Phil FosterMy 18 ton figure refers to a nominal carrier plane, not a specific model. I was pointing out the weakness inherent in the design of a low slung intake.
So what exactly is a nominal carrier plane? Su33?, F18? Rafale? Are they all 18t? No chap you mentioned the Typhoon in the same breath as an 18t weight figure and who told you that underslung intakes were inherently weak? On land the F16 has no particular issues and have you ever looked at the intakes on an F18? Yes there is one either side of the fuselage but other than this they too are low slung, they protrude well below the line of the fuselage. Despite this the F18 is a dedicated carrier aircraft and it doesn’t have any particular issues in this regard either. What about the navalised Fulcrum or the aforementioned Su33? You don’t get more low slung than that and guess what? They don’t have any particular issues either. I suppose mentioning the F14s intakes will be derided as well and even the Rafales intakes are not exactly planted atop the wings are they? Get it straight man, low slung intakes are fine, nothing wrong with them don’t be so bloody daft.
I don’t know about the history of Airbus, to be honest it is not really in my sphere of interest but I will say that in the absense of even circumstantial evidence, the accusation that Britain tried to sink it sounds far fetched. Given your propensity for pejudiced speculation I take it with healthy dose of scepticism.
Finally you say what you want about the Lightning, to be honest your opinions are a little predictable. I never asked you about it, I never even mentioned it, you fire your opinions about as much as you like mate, they say more about you than aviation.
Phil 😉
Phil Foster“What angers about the Typhoon is, that the users were cheated. To save time and money already payed EADS is adding unnecessary weight to the design to keep the profit rate high. The politicans keep mouth about that, while fearing a public uproar.”
Speculation appears to be your forte. The Typhoon does not anger me, the delays do. At what point does developing an aircraft into a multi role platform become a matter of cheating?
Kovy:
“Rafale development : €10.1 billion”
It was/is 220bn Fr Francs which at the time of the switch to the Euro was about £21bn. Considering the current exchange rate of the Euro and the pound thats more like 30bn euros. In other words, about the same cost as the Typhoon. You are reducing and inflating figures as and when your argument requires it, regardless of accuracy. As was Puffadders claim that BAe walked away from Airbus. It doesn’t stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
“Indeed, but the EAP made its first flight in 1986. At that time the mirage 2000 was flying with FBW and delta wing for 8 years and the mirage 4000 for 7 years…and btw, France was already out of the “eurofighter” project.”
…and the first flight of the Rafale A was……? July 4, 1986. When did France pull out of the Eurofighter project? 1985. So apparently it took France just 1 year to design, build and fly the Rafale A? I don’t think so. The Rafale A was more ‘prototype’ than technology demonstrator and possibly more representative of the finished product than was the EAP. Put simply, right throughout their development lives, both aircraft have remained remarkably similar in many respects. However the French had been working on the Rafale as they were ‘negotiating’ the Eurofighter project. The whole thing smacks of a certain amount of duplicity.
“Read my first post. Since the bigining I’m talking about experience designing FBW delta wing fighters. Why ?
1- Because rafale and eurofighter are delta airframes with FBW FCS
2- Because, as everyboy know, the Eurofighter had many issues with her FCS costing a lot of time and £/€”
I am talking about building FBW FCS aircraft in general. The UK had built plenty of deltas and plenty of aircraft with FBW FCS and in conjuction with Germany and Italy had built a very effective strike aircraft with FBW FCS and a variable geometry wing. Britain had plenty of experience with both. Arguing about what type of wing is best is, as I said earlier, merely splitting hairs. Its got nothing to do with relative experience in aviation design.
Phil 🙂
Phil FosterCertainly not all the delays were political but technical delays have been experienced by every new type ever to go through the R&D proccess. Singling out the Typhoon and claiming it was the only aircraft that ever suffered technical delays, or saying that the Rafale, Gripen, F22, Su27, Mig29 etc did not suffer technical delays is quite frankly absurd. Okay this has not been said but it has been implied. I am saying that most of the delays were political, delays which the British government are also guilty of instigating. In fact only the Spanish and the Italians cannot really be blamed for political delays but they had less clout than the British, the Germans and (at the beginning) the French. Between them the last three nations all managed to add at least 10 years onto the service entry date of this aircraft. Nothing to gloat about but hardly a design fault of the type.
