Scorpion. Take a break really, and try to learn about standards before jumping to conclusions at the first PDF you don’t understand and keep trolling until pple blow their tops.

You atempts at enerving me only makes me laugh at your ignorance. 😎

= We all know Typhoon T2 structure was stenghtened and yet the empty weight is still the same, as far as we know Eurofighter are the only companny in the world to add weightless metal to their aircraft and we don’t rub you nose on the funny aspect of it, so who’s INCONSISTENT HERE?

So what’s the weight of the STRENGHTENED T 2 TYPHOON TODAY?

I find it intriguing how everything from your sources is explicit

I find it intriguing that guys who are prone to use double standads (see the post from f-16.com on F-35 empty weights) accepting one thing to be valid for one manufacturer, can refuse to aknowlege sources from other’s Defense ministry as being correct.


You might not like it but we know far better than you do.

The sources i provided, if you had bothered checking on them, all lead to the same empty weight for the C version and this empty weight is 9.500 kg. 😀

AGAIN: Marine Nationale website TODAY:

Rafale M

à vide : 10 196 kg

maximale : 24 000 kg
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/decouverte/equipements/aeronefs/rafale_m

NOW the PDF on the M. Where is it inconsistant?

Substract <> 650 kg for the structural strenghtening and you find the Defense Minister Empty Weight for the C version of 9.500 kg with 46 kg difference.

Now guys i CAN read english MUCH better than you can read French and i don’t need to INTERPRET Maximum Mach 1.6 as meaning KPP or 1.290 noeuds (Kt as being M 2.24 at the “tropopause”). http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/decouverte/equipements/aeronefs/rafale_m
😀

You cherry pick the most favorable info for your arguments, and except only the least favorable info for everyone else’s as anything positive must’ve been a case of misstating things.

Yeah sure, Rafale 1.200 kt are in reality M 2.24 at the tropopause then.

The reality of it is that Scorpion canot comprehend what the difference in weight means from a PDF to the other (not even being capable of spoting the source), and that this empty weigh guts you guys because it provides Rafale with superior perrormances (obvious in F-35 case), Typhoon being credited with a higher wingload when the weight is computed empty.

Too bad nor L-M or Eurofighter are capable of desigining anything equivalent and we still await Typhoon NEW empty weight after structural strenghtening, he also carefuly avoided the point.

I would like to see some evidence (clickable, not self-defined) that the AIM-120D (not the C5, or C7, but the D model) doesn’t have HOBS.

I would like to see some evidence (clickable, not self-defined) that the AIM-120D (not the C5, or C7, but the D model) have better turning capabilties with less wings and control surfaces than the “Improved Off Boresight” previous versions.

Software is not hardware. Cheers. :dev2:

Here. If you don’t find Wiki convincing, I can provide other sources, but I think this one explains most clearly.

I got no problem with shifts of cl i typoed (happens like air pressures temp) but the shift you are mentioning here is not of the emplitude of that resulting from the transition to supersonic.

Agreed, but then again they both have variable camber, so where’s the difference?

One needs perhaps a greater trim value in both subsonic and supersonic.

What you want is to reduce wing camber as much as possible while retaining Max cl.

Either way, if you want to offset a Cp shift, with variable cambering, you’re adding drag again.

Not with Dynamic instability, you won’t need it, it will offer the lift needed in front of the cg even in supersonic.

What are the others?

· Stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack.

· Spin recovery known to be acceptable for close coupled delta canard (not necessarily so for a long coupled canard configuration):

· Proven spin recovery capability for complete cg and AOR range.

· Nor risk of being trapped in a superstall, control authority exists.

http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html

· Damping brings a much lower sensitivity to transonic pitch moments (no need for FCS mitigation).

And i’m sure i forgot a few.

I’d imagine EF’s anhedral canards being inherently more unstable than Rafale’s.
But ok, I still don’t know what’s that dynamic canard instability.

Typhoon anhedral canards is designed to minimise drag at 0* aoA in order to increase acceleration rates.

By using the canard tip vortex and align it with the wing leading edge it uses an efect called “Downwash”, it reduces lift but since you are not maneuvring it doesdn’t matter too much, it also redtces induced (lift) drag.

Aha. So, it’s all down to dynamic instability.

A lot of it.

You can have low swept wing with large chord (low aspect), which will allow a way higher Cp shift, than highly swept wing with small chord (higher aspect).

Critical Mach.

Look at it this (easy) way:

Optimisation for maneuvring speeds (NOT DASH Mach):

Mirage 2000. 58* sweep, M 2.2

Typhoon. 53* Sweep, M 2.0

Rafale. 48* M 1.8.

Gripen C. 45* Sweep, M 1.7 (estimated).

That depends on supercritical efficiency of the wing, which is directly related to chord, not sweep.

They would all use similar wing profiles and thicknes ratios…

Check the graph you posted and it clearly states Aspect ratio 3 (for all sweeps) and in that case the sweep makes the difference.

It is only to give a common figure, the aspect ratio is not what matters most, you have to compare Critical Mach between wings with a similar Aspect ratio and thicknes ratio to figure the gain and the gain factor is sweep angle.

Logical no?

Not we are talking about OEW, but you.

Sorry i got the original French document and it is CLEAR Masse a vide EQUIPE.

not operational

EQUIPED is NOT OPERATIONAL and is NOT EMPTY either.

