Phil FosterNever read it but it has a pretty bad reputation on fr.rec.aviation.
So why do you bother with the forum.
Anyway, the sudden rise of more than one ton of weight show that the first airframe was a failure.
No it doesn’t it shows that they added more to the capability of the aircraft.
the EF2000 is much more instable then the rafale, why ?
Because it was designed to be unstable thats why it is so agile.
Phil FosterBoth are inversely proportional to the size of both your c0ck and brain, so what? hey!
HGT you are trying to confuse us again. I thought GHT was going ‘loco’ for a moment there and deliberately insulting himself. Usually he does this by accident. 😀
Phil FosterPlain wrong, the brits always wanted an multirole fighter to replace the jaguars in service. It was in teir requirement right from the start. But because Germany and Italy needed an pure air to air fighter asap it was decided to concentrate development on the A2A capabilities.
Agreed.;)
Phil FosterIf you read a little history of the British Empire and the USA you will find, that they made the rules of the world since the Napoleonic wars and since then always adjusted them the way they saw fitting their interests.
Thats interesting and scary stuff Dis’ but the British Empire is ‘no more’ because of war, no bad thing in my honest opinion, not the war bit but the bit about the empire no longer in being.
The problem is historical precedent. I like the USA mostly and I would dearly like to see it continue but people said that about the British (well some said it anyway), some said it about the Romans and before that the Greeks and before that the Egyptians yet all went the way of all power bases and economic/military hegmonies (I think I spelt that right) and the only way I can see the USA remaining in the long term is if they do business fairly both at home and abroad. No I can’t see a foriegn country ‘taking out’ or destroying the USA, at least not without taking out or destroying everybody else while they are at it including themselves. However it could happen internally and it could be Americans who see themselves as disenfranchised and unrepresented.
The English Civil War (actually it encompassed Scotland Ireland and Wales too but you know the one I mean) was fought because people wanted freedom and justice and they wanted the King to have few powers and no say in political circles. The people won yet by 1776 almost all of those ideals had been lost in the quagmire of empire and the Americans were having none of it. So they took matters into their own hands and very eficiently began to build their own country based on the ideals that were fought over in Britain over 100 years earlier.
If those ideals are stuck to America will remain, if they don’t and people in the USA get trodden over as much as others abroad feel they are being trodden on at times, I give the USA perhaps 200 more years at most before it implodes. That might mean bugger all to you now and you might think “well hey lets live it up for a couple of hudred years and screw everybody else”. But people are living longer these days and the people who have to pick up the peices in 2 centuries time or sooner, might well be your great grand children or your great great grand children. You might even live to meet some of them. Don’t you think you owe it to them to ensure that what you have survives longer than a couple more centuries?
Phil FosterInteresting that only the US gets held to these ideals. We don’t hear the same comments about other nations. Perhaps it’s because many of them don’t really have any “ideals” in the first place. When everyone is held to the same standard of behavour then you can whine when the US dosn’t play fair.
Thats because other nations don’t, won’t or can’t do it the way the USA does and if they do they invariably suffer politically, economically and/or militarily as a consequence.
Phil FosterSorry I got to this thread a bit late and started another. See what you think anyway.
http://forum.airforces.info/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19061
Cheers:)
Phil FosterThe A2G capabilities of the EF2000 have been pretty new and the empty weight has gain a good 1ton – 1ton and half.
Okay we will have to agree to disagree but if you have read the Typhoon supplement in this months AFM you will see that it suggests you might be wrong. If it wasn’t stipulated in the original design brief it ‘was’ stipulated very early on in the design phase, perhaps before the final design was agreed upon so in that respect you ‘might’ be mistaken.
In any case this doesn’t detract from my argument that if the yanks can turn a dedicated air superiority fighter into a top draw strike fighter (sic F15D to F15E and the F16C which never really changed its designation at all) it only proves that any aircraft can be thus modified. The Typhoon had its strike capability designed into it from a very early stage and it is merely being expanded upon.
