Of cause it can be done as long it is no hard limit enforced by the FBW-software.
A GAF F-4F did pull ~12 G to recover from a dangers situation, despite limited to 7,5 G. Of cause it was grounded for some time after that to bring it back into service. Israeli pilots did so in their Mirage and many other too. All that G-limitations are done for safety reasons, preserve lifetime or keep warranty when claimed by the producer. Worst case will be some structure damage and the fighter is forced to become w/o by that. 😎

They are limited in FCS, aerodynamics, playloads, structural load or all of them at the same time.

READ again, i included structural load, that of F-35 was lowered to save weight and in many cases they wouldn’t be able to pull more g because they simply don’t have the LIFT.

It isn’t photoshop you troll.

appart copy/pasting stuff you don’t comprehend and insult pple what exactly are you contributing to? 😎

Lets see…

Length 51.5 ft : Don’t know why but some sources say 50.5′ (or 50.4′) while others say 51.5′ (or 51.4′).
Weight empty 29,300 lb : PRE WEIGHT REDUCTION was 29,036 lbs, POST WEIGHT REDUCTION is 26,664 lbs.
Internal fuel 18,000 + lbs : 18,307 lbs as per official program documents.
Speed Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph) : Actual top speed is classified but it is > Mach 1.6.
Range ~1.200 n. mi : No way that a > 600nm COMBAT RADIUS results in ~1200nm RANGE.
Combat radius 610 n. mi : 625nm as per official program documents.
Engine thrust 40,000 lb (with after burner) : Official thrust rating is 43,000 lbs.

The copy of MY screenshot is the ACTUAL/TODAY empty weight as given by Lockheed Martin in their own website.

It’s NOT X-Mass yet Mr “post reduction”…

Speed Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph) : Actual top speed is classified but it is > Mach 1.6.

NO This isn’t. This is Maximum Mach 1.6 and about ~ every green monkey in London Zoo knows that it doesn’t mean >.

Here is another excerpt from the document:

But take a look yourself:
http://dtas2007.fyper.com/userfiles/file/Paper%2009_Dilger.pdf

Sorry it doesn’t change a yota to reality.

Tests are not necessarly destructive test for maximum structural loads, these are visibly not. btw i already have been posted this long ago but YOU should READ documents before making claims, as always.

As you can see from the graph below the foreplane position and the degree of instability is linked.

cheers

Jwcook I think there are more factors than what is said in this PDF, i actually read it before loosing it to a bad file management sometime ago.

Dassault designers desagree with many of Eurofighter findings (So does that of SAAB btw), the solutions adopted by Eurofighters are much more specific to their own aerodynamic arrangements than to the whole of the canard delta family.

I agree though that Typhoon is optimised for a higher Mach than Rafale, historically it is true, their requierements were totaly different but i am not certain that 8% static instability is only related to the distance between canard and wing on only one plan.

Further one can argue that the close coupled demonstrated a higher level of pitch control in particular at high AoA and under unsteady airflow conditions, a close coupled canard canot DEPART or enter a super-stall, full pitch control remains.

For example from the 60s there was a strong will from AdA to see the landing distance of their jet reduced, this lead to the swept wing designs and canards, so the STOL aspect of the integrated canard is common to SAAB and Dassault.

From where is am standing the close coupled formula was tested with EAP, i can remember Eurofighter claiming an increase in lift of 50% at the time they flew it with the Rafale A but they had an issue with the proximity of the inlet (Low canard position) and reverted to the Herbst solution (Decoupled).

The effect that both design houses were looking for were tailored to their need and respective experiences they didn’t want to use the same solutions.

Cola. I strongly suggest you read the doc i posted you. Cheers.

It will be intresting to learn, what legacy fighter is claimed and the real values from that. By the way all data are claimed, before the first test-flight of the real A-1 took place f.e.

F-16 >>> AV 8 B >>> F-18 C

Of cause it does. All Rafale F1 are phased out, because that can not be upgraded to F2 or even F3 standard

FALSE. They will be upgraded. All of them. 😀

there is no difference between F2 and F3 built, but a software upgrade only and no rework of the F2 in need. 😉

True thopugh there have been some obsolescence sorted such as yet another generation of processors (MDPU).

Just for the Gripen, Typhoon or the F-35 the empty equipped does go up in every Block or Tranche built, when using the same technology. :diablo:

I dont know if it is the same really, because F-35 is still at systems design stage and these can increase the empty weight.

For Typhoon it was also another issue, they decided to lower the International Maximum Structural Load standard from 1.5 to 1.4 and let the FCS take care of the rest to optimise its TWR.

When they needed more airframe hours from increased structural stress due to its new “multirole” capabilties they had to rework it. Now new weight disclosed since.

There is a reason why Dassault does quote a 10 tons class and not a 9 tons class any longer. 😎

Only because thay have three different empty weight from three versions, so far as they did with the Mirage 2000, they have managed to keep the weight growth under control, first it is built liker a brick, then it has 1.8 tons of avionic volume which is enormous, much of it isn’t used (about 800 kg margin).

For F-35 we still have to establish what these weight means but since it doesn’t have external pylons it is less relevant than an empty equiped configuration for another aircraft, the pylons are permanently in the bay.

A typical AAM pylon is about 30 kg, stressed for 9.0 g+ and Mach 2.0.