Of course they’re relevant – that’s exactly my point. EADS & its subsidiaries have immensely more experience in the relevant areas than Dassault,

Demonstrated by WHAT?

The failures to meet weight, rnage and Maximum Structural Loads requierements?

You seems to be blind to failures while you are prompt to imply that a succes at the first try doesn’t imply capabilties that EADS canot show today.

having done immensely more work in them, & more recently. Dassaults relevant experience is hopelessly out of date, & was only marginally relevant in any case.

What is hopelesly out of date is your comprehension of design and what it really mean to design more performant aircrafts, Dassault demonstrated brillantly that technologies for fighters ported to transport jets insured a high probability of succes.

While Airbus demonstrated a succesion of failures to meet requierments nad targets on a field they are specialised on.

EADS et al have also had infinitely more commercial success.

Dassault are the most succesful in their field. Sorry.

An airliner of which only 12 were built is a disastrous failure.

NOPE it was a total technical succes.

It doesn’t matter what a technical marvel it was, if it was so expensive, or impractical, or whatever else that made potential customers shy away from it so unanimously.

It was WAY better than anything in its class, i can testify of it having made the flight from Marseille to Ajaccio in the cokpit of both it and Caravelle by night, the pilots loved it, so you’re really saying whatever, it was way better than a 737.

Dassault has built some great fighters, but so what? Embraer can teach Dassault lessons in designing transports, not the other way round.

No one can teach Dassault lessons in desiging; just in case you didn’t get it yet they are the world most advanced when it comes to design but of course i suppose you DO design do you?

The value to Embraer of a tie-up with Dassault would be overwhelmingly in Dassaults expertise in combat aircraft.

Which involves the most advanced design points anyone can requier from a manufacturer.

I find it strange that you are using as evidence of Dassaults great expertise in building military freighters a failed airliner design of 40 years ago

That’s because you have no idea what design is and what level they have achieved.

. The designers have all retired now: it has nothing to do with Dassaults current skills, & I’m sure they’re rather pleased about that, since no manufacturer likes to be reminded of such an expensive mistake.

WRONG: Dassault is one of the few companies in the workd who doesn’t suffer skills and experience losses due to their small size and the FACT that there is NO difference between the civilian and the military sector.

They invented modern aircraft design methods as well as developing the Industry standard with which everyone else is working today.

Experience is passed from generation to generation with great care, a solution EADS can’t afford due to their own structure and size and a problem L-M and Boeing have in common with Airbus today, the technical problem they all are facing with their major programes proves it.

Here we disagree.

You can deagree all you want this is what WE do over here and our pilots knows what their mission profiles are, if your top brasses doesn’t remember Phantom engagement Machs over Vietnam it’s their problem.

They also thaught the guns wouldn’t be necessary at the time. 😀

At 30 kft or below none will pass Mach 1,5 really even with a modest weapons-load.

WRONG.

AGAIN you do not qualify a weapon for Mach 2.0 and 1.7 while being incapable of reaching this speed and this was in 1970.

All our “4.5” gen are stressed for DASH with at least 4 of them, even the Mirage 2000 competing vs F-16 was giving figures with 4 AAMs at the time and these included a M 2.0 figure, the aircraft itself is stressed for M 2.2.

90% of all wartime engagements took place at high supsonic,

Nope from 0.9 to 1.6 and it is precisely what our aircraft is optimised and stressed for with and operational (Combat loaded for the A2A role) Mach of 1.8 and DASH of 2.0 with still AAM attached to it, again what you read is totaly innacurate and not reflecting the standard we have over here since the 70s.

There are numerous accounts of pilots going supersonic even at low altitude btw and one doesn’t intercept a Mig-25 at subsonic speed, our requierements are precisely for high-altitude/high-speed since the Mirage III…

Our pilots says it every single time we ask them, it would EASLY reach M 2.0 but depending on external load the limit is reached and “bitching betty” is calling for caution, she doesn’t cut the engine down and they still can chose to go to Mach 2.0 if they need it.

Just the USAF did stick to medium levels most of the time.

I’m curious to know how the USAF combat record vs Mach 2.0 and Mach 3.0 fighters compares to that of the Israelis.

You guys have really NO clue. 😎

Hm, there’s a strange pattern going on here.

Not so strange, for example ~ 1.200 Mp/h equals roughly the Equivalent Airspeed for M 1.6 at the given Combat ceiling of 20.000 ft given in still unknown (~) atmoshperic conditions, the Maximim Mach wont change.

Which is validated by the claim of optimisation for transonic acceleration (my analysis on all points) and btw i read English properly and Almost to me is quiet clear. = Not totaly = Nearly = Not quiet.

So if it doesn’t match F-16 in A2A turning capabilties then the Equal-to-Better applies for the A2G configuration.

No one had ever said different and assuming load factors can be uppered for the internal baies ejectors to be able to sustain 9 g with bombs attached on them is very FUNNY..

flex297
The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said.

Which was also what i was saying before someone posted this article, i know, i’m supposed to be the bad guy here…

Now, summum of contradiction, on F-16.com we are explained in great length that F-16 aerodynamicaly is “Clean” with 2 X AIM-9s which is not surprising considering it was stressed for this configuration, even provided a graph, how nice.

ls1 miata
F-35 > Typhoon/Gripen/Rafale

You forgot Mirage III and Mirage 2000 but of course, i talk about aircraft which datas i am sure about…

August 1970 AIM-9 are cleared for M 2.0 flight and M 1.7 firing envelops.