As for the 1 to 1.5 tonne weigh gain yes it appears you are correct it has gained 1.2 tonnes but I’m not entirely certain that it makes a whole lot of difference to the performance of the aircraft. Its engines are slightly but at the same time significantly more powerful than the M88-2 (although I know that the figures given vary widely) and it still has a power to weight ration comparable to the Rafale.
Okay we can talk about later developments of the M88 but you can do that with the EJ as well. The current power output is peacetime only and in war the engines can be modified via the FADEC to produce 15% more thrust dry and 5% more thust with reheat and that is the engine ‘as is’ without any modifications except those imputted electronically via a computer. Its a bit like getting your fuel injection mapping upgraded in your car or motorcycle. With further physical modifications they have an EJ putting out over 16500lbst dry and over 23000lbst with reheat and there is a new EJ2xx which is rated at around 27000lbst with reheat. 🙂
So in effect we might both be right.
Phil FosterI ment the design requirements of the engine it self. I mean if it does not achive the mass flow rate required, or that it does not operate efficiently at the altitude the engine was supposed to be most efficient etc etc.
Yes the Tornado IDS (InterDictor Strike variant) is an excellent fast low level light/medium bomber by modern standards. Equivalents are the Russian SU24 Fencer and the American F111. Both are bigger, have a greater range and a heavier payload but they are all in the same ‘ballpark’.
The Tornado ADV as its name suggests is the Air Defence Variant. It is physically bigger and carries about 10% more internal fuel and is aerodynamically cleaner. Instead of the IDS’s twin radar format (an aquisition radar with a limited air to air capability and excellent ground targetting and mapping capability) and a terrain following radar (so it has two antennea in the nose) the ADV or F3 as it is today has a single air intercept radar. It is a relatively old but very effective system similar to the APG63 on older F15Cs in capability. Its profile is longer adding to the improved aerodynamics. The belly of the ADV has been modified so that it can carry Sparrow, Skyflash or AMRAAM semi recessed. All good stuff so far but…………………..they neglected the engines. There was talk of fitting the American F404 turbofan because it was better suited to high altitude operations where the ADV woulf usually find itself if it wanted to maintain the advantage in a BVR fight. Which was what it was designed for. But all they did was keep the RB199 powerplant of the IDS and later made it more powerful.
The RB199 (as I uderstand it) is a high bypass ratio turbofan which is optimised for low altitude operations and the performance of the ADV (and I assume the IDS) drops off quite dramatically above 20,000 to 25,000ft depending on the atmospheric conditions. The colder it is the higher it can go and I’m not entirely sure why but as I said I think it has something to do with the temperature difference in the system. The colder it is the more efficiently it operates hence poor performance in hot and high conditions. One way to counter this is water injection whereby water is sprayed into the airflow before it enters the engine in order to cool it down. This is not a prefered option though because it accelerates wear and tear on the engine components. Most aircraft have this but it is used sparingly.
Sorry I know it sounds like I know what I am talking about but I only know bits and I don’t really understand the system as a whole. Well until now that is thanks to you and Garry. So thanks for that. 🙂
Phil Fosteras for building a bad engine. well like i say with AC if it doesnt meet ur design requirements then its sh$te otherwise its good. so its all relative as to how good or bad it is i guess.
That is an interesting statement because in the Tornado IDS the engine is a pearler but in the Tornado ADV it is a turkey, why? Because in the IDS it does its job and in the ADV it falls short of its ideal capabilities but………….the RB199 is not a sh!te engine, the Tornado ADV is simply not an ideal air defence aircraft and it is purely because the engines are not optimised for this kind of work.
Its a bit of a paradox.
Phil FosterSo I guess we all agree. The US is the only nation which is guilty of acting to protect it’s self interests and uses unfair political and economic tactics to try and force its products on the rest of the world. Oh the shame of it!
No but we can assume that the USA ‘is’ the only nation that does it and then accuses other countries of doing it as well and then threaten them with political, economic and indeed military retaliation because of it. If the USA is guilty of anything it is purely on the basis that they don’t have to work on a level playing field and so they don’t. Is it a bad thing? Well thats not for me to say.
