It’s a shame you chaps can’t stand simple truth. The Rafale’s a great aeroplane in many ways (and enjoys some superiority over its rivals in a few areas), and for the French customer and taxpayer Dassault have truly delivered. But there are ways in which Typhoon is superior. That’s simple fact, but the fanboys can’t stand such a balanced view, and howl with anguished rage if anyone dares suggest that Rafale is anything other than dominant in every way. It’s sad, because it makes intelligent debate impossible and pointless, and when carried to the ridiculous extreme (as demonstrated by poor old Fonk, who deserves our pity) it actually undermines the credibility of a good aircraft.

It’s a good job that you hide behind an anonymous username, as the accusation that I’m paid for positive coverage by anyone is libellous. I am not now, nor have I ever been, on BAE’s payroll, and to suggest otherwise is a cowardly and gutless slur.

I’m an independent journalist, and I’ve written more ‘unhelpful’ articles about Typhoon than about any other current aircraft. I’ve written many positive ones, too.

poor Mr Lake, it seems first that you lack of knowledges to talk about aeronautics, and mostly on basis, being a fan doesn’t mean you even resolved a equation algebric, each time you comes to states that you heard this , saw that, told to your pilots “friends”, all this is bull****, you prove nothing at all, only spin around the topics in your way, lord gets datas, explan basic physics, get studies on phenomenes, he doesn’t follow as a poodle what’s make the hightly AFM or any other national biased articles as “realities”, even pilots doesn’t knows about all what makes a fighter!

i got a advice for you, keep on your dream drama magazines and “pilots” friends “that you never met” pathetic mythomania, and next time you want to defend a point , gets on datas, explan it in physics basis, and you’ll get somes credit!

Lord is a lil harsh and maybe could be seen as agressive language sometimes, but it wasn’t meant to, his basis are stronger on aerodynamics bases and aeronautical knowledges than all of the punks who claims the win over the internet “knowledges” based on journalism spining articles , taking articles by non objective ppl as true facts is as ridiculous as beleiving that Elvis is still alive!

all this makes me laffin, now it would be nice to talk about FACTS, from manufacturers, and engeneers from R&D or foreign objective sources on Rafale , rather than taking for granded the brit spining press, who needs no adds to exposing thier ridiculness all over the world!

Typhoon best as Rafale? buzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Facts? Foreign no clients of both manufacturer Korea and singapore and brazil said Rafale was better!

And never get the ridiculous arguments of engines “stronger” or radar range!

Typhoon is no more a 9.75t aircraft, and everyone knows that mec radar system aren’t whats plan to fit the best manufacturers in their futur planes!

see ya

“The ridiculous one does not keep silent”?

Sorry TMor, are you aligning yourself with this idiot? I thought you more intelligent than that.

you r back jack the hack?

still spining for bae through the internet?

would like to see you gettng 1/20 of the strong sources that laord bring to argument any of your statments…

:p

A history lesson for you Fonky Donkey:
Back in the 1980s two new russian 4th generation fighters made their appearance and were soon quite famous and well know in the aviation world. The aircraft I’m talking about are the MiG-29 and the Su-27. Those two russian fighters were able to fly a maneuver called the Pugachev Cobra where they achieved a max AoA in excess of 100°. No western fighter of that generation, including the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 was able to reproduce that maneuver and achieve a compareably high AoA. Yet the AoA was just achieved during the cobra and the maneuver itself could be flown in very specific narrow circumstances only. While the cobra was nice to watch at airshows and while it demonstrated those russian fighters superior max aerodynamic AoA performance it was of little to no practical use in reality. The interesting part about that story is that those very same russian fighters had quite similar operational AoA limits as their western counterparts. Hence they enjoyed a minor to no advantage at all. While the russian fighters retained an AoA override capability, their western counterparts lacked it due FCS restrictions. Yet no one ever suggested any practical application of this AoA override capability to gain the upper hand in a combat situation. One might wonder why… (rhetorical question for the retarded guys)