Quite the opposite. I understand what it really means, you either don’t or do & must purposely misrepresent what it means because it completely debunks you lies.

Let us guess. 😎

You FAILED to demonstrate that it can fly above M 1.6. (It CANT).

You fail to demonstrate that it would out-turn a F-16. (IT DOESNT).

Then all you got is calling pple liars because they disclose known datas from their own Defense Ministers or manufacturers and even that of Lockheed Martin while changing them at convenience….

You’re are quiet desperate, live in this fantasy world of yours as long as you wish, it wont change reality.

Top speed > Mach 1.6 (even WITH full internal load).

That’s 0.4 Mach lower a DASH speed than a Typhoon, Gripen or Rafale in A2A configuration. = FACT.

Thats only EQUAL to a Rafale with External FUEL tanks and 4 AAMs = FACT.

BTW it is “NOT Top speed >” it is Maximum Mach 1.6 according to ALL Lockheed Martin datas, as usual you are interpreting them, like the ~ for the 1.200 mp/h before the Mach.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35a-ctol-specifications.html

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35b-stovl-specifications.html

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35c-cv-specifications.html

Airframe is full 9 g capable with USN & USMC varients ‘soft’ limited due to common navy (USN & USMC) policy to compensate for harsher operational condition & extend service life (just as it does with the F/A-18) but CAN (F-35C at least, I do not claim to KNOW for the F-35B if something specific prevents it) be cleared for full 9 g flight envelope ‘at the flip of a switch’.

You should not claim to KNOW anything because clearly you don’t and fail to comprehend how this works in the real world.

All F-35 variants are STRUCTURALY limited due to weight saving measures, this was clearly said L-M themself, bulkheads are thiner, wingspars and beams are less numerous, wing skin is thiner, the difference is that its Maximum Structural Load is WAY lower…

Our aircraft can pull 11.0 g and still be certified for 7.000 hours, yet another performance inequaled by ANY US aircraft today, find us a US fighter designed with an International Structural Load Factor above 1.5…

Flight performance DESIGNED to match or exceed legacy fighters (F-16C & F/A-18C specifically), in AtA and AtG.

Well bad news it doesn’t out-turn a F-16 and doesn’t fly above M 1.6 so these goals as interpreted by YOU are missed.

No matter how you TRY to spin it “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor” is GOOD flight performance.

That’s NOT enough to out-turn a Typhoon, Gripen or Rafale even with their full oads of AAM, they out-fly them, as simple as that.

Nobody is trying to pass a truck for a furmula one.

YES YOU ARE, being in denial doesn’t change FACTS.

Quite the opposite. YOU are trying to pass an aircraft with flight performance as good or better than the F-16C &/or F/A-18C as an A-7.

ALMOST is NOT AS GOOD or BETTER.

Dream on. Any F-35 adversary foolish enough to believe your lies will be in for a VERY NASTY REALITY CHECK when the F-35 “clubs THEM like a baby seal”.

I dont need to reinvent standards, refuse to admit what is said by L-M and those who know the aircraft limitations and call pple liars to make my point.

Everyone can see for themself you and your friends have no point to make.

Have a nice one.

Quote:
While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration.
http://www.livescience.com/technolog…hter-jets.html
New Fighter Jet: Controversial Future of the U.S. Fleet

By Dave Majumdar, Special to LiveScience.com

Curious, this is EXACTLY my rought analysis.

@pfcem

Thank you for the copy/paste job, we READ this and as opposed to YOU, understood what it really meant.

Now try again because you’re far from being on the ball. Cheers. 😉

The FACT is that the F-35 was designed to match or exceed the flight performance of the F-16C & F/A-18C.

Well news is, it doesn’t fly above Mach 1.6, is limited to 7.0, 7.5 and 9.0 g and AGAIN; the combat configuration it is designed to match legacy fithers is A2G.

the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor

A2A: In this configuration it “Almost” matches F-16 in “clean” configuration which means as it was originaly designed 2 X AIM-9s, there is NO speed limits for the AIM-9s, they are cleared to M 1.85> and firing at M 1.7 on the old mirage III, who exactly are you trying to fool?

Next time don’t try to pass a truck for a furmula one because you see writen somewhere it will do as well as for the number of passengers and YOU still don’t understand the meaning of the world COMBAT as for Combat ceiling.

And BTW believing that a Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon are stressed like 4th generation US designs is a little dumb to say the least, the figure i posted are documented and well known, get a grip, a Rafale is way more performant in A2A and in all-aspects in A2G it equals or beats F-35 appart for the Max speed with heavy loads.

Reality strike.

when pilots are forced to convert that into mph in short notice

And when would it be? 😀

Read what I wrote again, I wasn’t saying that. Dassault doesn’t work on A400M or transport planes was my point: Cargo handling, ramps, etc, are not things Dassault has ready to contribute near-off the shelf. EADS does.

Is that so?

So according to you, it is demonstratred by EADS that being overshooting their weight targets on A400M is a sign of better capabilties?

I can’t remember Dassault-Aviation messing up the design for Mercure which was admired by Aerospacial at the time to the point they wanted them to use it as a basis for the Airbus conceptual design.

We’re talking about capabilties here, and for one thing, getting design right is something Dassault haven’t got to demonstrate weither AEDS have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to their civilian and military designs, A350/380/A400.

Excuse me for insisting, EADS doesn’t look like doing better, they do worth.