🙂
Phil FosterI’d trust SOC on USAF matters…
Fair enough then. 🙂
Phil FosterThanks matt. Are we saying it is simply an internal combustion engine? Suck, squeeze, bang, blow?
I think you are right there is bugger all mysterious about it then, I suppose it is difficult to build a truly bad engine then and I also suppose development is restricted to shapes and materials used for higher temperatures? The same as with a car engine I assume that the colder the air going in, the more power coming out because of the temperature difference in the system?
Phil FosterThanks Gaz I thought I was never going to get it but you explain it well.
A Turbo Prop engine is similar to a turbojet except that the very front blade is a conventional propeller that is turned by the force of the jet engine. The Main propulsion is generated by the propeller so it limits the aircraft to propeller speeds but it can fly at jet altitudes.
Does’nt a turbo prop also produce residual power and if so how important is it to the overall system?
A turbofan engine is like a turbojet but with the front few sets of blades are very wide and another tube is placed around the turbojet engine. The advantage is that the mass flow is greatly increased as the air flowing around the hot parts is neither compressed nor is fuel normally burnt in it at military power so it is Oxygen rich denser air that generates lots of thrust. Because it is still oxygen rich afterburner is also more effective and efficient.
So if you angle the blades of the fan you can increase its surface area and make the overall diameter of the engine smaller? A bit like increasing the the overall area of a wing to get more lift? I’m sorry I know I don’t know what I am talking about but I am trying to understand it better and I tend to link things I don’t know with things I do know and I do know that propellers on a piston engined aircraft, like the rotors on a helicopter are just wings by another name. The method might be different but the principle is still the same.
My thought processes are that the fans of a jet engine work in a similar fasion. Am I correct? However depending on the application fans are not strictly necesary?:)
Phil FosterActually, the AIM-9X is now beginning to enter operational service. The AESA-equipped F-15 unit in Alaska has already received them.
I admit I might be wrong about this but are you absolutely sure this was’nt a dream you had last night.
You might want to flush out your headgear and get a clue. X is operational. Don’t talk to me about U.S. development/fielding decisions, when you have, for example, (picking on the UK MOD) morons in the MOD who thought fielding the EF2000 without a gun might be smart. Or ordering a bunch of AH-64s, and the first thing that happens to them upon delivery is that they go into storage. So please continue if you have anymore wierd statements like:
Oh gods not you again. another quote from AFM so take it or leave it “the Bk27 cannon will be fitted to ‘all’ Typhoons including those of the RAF”. Not only is there great desire in the RAF (or are you going to start insulting them as well?) for a cannon armed Typhoon but there is also a requirement stipulated by air policing procedures introduced since 9/11. Who else are going to call a moron you t!t?
Phil Fosterok, i’ve said this many times….watch your exhaust velocities. That answer almost everything you’ve asked Phil…just think. As to calling something “advanced” without understanding the physics is very unscientific. And, no the EJ2000’s combustor isn’t half of the engine…it’s most likely isn’t 5% of the entire engine volume.
Oi! Just hold on I called it advanced because the press bumph and the articles I have read called it advanced so do not insult my inteligence by assuming I think I know everything. If you could be arsed to read my original question you might even be open minded enough to admit that I never claimed to knowing anything. I am just learning so before you start insulting people yopu don’r know why don’t you have a go at listening to what they are saying and asking first!:mad:
And exactly why have you decided it isn’t advanced? If you read the Typhoon supplement in this months AFM you will see that they say it is advanced and they say that half the engine ‘seems’ to be taken up by the combustion chamber, not that it is. I am quoting I am not making uninformed statements and passing them off as fact. Now if you can just get off you high horse and actually give some credit for a high acheivement perhaps people wouldn’t assume that you were an opinionate little sh!t with zero respect for anybody but those you ‘think’ can do no wrong. Christ you are an insulting little tit!
Sign In
