Madrat,
A compact, tightly packed airframe screams “efficient use of space” to me.
I’d like to see a bigger diameter nose on Rafale to allow a bigger array to be fitted, but I see no real advantage in a longer nose. A plug behind the cockpit might give space for more internal fuel, but Rafale has more range than Typhoon, and giving the canards a longer moment arm would increase instability and would have real implications for the FCS. Dassault went for a more stable, more conservative configuration than Typhoon quite deliberately, recognising that higher instability makes for more difficulties with FCS design, just as the Typhoon partners went for a more conservative radar.
The line art did not widen the nose or canard spacing at all. I think you overlooked the simplicity of the change. The width in the area of its center of gravity is where the volume mostly increased, something that doesn’t greatly affect the plane’s aerodynamic design. The FCS you speak of is going to be more affected by factors of weight and overall balance issues moreso than the distance between front and rear control surfaces, almost trivial in comparison. An offset in the nose, an elongation to allow for counterbalance, is necessary in cases of such an increase in the fuselage, and was done purely for the continuity of design flow purposes.
And who cares how this would compare to Typhoon? This is about selling a plane that has a market AND an aftermarket. Increasing the volume of its interior is key to making room for future improvements in technology. The extra space in the nose and body allow plenty of future expansion. And RCS is best deadened with materials, not strictly by some trick design flow. I doubt anything shy of true stealth is anything but a novelty in the long run, and the electronic elements of survivability will be more valuable over the lifetime of the product.
Sign In