Now some 20 years later the very same story repeats, but this time we are not talking about Russian and US made designs, but about Europes latest 4th generation fighters such as the Rafale and Typhoon.
The Rafale reached AoAs up to 100° and negative airspeeds of 40 kts during testing. The Typhoon just achieved an AoA of 70° and seems to be incapable to fly at negative airspeeds due its aerodynamic configuration.
Yet the operational reality is the very same as it was for the teen/teenski fighters. The operational AoA limits for the Rafale and Typhoon are quite similar, with no obvious difference! One wonders why the F2 production examples are limited to an AoA of ~29°…While the Rafale’s FCS permits an AoA override, the Typhoon’s FCS does not. The AoA override might have saved this Rafale M pilot’s life during the near crash, while a Typhoon might have crashed in the very same situation, ignoring the fact that all Typhoons since block 2 feature a FCS function which automatically initiates a recovery/pull up maneuver when the aircraft threatens crash or to decend below the programmed altitude. Such a feature was supposed to be integrated onto the Rafale as well, but it hasn’t make it in until now as the AdA Rafale F2 crash in December 2007 showed where the aircraft crashed into the ground after the pilot suffered a g-loc. To cut it short history teached us that a higher maximum AoA achieved in specific test conditions is irrelevant in an operational contents!
Yet a Rafale fanboys wet dream is going down.
Another strange claim is that about the Rafale’s alledgely so vastly superior AoA handling. While the Typhoon performs the barell roll in every airshow routine demonstrating the aircraft’s handling qualities and controllability at low speeds/high AoAs the alledgely superior Rafale is incapable to fly this maneuver (due FCS restrictions, what an irony). Any prove for the so called superior handling is therefore missing. Yet another fanboys wet dream turns out to be hot air.
Another issue, the turn rates. While for the Rafale ITR/STR of 32/24°/sec has been reported, no data has been disclosed for the Typhoon. The only thing which is recognised is that the ITR/STR of the Typhoon are in excess of 30/20°/sec which can mean much. Yet the Rafale never demonstrated any more spectaculare turn maneuvers in comparison to the Typhoon which would clearly demonstrate its so called superior turn performance. So the evidence is lacking and another wet dream of a Rafale fanboy is going down in flames. BTW what is about your previously claimed 30°/sec STR? Just a perfect example for your so called aerodynamic “comprehension” and “expertise.”
Supercruise:
While a certain French duck was unable to demonstrate its supercruise capability in an unfavourable condition during the Singapore evaluation, a certain European dog could easily do it, even with the weaker EIS engines (8% lower thrust).
Acceleration/climb performance. Yet another funny claim, while it has been reported by well recognised informed people and experts since years, that the Typhoon enjoys an edge here, a single french guy on the internet with an unproven credibility, but known record for fanboyism claims the opposite. Funnily the so called superior French duck with half the payload needs 1/3 longer to achieve the same altitude than the European dog! One wonders how this contradicts with the Rafale’s alledgley superior acceleration/climb performance, which obviously only exists in the mint of an old frustrated fanboy.

cheers

no barel roll? rafale? anayway barel roll is used when there’s nothing more to show, behing the easile move to execute
here and at low taking of speed!

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=zSj9thvmPuE
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=PnY1nqyEqLo

no supercruise? in singapore? get me the singapore Mod report pls? not the fanboy typhoon journalist who’s payed to glow the product of his payroll bosses, Typhoon didn’t even qualify for the final for its poor performences, as in Korea and brazil and Nerderland, spin lies are frequents in british “press”!

in the snecma history pages:

“In February 1990, the M88-2 made its first flight on the Rafale A demonstrator built by Dassault Aviation. It showed exemplary performance throughout its test flights. During the first flight, it hit Mach 2 and almost 15,000 meters (almost 50,000 feets), without using its afterburner. The engine offered startling takeoff acceleration, from idle to full throttle with reheat in less than 3 seconds. By November, the 12 preproduction M88-2 engines had already logged some 1,250 hours of operation.”

rohh no!

:D:p

The JSF should be cut, i agree with that, but the A400M would be a big mistake.The cost of navalising the Eurofighter would be too high, but then that leaves the Rafale, it is tried and tested in combat and fully carrier capable and IMHO would be a far better choice than the JSF for the new carriers.

would left the RAF pilots jalous…

LordAssap (should I say Fonck /thunder / sampaix) you are becoming extremely annoying. 😡
You are highjacking this thread !

You are supposed to be banned no ?

very nice assesments from someone even not bringing 15% of our lord expertise!

😡

Bad news for the Rafale…

The French government decided to procure only 50 planes (fifty:eek:) during the next 6 years. That means 8 pieces per year !!!! The decision leaves an open door to increase the production rate to 11 per year if there is a major export deal.

Currently there are talks for export 60 pieces to UAE and 14 to Libya, but if these happens the delivery rate to the French armed forces, will diminish.

This decision brought tension among the Armee de l air and the French navy as the navy needs at least 30 airplanes and the air force expects to replace the fighters with the rafale.

speculations from a leftist newspaper!

“the french gov COULD only procure 50 rafales ” not “will procure”,

Liberation is used to deal this kind of “suspition” each week about french military procurements..

Interferometry allows for ANY emitor to do ECMS, THIS is your SPIN and TWIST revisited.

Your problem is you DONT know Rafale and knows Typhoon too little too.