Phil
Phil FosterPuffadder:
“Obviously it failed- how the hell do you want to catapult an 18 ton plane with THAT intake?”
18t? Blimey people are putting that figure up all the time, even PilotGHT only puts it at 11.5t.
“Also, I’m keen to remind you that Britain didn’t exactly do itself credit when it walked away from Airbus.”
Walked away from Airbus? BAe still owns 20% of it and builds the wings. When did they walk away? Must have been in the last few weeks then?
“Lightning sucked big time.”
Your opinion sucks.
“Admittedly, Dassault did a disservice to the Aeronavale by plugging the Etendard against the Jaguar.”
We agree on something? Surely not?
“Watch us screw it up again”
With an atitude like that why should we bother?
Kovy:
“A painfull development 3 times more expensive than the Dassault design for exactly the same capabilities minus the navalisation ! good job “
We have already discussed the delays in the Eurofighter programme, they have nearly all been political and France played a hand in it. Three times more expensive? Don’t talk rot they are as near as damn it identical in price and the only reason there is no naval version is because there was no requirement for a naval version.
“Of course Dassault was asking a big stake… Their demonstrator was almost ready and they had already spent a sh!t lof of $ in the project + all the work on the 2000 and the 4000, 2 aircrafts that were unstable FBW delta design flying for many years. On the other hand, BAe and MBB had nothing more than the tornado (no delta, no FBW) and a few moke ups to put on the table. What would you have expected from Dassault ?”
Of course the BAe EAP was a figment of my imagination.
“The concorde is a delta design with primitive analog FWB but she has nothing to do with an unstable fighter (high AOA, low speeds and High G maneuvering are not really her cup of tea).
The Jaguar is not a delta design nor a FBW aircraft.”
Yup. The only way you can win the argument is by putting spin on it and changing the goal posts. This is about aviation design, you are spliting hairs.
Phil
Phil FosterWhat’s this then?
“No way do the French have more experience than the Brits with high performance fighter design.”
Read it again SOC. It does not say that the British have more experience does it? No. Thankyou for your attention this time.
You are all very keen to leave anything out that weakens your arguments. Glitter, the Concorde is an “aircraft”, the Jaguar is a “supersonic combat aircraft” that was not a successful naval aircraft because the French government did not give it the chance to be. All work on the TSR2, Lightning and other supersonic projects gave the British as much experience in the field as the French regardless of wether they went into production or not. Why leave out the Vulcan? Not fast enough? Same applies to the Harrier I suppose conveniently putting aside its combat record against supersonic combat aircraft it too is subsonic. Well you can show off your penis extensions if you really feel the need to but really, speed isn’t everything is it, particularly if you can’t be bothered to use every tool at your desposal to make best use of it?
Now ‘nationalism’ aside (seems to me the British are required to put aside nationalism in the face of French nationalism) my arguments stand. The French had no intention of joining the Eurofighter programme. They wanted to slow it down , delay it and then finally bury it. They delayed it alright but they did not bury it. Why? Because the people who designed it can build supersonic combat aircraft as well as anybody else can, including the French. Prove me wrong and I will appologise. In the end, people just get sick of French arrogance and show them the finger. Even governments and aircraft designers.
Phil 🙂
Phil FosterHow many Mach-2 aircraft have the British designed? I count one, the Lightning, maybe 2 if you count the multinational Tornado.
How many has France designed? Mirage III, Mirage V, Mirage IV, Mirage 2000, Mirage 4000, Mirage G, Mirage F-1…
How can you say Britain has more experience in high performance fighter design?
I did not say Britain had more experience stop putting words into my posts.
Phil 🙂
Phil FosterPuffadder the problem is that the USA and Brussels see ‘Europe’ as a single political entity. It is not. The Brits, the French, The Germans, Dutch, Poles etc etc all have their own agenda. Europe is not a country and if NATO can’t standardise what makes you think Europe can?
Phil
Phil FosterOn the other hand the French wanted to put in the least investment and at the same time take full development lead and the lion’s share of the work 50% if my reading is correct. That left Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain with the scraps and still paying out the same amount of cash as the French in investment. It wasn’t just the British who thought this was unacceptable and despite your dismissal of British (and for that matter German, Italian and Spanish) aviation design the French demands were indeed arrogant, politically motivated and designed to slow down the development of the Eurofighter whilst they worked on the Rafale. They succeeded.
