If you are speaking about #385 by “Peter G.” re the 180, he is speaking of the C5, not C7. And we are talking about the 120D, not the C5 or C7.

It makes ABSOLUTLY NO DIFFERENCE.

Where does AIM-120 get more LIFT from?

You talks about air like a car driver, Air is an element, it has characteristics and these canot be changed in software.

Enough of the Klingon devices stuff, tell us how you’re planning to get an AAM with less wing to turn tighter.

PLEASE. 😡

It is intresting to learn, which variant that pic does show and in what configuration.

WEll we know the C as pictured (could be a M as well) was not demonstrated.

Then the internal volume is not that of the C (4.750 kg), 4.590 kg being the logical result of taking 200 l of the B for the second cockpit vs 4.680 kg for this PDF…

Related to configuration, the internal fuel can differ as it can differ between max fuel-load and the usuable fuel shown in the cockpit.

I think it is more about the C/B difference of 200 l than anything else, the second figure is the external fuel which would be 4.800 kg for all versions with 3 X 2.000 l tanks vs 6.720 kg for this PDF, 3 X 1.250 l would give you 3.000 kg.

So obviously the figures given doesn’t compute with those of the MinDef or Dasault and there is a difference in external configuration as well unless they are planning to use larger capacity tanks, there is a 3.000 l (2.400 kg) for transit but i have never seen one even in photo.

JSF Program Overview
30 Oct 2007

And the F135 has been PUBLICLY known to be 43,000 lbs afterburing thrust since AT LEAST Dec 2005.

Nice photoshop job. 😉

Lets’ compare weights.

where I gave 3 government sources that do not say OBS or Improved OBS but HOBS.

Your PAL did and it is am important point, you may chose to ignore it, it says cleary that the AIM-120 C7 wouldn’t probably give the 180* coverage and there are some very good reasons for it.

The last source, from the Program Manager of the AIM-120D development specifically defined what HOBS is:

LOL He doesn’t NEED to do so just as if Europeans and Israelis would actually DEFINE EM Stealth for the USA!

It is for US and the Israelis to define HOBS; we had much more maneuvrable AAMs than AIM-7/9/-120 long before the USA came up with a 40 g design which is WAY off what we do over here.

You still ELUDE the issue of maneuvrability and LIFT, im’ still waiting for you to explain to us how you are planning to get AIM-120 D to make a turn AIM-120 C7 couldn’t make with more lift.

Cheers

Just like I thought, no links just “trust me I know more than you”.

LOL! Just like i thaught,we should trust YOU on assumptions.

Where does it SAY full HOBS for the D?

Nowhere! All they are saying is they added the HOBS software to is and that the previous model didn’t do it fully.

So you might trust me when i tell you the latest D model won’t turn better but worse because their wings are smaller.

You may try to prove me wrong now but here are a couple of all-public clues for you, related to an older model but maneuvrability within the NEZ haven’t really improved, let alone with the D.

HOBS, unlike the AIM-120 P3I programme, requires no changes to the missile’s hardware, but uses modified flight control software to permit increased manoeuvrability against targets to the side or potentially behind a fighter. HOBS has been developed using Raytheon funding, but the company has a contract to deliver the new operational flight programme to the US government later this year.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2002/05/07/147259/raytheon-develops-over-the-shoulder-amraam.html#FIPageTop

Here is what the idea was and still IS.

It is believed to have been just such a conclusion that prompted the RAFto look beyond a conventional solid-rocket design (for the EF2000, the AIM-120B) to a more capable missile with a greater energy for the “end-game engagement”. There is no point in a missile reaching the final stage of the engagement if it cannot deal successfully with a target manoeuvring at 9G-plus. As a rule of thumb for a successful BVR engagement, a missile needs to have a minimum of three times the manoeuvre energy of its target. If a target pulls up to 10G in an evasive manoeuvre, then the missile will need to sustain 30G-plus turns at the end of an engagement to record a kill. .
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1996/11/13/9972/terminal-velocity.html

Here is wat was part of the problem and still is…

Now please elaborate on “less wing” more lift…

Nerving you only? How often have I done so since you registered a few days ago?

Look at the number of post where you replied to mine in a totaly confrontational way and obviously got your wires all crossed. Simple.

How many of your ~300 posts have I responded to and contradicted you?

All topics dear to you i guess.

I’m free to speak out what I think and I won’t shut up just because you can’t handle any contradictions without ressorting to personal attacks and then complain when people shoot back at you.