Funny you can pretend to know about it when any PC goof would understand what multithreading is about = YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG AGAIN.

READ my response again, even a dual Pentium II would do it.

And TWIST and SPIN.

At this rate i doubt so very much.

Because you’re the predending Typhoon specialist with the webpage and all.

I know some other ones:

Would Eurofighter development phase director Martin Friemer be GOOD ENOUGH for you?

-Eurofighter designers wanted as much instability as possible, for minimum drag and maximum agility. “We aimed for 15% early on, but settled for 8%,” says Friemer.-
DATE:16/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Agile thinking
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/16/52589/agile-thinking.html

LOL I’m sure you look at the vids with a chrono in hand.

Infortunatly this is NOT the only control problem encountered by Typhoon.

And HO, the higly suspiscious “When it is not superior it wasn’t disclosed thing”…

LOL all you want, Typhoon roll rate WAS disclosed and IS 200*/sec and in view of the commercial noise made by eurofighter i se eno rerason for its roll rate to be classified.

Rafale roll rate IS 270* like that of the Mirage 2000.

There is MORE to it than roll rate only:

SOME MORE ON Typhoon “SUPERIOR” HANDLING:

Tests revealed, however, that the pitch-integration rate was slower than expected, and the aircraft undergoes “roll ratcheting” during rapid roll manoeuvres. The cause is a pilot’s hand-and-arm inertia effect on the stick during rapid rolls and will be cured through adjustments to the FCS.
DATE:16/10/96
SOURCE:Flight International
EF2000 aimed at Mach 2

10 years LATER:

13-07-2006 The Danish testpilot PEL fly the Eurofighter
During the debriefing PEL said the jet wouldn’t stop rolls when he asked for it to do so.
“EADS pilots know about this problem and have learned to compensate for it so they don’t think about it too much.” Here a couple of ‘foreign eyes’ can assist them in the development of the jet.
http://forsvaret.dk/FTK/Nyt+og+Presse/Nyhedsarkiv/nyheder/2006/Dansk+pilot+tester+et+af+fremtidens+kampfly.htm

As for what realy makes an aircraft a winner in a turning fight…

270*/sec is the French/Dassault standard AdA MN doesnt consider more */sec useful for their average squadron pilots, you got some more to learn.

Realy So according to YOU there is only sustained turn rates which are as a matter of FACT resultant of the Simultaneous turn rate and SUSTAINED thanks to thrust (vs drag).

I knew you were a newbie.

Neither CAN you with all your superioricist claims you still cant tell which one will out turn the other in a sustained turn, but I can tell YOU that everyone who flew Rafale told that its INSTANTANEOUS turn rate is WAY superior to anything they flew before. = Close coupled canard.

Quote:
Now: Rafale was optimised for speeds of M 0.9 to M 1.6 Typhoon for higher Machs; at M 0.9 to 1.5 i’d have a Rafale ANY time because 90% of all engagements takes place at these speeds and their corner speed is IDENTICAL.

I hope you will do your home work before writing about Rafale in your site because apparently you missed the whole developement story.

They know way better than you about what you write but still can get a few thing wrong.

Well they still didnt sort its aerodynamic did they?

Trying to patch them up with add-on LEX says it all, integration of the main wing to the canards have its known advantages and one is damping.

EADS published a very informative PDF on Typhon Supersonic Pitch-up mitigation due no doubt to the lack of damping, it also contains some very good stuff on low speed recovery characteristics saying that at <> 5kt there were NO guarantees of preventing departure, which is precisely what Rafale pilots werent caapable of getting it to do.

Depart or/and enter a STALL, so Blah-Di-Blub here you go to your local airclub mate!
__________________
The pure imagination of some people, makes them look like living in another dimension which for some is and will always remain two-dimentional… 😀

For your education what makes an aircraft maneuvrable to the point of usefulness in Air combat:

thx lord for getting facts and argumenting with strong datas sources your claims, lots are able to blah blah about what they can’t explan, just carbon copying claims on articles , but very few got the knowleges about basic aerodynamics you do master.. 🙂

EAP weight 9,935 kg and has little to do with the Typhoon.
Why should the difference between EAP 9,935 kg and T1 11,000 kg 20%?
That is a PISA miracle!:confused:
EAP hadn’t BK27 + 102.5 kg
EAP hadn’t Radar.
It’s only ~11%! without BK27 and with BK27 9.7%
But the Typhoon based on the MBB Jäger 90 and not on the EAP.:diablo:

oh man , you shall get a look at the datas provided by EADS in 2000 “9750kg”

and the last provided by EADS 11.8 for the Bi place and 11.5t for the T2 single seater, i was wrong it’s around 18%!