The French had no intention of going ahead with their involvement, they knew their demands would be unacceptable and they knew it would delay the R&D phase whilst they moved ahead on their own design. The other partners fell for it hook line and sinker, its just another example of politics hampering the Eurofighter project, rather than technical difficulties. What the French did not bargain for is that the Eurofigher consortium would go ahead anyway and build an aircraft that would be competing with the Rafale. This p!ssed off the French as will be evidenced by PilotGHT when he butts in with his own xenophobic two’peneth.
Also. Why does the Concorde not count and why not mention the Jaguar? Is it because that as an example they screw your argument that the British don’t want to work with the French? They are quite happy to work with the French, the French don’t like working with the British is all. The Jag is a perfect example. The French did not want the Brits butting in on their sales drives and said that BAe would not get a penny from their exports. BAe said fine, same goes for us. When BAe sold more Jags than the French, :dev2: ( the French did not sell any) the French suddenly, though understandably, changed their minds. They got ever so upset when BAe and the British government told them to stuff it. One of the reasons the French Navy was not allowed a navalised Jag rather than the Super Etendard was because it was ‘too British’. Stuff that up your jet pipe.
Phil 🙂
Phil Foster“france did have a point for teh design leader as they had alot more experience with high performance fighters then any of the other participants”
Not being funny or anything but thats about the most BS I have heard in a long time. No way do the French have more experience than the Brits with high performance fighter design. You are talking cr@p. No offense meant.
Phil
Phil FosterThe French arrogance bit is nothing more than sources who tend to be Francophobe.
The reason why the French pulled out is because intense disagreements over the French wanting to use a female voice for the computer. The Germans kept insisting to use a masculine German man named Rudolf for the voice, but the French wanted zero of that and left
LOL!!! 😀 😀
Phil FosterThere is no way BoB is coming out in June. I reckon Amazon are going to be in trouble with people who are making advanced orders on this. As for the 163? No idea mate, they haven’t got a clue if you ask me.
Phil 🙂
Phil FosterBlimey. The RAF doesn’t look in too bad shape afterall.
Phil
Phil FosterIn the air to air role, the Harrier pilots having two weeks of a “Red Flag” type of schooling in how to fight the Mirage III fighters was a real help. I think if the Argentines had an access to such an education in what to do and what not to do, the score would have been different.
Hmm? So training is the key is it. How astute of you to observe such a fundamental truth. The score would have been different would it? You know that from what? Fact or imagination? Since we know the facts then we can only assume that your imagination is at play here.
I think the Argentine pilots were good but, they did not use effective tactics against the Harriers. (I would like to see how well the Harriers would do against French operational Mirage III pilots, not aggressor pilots.)
I am not suggesting that Argentine pilots are not very good, by all accounts they are very good indeed and I am not picking apart their tactics or even making bold uncorroberated claims about the SHARs. Would you really like to see how the Harrier would do against the French? Do you have a secret desire to see them fail and loose? Are you suggesting that French pilots are better than aggressor pilots? I really am not sure of your angle here you wouldn’t be anti British would you? Surely not? 😉
The reason I say they were good is because the A-4 Skyhawks dropped bombs on sixteen Royal Navy ships while maneuvering to avoid being lock-up by the ship’s radars. This meant have to jink at least once every 1½ seconds! While doing this you line your aircraft and drop the bomb at the correct time. Only good pilots could accomplish this.
Again nobody is suggesting they were not good, you are the only one even so much as contemplating the thought. Lighten up will you? Either that or put your cards on the table. Say what you really think but remember, the American War of Independance is over, we are not at war anymore. Hmm. Actually I’m not so sure about that………………….. :dev2:
Phil 🙂
Phil FosterI thought 29 – 0 by a handful of subsonic ‘puffer jets’ in 1982 was quite impressive but hey, you carry on showing off your pen!s extensions.
Phil
Phil FosterWell I’ve never voted for him, or the Tories or the Lib Dems but this year I may vote for Labour. Why? The UK will be leading the G8 this year and they are trying to put together a plan of action to releive poverty with Africa in sharp focus. I don’t know how successful they will be or if enough people care. Also if they renage on this promise or don’t try hard enough it’ll be the last vote they get from me.
Phil
Sign In