There have been NO increase in empty weight for the type and you’re more than welcome to stop spreading noises and legends about it because you can’t get your weight straight in the first place. Cheers.:D

What you are doing is pick up the best from all sources, ignore the less favourable and present just the best…

What i am doing is posting an OFFICIAL document from our Defense minister stating the EMPTY weight of two F2 types C and B, and giving the weight of the M from the same source (Marine Nationale website), in ALL cases they end up to 9.500 k for the C.

That’s the dilemma

There is NO dilemma here only official sources which staments you are interpreting, types mystaking and weights not getting right.

But I’m certain you’ll bring up sources which states 4700 or 4750 kg for the fuel load an a combat radius of >1800 km.

Fuel (internal)……………………………………….4,700 kg (10,300 lb)

Radius of action (penetration mission)……………More than 1,000 nautical miles (3 X 2.000 l external tanks).
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/aircraft-characteristics.html?L=1

That’s the internal fuel load of the C and M versions, the B version proposed to Switzerland displace 200 l/<> 160 kg of fuel and weight on <> 200 kg more, it is specified in the document i posted but again you’re writing before reading.
I:PersonalNewDassaultRafaleRafale in Switzerland – The DEW Line.mht

Thus your figures are all BOGUS due to your lack of knowlege of the type, mystaking the two seater for the other versions takes some doing.

What YOU are doing is assuming and twisting datas without even trying to figure them out or read the documentation posted. Granted.

I suggest
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19620006296_1962006296.pdf
The difference between a non existent, fixed and floating Canard is a total different Cp. Whit a freefloatend canard move the Cp forwards..

1) Cp moving forward is non an uncommon effect with integrated canard configuration, it doesn’t matter if it is flowating of not:

The Mirages IIIS, IING, 4000 and KFirs had a significant change in cp too with fixed canard.

2) It seems to me that this particular document refers to STABLE aircrafts such as the JAS-37, a clue is in the high-Lift canard configuration and the stall they are expecting in some flight conditions, although general characteristics are close they also are different from a stable to an instable aircraft.

I think you made a mystake saying it would make the (instable) aircraft more stable as it is the opposite way around.

This is property of cambering.

Please provide me with a source i have never heared of this.

Ok, you lost me here. What dynamic instability and what it has to do with CG shift?

Simple, in supersonic DYNAMIC instability doesn’t desapear, while static instability does due to cl shift.

Rafale (like EF), if positive cambered, will experience relative CG shift forward as the speed increases. All the canards can do is to trim that.

Not necessarly, wing variable camber is designed to optimised lift/drag ratio, thus the aircraft wing camber is variable.

If you have counter-phased canard vortex coming at wing root, you won’t be able to actually reverse flow (outwards, as opposed to inwards), but that canard airflow will destroy/hamper your root flow and stall the root.

This is actually what is commonly observed, the forward vortex does change the next one dynamic characteristics, increasing it and changing its natural rotation.

How is this important to wing pitching momentum?

It does results in dynamic instability and increased levels of damping.

Hm…do you have any more literature on specific subject?

You have it now.

From all I know, close coupled canards help energizing upper wing surface at higher alphas,

This is only ONE aspect of the benefits they offer.

delaying appearance of turbulent and extend alpha limit, which is observable in Rafale exemplary wing’s laminar boundary flow.

Agreed but this is only the visible effect.

Well, from all EF’s vids, in high g turns, it trims down (relatively a lot) and that can only be if it’s CG is somewhat farther behind it’s Cp.

Or its level of damping lower, i can find loads of pictures of Rafale with its canard pitched donward too.

Maybe Rafale is more unstable I don’t know,

Probabily not staticaly but dynamicaly without a doubt, there is no dynamic instability induced with non-integrated canards.

but if that’s the case, then Rafale will need more positive trimming at high speeds and that would be more than 4° elevon deflection as in EF’s case.

No it won’t.

It is the opposite way around, in supersonic, Typhoon becomes stable and need to compensate with pitch-up attitude from its elevons, with dynamic instability you got the same effect than the elevons pitch-up moment.

Conversely, if Rafale needs less trimming at high speeds, then it’s less unstable then EF.

It is not so, in supersonic it will be less STABLE and in subsonic, its total level of instability (static + Dynamic) might well be even higher this is impossible to quantify without fluids dynamics simulation though.

Physically, CG doesn’t shift at all.

Did i said this? My mystake i meant cl or cp; i duely corrected it.

Sweep doesn’t have anything to do with Cp/CG shift, either.

Yes it does, the cp/cl shift is function of the sweep angle.

Wing chord does.

Which is basicaly the same, a 53* swept delta will have a longer wing chord than a 48* one for the same surface.

This is why wing’s aspect is more important than, sweep.

Depends what you are looking for, for Critical Mach it is sweep angle.

However, EF’s higher sweep makes it less spanwise lift distribution efficient, so EF will require more alpha for the same Cl rating.

That too.

But, at supersonic speeds there’s no difference because EF is at it’s top spanwise efficiency, as is Rafale.

It will have a higher Critical Mach peacking lower and a lower drag polar (Theoricaly).

I still don’t get what it has to do with long momentum arm canards in EF’s case, though?

NO dynamic lift = increased trim drag in supersonic = less damping (transonic bump) etc.