Indeed, AFAIK, it is the AdlA who want fixed probes on its fighters :

it’s more reliable
it’s stronger
it’s less expensive
it’s lighter

About the Helos: I say “sweet dreams”, since the govt is considering “new” (but I wonder what’s “new”, here) cut in the french defence budget…

Sad. I would have loved to see Mi-26s in ALAT’s service…

not exactly.

1- the defence budget will not be cut, but priorities are going to change. I wouldn’t be surprised if transport planes and helo were put in the top priorities

2- the plan seems to order these helos in 2012 with deliveries starting in 2017… not really a crash program

MirageIII 1 axis FBW.
MirageIV 3 axis FBW

http://www.dassaultfalcon.com/whatsnew/falconer_article.jsp?DOCNUM=31233&IDOCNUM=31229

You should not forget the Rockwell-MBB X-31 long coupled Canard with TVC!
Digital FBW from MBB (DASA alias EADS Germany);)

thx for the link.

It seems that I’ve underestimated the mirage III and IV FBW system :rolleyes:

About the X-31, I’ve only counted the planes which flew before the EAP

AFAIK the FCS of EAP was/is written by the british, the germans provide the hardware not the software. It’s the same for the Eurofighter.

It is said that at the begining of the project, the German were in charge of the complete FCS but the soft part had to be eventually transfered to UK because the german were facing too much difficulties.

The Mirage 2000 is of limited relevance, since though it was unstable and a Delta, the degree of instability was modest – and the aircraft could have been flown (straight and level) by a human pilot unaided. Unstable, but not highly unstable.

We’re talking about aircraft that are so unstable that without FBW they would lose control and break up. And the F-104CCV and Jaguar FBW/ACT were this class of aircraft.

We’re talking about Full Authority, Digital, FBW FCSs, on highly unstable platforms. About CCVs and Active Control Technology. That isn’t Mirage 2000.

I strongly disagree.

And The software is really the most difficult and time consuming part in a FBW FCS.

Dassault approach and development schedule was a logic succession of protypes and production delta aircrafts whose FCS have always been designed internaly :

That sure is an impressive experience acquired one step at a time in a very fluent way whitout any break during 30 years.

This can’t be said of the experience of UK and Germany which didn’t seem to follow a directive line at all :

[

And then directly

unstable delta/canard – digital FBW FCS
EAP (prototype)

:confused:

With the F-104CCV, the FBW/ACT Jaguar and EAP, the EF partners had MUCH more experience in this field than Dassault, not less

.

jacko at his best 😀

Sure, that’s a looooooooooooot of unstable delta, delta/canard designs !

Between 1978 and 1986, dassault gathered an enormous experience of unstable delta planes thanks to :

– Thousands of flight hours of FCS trials in every loadaouts possible (A2A and A2G) with the mirage 2000-01/02/03/04/B01/N01/02 and the mirage 4000 prototype.

– Ten of thousands of operational flight hours and combat exercices (from dogfight to A2G strike and very low level terrain following) performed by more than one hundred mirage 2000 C/B/N/E/ED between 1982 and 1986

Meanwhile, What was the real experience of germany and UK ?

Dassault did even more FBW flights than those 2 planes with the mirage 4000 only (290).

Jacko, tell me, Which experience do you think is the most relevant when you want to develop an unstable/twin engine/delta canard mach 2 class fighter ?

Because in case you haven’t notice yet, the mirage 4000 is exactly an unstable/twin engine/delta canard mach 2 class fighter (not to mention its little brother, the mirage 2000)

The only relevant exemple in your list is the EAP, a demonstrator which flew in 1986 (after the rafale A) and which FCS was a nightmare to set up properly, precisly because the EF2000 team had none relevant experience in designing the FCS of an unstable delta plane

I strongly suspect that’s exactly how it works in France, and that the AdlA tends to accept Dassault’s suggested limits. But in the UK, the manufacturer’s recommendation is just the start point, and it’s quite usual for QinetiQ to insist on tighter, more stringent limits.

You suspect, but in fact, you don’t know anything.

Both the armée de l’air and the MN put safety, service life and and costs of use as priorities.

The choice of the M88-2ECO over the M88-3 should ring a bell.

Then, why do people avoid talking about the 45,61% MAC instability ?:confused:

I thought you wouln’t this thread to be an other Rafale vs Typoon debate ? 😀

Anyway…

So, the rafale would be 10% more instable than the Typhoon ?
That would explain why the typhoon needs long moment arm canards ///

I did. But this number clearly came from Dassault and as such cannot be trusted according to Jackonicko’s standard. In short, that’s irrelevant, as everything else that might debunk his propaganda.

Although this number suggests the Rafale is more unstable than the Typhoon, the close-coupled canards cannot cope with the autority enjoyed by the Typhoon design, thanks to the long moment arm of its canards. Therefore, the Rafale is less agile by a fair margin.
– Case closed –

I agree.

As this figure is not validated by JOUSTS or SLIVE we can’t trust it.