Contradictrion is FINE being confrontational is anothert matter altogether, getting your facts consistantly wrong yet another.

I have confirmed what Sens said: The document (not me) states EMPTY WEIGHT 10220 kg.

Withing the frame of a particular mission with performances given in this configuration, you don’t READ the documents provided to you: I pass them under close scrutiny.

What applies in the case of other aircraft (Which empty weight?) also applies in this case, the fact that you don’t comprehend this doesn’t mean other official sources are wrong or that pple are trying to make up datas.

You show one source; I SHOW TWO from our MinDef then THREE more form of different Empty weight giving the C empty weight for 9.500 kg INCLUDING one still in the page related to Rafale M today so WHY are you still arguing and about what?

I’m working with the 9500 kg/4750 kg figures for the Rafale C since I have learned about them ~1-2 years ago, as I consider them to be the most accurate.

Really? So what is the whole point of all your trolling then? 😎

I’m not seeking for the worst/best looking data for this or that aircraft, but for the most accurate and that for all types and not only the one I like most.

Neither am I, the day the Mindef gives the Rafales for 500 kg more i will post as it is for the time being I know better than arguing on no evidences, i do my home work.

If Rafale International Switzerland has nothing to do with Dassault,

They are selling their aircraft but YOU pretended the PDF you posted didn’t have anything to do with the competition ANOTHER one of your own foot-shooting.

I stand corrected, but still wonder from where they get their data.

OH, DO YOU STAND CORRECTED AGAIN?

We try to explain; you won’t listen got all jumpy, confrontational, agressive, paranoiacunwilling to look at the sources provided, accuse pple of what yourself are doing etc. A real joy.

WE know that the internal fuel load is 4750 kg for the C/M and that the combat radius should be >1800 km not 1600 km,

These are NOT fixed values as if an aircraft will always give you the same radius with the same fuel load… And in any case what matters here is the weight which when given empty can ALSO have diferent values because they can be given EMPTY Equiped.

When Equiped is quoted somewhere in the same document, then you have an idea.

And while you were not shy in calling me troll and accusing me for twisting and spinning you simply left out that bit when I showed it.

So if you agreed on all point what are still doing if not all of this? 😀

Ask Eurofighter or some of the companies involved. I’m not making up numbers I don’t know about and if I state a number I’m not sure about I make clear that it is an assumption not a fact.

Not asking YOU no, but the contradiction is somewhere else than where you say it is, at least we still can figure empty weights from our official MinDef websites.

The thing with your dynamically unstable canards story, is I still can’t fit it anywhere…hm…need to read more…

Sorry to say, a lot more, i still have to see a cp or cl leaving the wing surface…

Actually “downwash”, produces the positive lift (the vector of boundary airflow over the wing is pointed downward) and is a property of positive cambered wings.

Read the NASA documents and you will realise how wrong you are.

Critical Mach value is mitigated by area rule profiling of the wing.
So, wing’s profile is directly related to area rule, not sweep.

WRong agian we’ree taling for equivalent profiles, aspects and thinckness ratio, this is waht is thaught in UK and US universities, i don’t know where you got your source from but they look rather alternative to me, TRY NASA.

For an example check MICA’s wings, with extremely high critical Mach number, due large chord and moderate sweep.

That’s the opposite of what is thaught to students the world over, moderate sweep doesn’t help critical Mach at all.

If you have two wings of the same sweep and one has lower aspect ratio then the other, that one will have higher Critical Mach number (less wave drag).

The opposite apply, with equal tickness ratio and aspect ratio wingsweep determines the critical Mach.

Now cheack on a proper website such a NASA and you will see they agree with this document, the values given for ar and tc are for comparison NOT what makes the Critical Mach values, wingsweep does.

Sweep: It was Adolf Busemann in 1935 who proposed that sweep may delay and reduce the effects of compressibility. A swept wing will delay the formation of the shock waves encountered in transonic flow to a higher Mach number. Additionally, it reduces the wave drag over all Mach numbers. Figure 91 shows experimental data confirming this result as a wing is swept from no sweep to a high degree of sweep.

Same page.

The critical Mach number (at which a sonic point appears) and the drag-divergence Mach number are delayed to higher values; Sweepforward or sweepback will accomplish these desired results.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/chapt5.htm

SpudmanWP
Since you lost the “AMRAAM has no HOBS” argument,

AGAIN: I didn’t “lose” anything, i simply asked YOU to provide us with the evidence of full HOBS capabilties for AIM-120 you ALL failed to show better than IMPROVED OBS.