself and the readers in the longest, most irrelevant answer you can come up with.

The guy is a qualified combat and test pilot with experience in M 2.2 aircrafts, his opinion is based on precisely what you don’t have.

Appart for one who flew both types (never read about one), there arent many people more qualified than he is to give an expert opinion and i’m sorry to say, that you can’t pretend be anywhere near as being on this (very short) list.

It’s funny as you always manage to get other writers down whatever their (much superior) experience and knowlege… :rolleyes:

Aux Francais.

Y’a des nazes sur terre…

Vu les commentaires en cours sur certain forums, je me demande si ca vaut le coup qu’un pilote d’essai et de combat dote d’une experience assez rare pour etre soulignee, quelque soit sa nationalite, ne donne son opinion si des qu’elle est positive est suspectee d’avoir un lien quelconque avec des intentions non avouees.

C’est tout simplement degeulasse.

Si on continue a cracher dans la soupe, on va non seulement passer pour des cons mais aussi perdre le peu de support qu’on peut trouver au Royaume Uni, il y a des gens dans ce pays qui savent reconnaitre les qualitees de cet avion et sont assez passiones pour faire abstraction du fait qu’il ait ete dessine et concu en France.

Peter Collins s’est vraiment eclate a voler sur le Rafale.

Ouais, il a vraiment l’air de s’etre emmerde…

obligatory
It depend what time in the day you ask them…

Exactly, their PR and technico-commercials have a strange clocking record to say the least.

Check the REAL definition of supercruise by L-M.

The Raptor’s combination of stealth, integrated avionics, maneuverability and supercruise (supersonic flight without afterburner)
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2004/LOCKHEEDMARTINROLLSOUTFIRSTFA22RAPT.html

:diablo:

NOTE: supercruise speed and super-agility are constantly quoted in ALL of Lockheed Martin doc for F-22, appart for this being more maneuvrable and faster (even supercruising in full A2A configuration) than F-35 doesn’t help.

What exactly is the F-35’s drag profile, seeing as how you seem to know its aerodynamic limits? How much drag do you suppose 2 EFTs and 8 missiles causes vs. a clean aircraft?

Aerodynamic design points:

Critical Mach defines supersonic DRAG and F-35 sweep wings indicated a lower critical Mach than F-16 (33* vs 40*) in the Mach scale, as defined by their respective wingsweep, with a much larger frontal area this also mean that F-35 is much less likely to fly supersonic in Military power when F-16 is technicaly not doing it.

Supersonic means that the whole of the airframe IS supersonic (no it doesn’t occur all at the same time) and F-16 Critical Mach shows it is only fully supersonic at M 1.15, 0.05 Mach above what it is capasble of is stablelised, military power flight regime.

F-35 wing profile is supercritical and optimised for transonic flight regimes, the fact that is also uses variable wing camber to minimise drag at all speed doesn’t change the supercritical wing own characteristics.

Well if LM defines SC as >M1.5,

L-M can define what they want (and btw they DON’T define supercruise as being M 1.5), this is PR vs the own USAF Flight-test Centre definitions of the words CRUISE and SUPERSONIC.

then them saying the F-35 doesn’t supercruise just means that it won’t cruise at >M1.5.

It only means you don’t know what cruisng means.

It doesn’t mean that it won’t cruise at >M1. In other words, one can’t use their statement as proof that it can’t cruise above M1.

It means its engine, wing profile and inlets are as is known optimised for lower Machs and ceilings.

“Supercruise – the ability to fly faster than 1.5 times the speed of sound without using fuel-guzzling afterburners – is another amazing technology employed by the F-22, ” Luedke continued. “Supercruise gives a Raptor pilot the ability to fly very fast, very far, very deep into an enemy’s territory, and reduces that enemy’s ability to quickly or effectively react to an F-22 attack. Stealth plus supercruise means the F-22 likely won’t be seen, but if it is, a Raptor pilot will be able to quickly react when confronted with either surface-to-air missile or airborne threats”.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2002/F22RaptorATransformationalWeaponTha.html

This quote doesn’t define Supercruise as being M 1.5 but says: the ability to fly faster than 1.5 times the speed of sound without using fuel-guzzling afterburners – is another amazing technology employed by the F-22.

Meaning F-22 supercruise at M 1.5.

The F-22 is the only aircraft that blends supercruise speed, super-agility, stealth and sensor fusion into a single air dominance platform.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/120908ae_f22_sustainment-award.html

Andwe understand that super-agility is part ofF-22 strength too.

Any quote for that?

NO but commentary made by those who asked the Rafale M pilot at the last Paris A-S.

Hence my comments on the reactions…

According to our pilots Typhoon is not superior to Rafale in any role but when we say so, we are told that they are braging about it and suggested they lie.

I suppose the French guy who did repport this will confirm, BTW this kind of thing was also a find made by USAF exchange pilots flying Mirage 2000 5Fs vs their own USAF Squadron F-15 Cs some years back.

Something else, we got figures with different configurations for Rafale supercruising (external supersonic tank, plus 4 MICAs) from one of the programe managers (Same place and time) and yet nothing on Dassault-Aviation website appart from pilots comments on their FoxOne PDF…

Remember that the definition that the USAF and LM are using for supercruise is >M1.5(not just >M1).

I know MUCH better than that blatant lie.

CRUISE as defined by the USAF Flight-Test Centre Edward AFB and “Super”-Cruise are NOT defined by Mach but throttle setting and the resulting BEST Speed/Mach/Consumption ratio at a Cruising altitude/ceiling.

The word “SUPER” defines the flight regime as SUPERSONIC.

Try again to take people for ignorants if you wish, supercruising doesn’t evolve around the performances of the F-22 and is nothing new.

Supercruising performances were already reached by 1963 Avon Mirage III (Mach 1.3) and the Mirage 2000 supercruise as its low Critical Mach values allows it to be fully supersonic from as a low Mach as 1.1, which btw is not technicaly the case of ANY Block of F-16 with a supersonic region starting 0.05 Mach later up the Mach scale. 😉

Something else, since they could SUSTAIN their respective speeds, it is still much debatable that SR-71 and Mirage IV could “supercruise” at their respective crusing Machs of 3.2 and 2.0 unsing After Burners, this for a longer time then F-22 can at any Mach today, just a thaught.

Nice and informative article. But has this guy ever flown in a Typhoon? Just ask because there was no hint of it in that article, while people are quick in claiming it’s better than Typhoon:rolleyes:

Sorry i haven’t seen anyone making such a claim (did you?).

But YOU are quick in claiming that people are claiming it’s better than Typhoon.

😎