Fonk@Scorpion82
“Rafale A reached Mach 2 and Rafale C reaches it too, so I don’t see the Rafale A to be faster.”
10 ton class M1.8 are the figures given by Dassault. Ether they are accdurate ether they are NOT.
So what is valid for one (Typhoon is NOT for Rafale then???).. As i say it’s BIASED.
“What I want to say is that Rafale A and the current production modells are very different aircraft as EAP is a different aircraft than EF2000. So Rafale A proves not very much.” You DONT know Rafale A mate…
Such a Joke!!! Do you actually comprehend the implication in WEIGHT of the diferences> You are totally BIASED or don’t know what you’re saying.
M-02 with full Spectra and OSF weighted at 9.650 kg 500 more than C in 2002.
As for MIDS i was mentioning this to underline the fact that there are NO differences in hardware between F2 and F3 standards.
No get your act together you’re geting on my nerves with this low level of intellectual honesty. Thanks to stop taking US for stupid pretending that you like the aircraft as you keep finding all dumb excuses to deny our research work which is WAY more advanced than yours.
FonkTMOR The Ds weight on 480 kg MORE than the C with 400 kg less fuel (displaced) which is the trade off for the rear cockpit..
Fonk2NungesserC
quiet clear that for some Aircraft is a secondary motivation.
Scorpion: Send me a message i’ll give you the links to that doc:
Jane’s from 83 to 89:
Rafale A 9.450/500 kg
50 cm longer than the other Rafales.
1 m2 wing surface extra.
Airbrakes and actuators (deleted).
2 extra elevons + actuators and firings (deleted).
15% less lightweight material (35% instead of 50%) of total weight.
GE-404-400 90 kg heavier than M-88 (each) producting 71.3 kN instead of 75.5 kN.
“Subsequent performance measurment demonstrated stablelised speed of
M 2.0 at 13.000 m (42.650 ft) on Marsh 1987″
Performance repeated with the first M-88 to fly using ONLY the F-404
After-burner. (Source SNECMA).
Now explain to me how a larger/dragier aircraft with more moblile parts, their associated sub-systems (Actuator/fairings/wiring) and 15% less lightweight materials on it can weight the same than a production Rafale and fly M 0.2 faster….
When everyone agrees that developement Typhoons were heavier than the production one by nearly a ton due to instrumentation, this wouldn’t apply to A and even less to C-01, M 01/02, D01,02???. Is that FAIR information and non- BAISed reflexion of the subject?
Rafale Discret (now C) was given for 9.090 kg and M 2.0.
Top tha others: Here is a scan of AFM article on Quinetiq report.
Fonk2hil Foster
“Why should he Fonk? Afterall you have never proved a damn ‘point’ in any thread,”
By this you meant NONE you actually could ether comprehend nor conterdict appart from your usual trash and allegations of racism.How easy and convenient for the ignorants…
“Also when somebody gets all nationalistic about the Typhoon what are they being nationalistic about I wonder? Germany? Italy? Spain? Britain? Europe? Just how can you be nationalistic about an international project?”
It’s time to remember that my friend that Britain have ONLY participated to collaborative programme since Sea Harrier and that by retiring it from service, it made sure there is NO more indigenously designed front line high performance fighter here. Such a Symbol of superiority. This in turn explain your so obvious need for showing how “superior” Britain is to the rest of the EUs.
I’m and air enthusiast and as such doesn’t give qa toss where an aircraft have been designed. I like aircraft and learn about without any interest in their nationalities; you don’t. We concede that one.
“You are a xenophobe Fonk and so too are you Nungesser/PilotGHT BLAH-dI-bLAH EVERYONE IS WRONG AND I’M A POOR VICTIM OF THE REST OF THE WORLD B-S including some of the moderators are being rather less than impartial.”
The usual accusation of those who have ABSOLUTLY no arguments to opose to mine. The Xenophobia you are actually accusing other of is in fact embeded in your very behaviour in this forum and others.
Pretending, exagrating, twisting spinnig lying to the rest of the forum posters.
I.E. Jack is well know AND proven to do so regularly. As for you your arguments have little effects on me nor in your sad reality.
If not been ready to flater your poor litle ignorant egos is to be a Xenohpobe in that case i’m the first to concur. I will never let your bunch take credit for what you didn’t do what you don’t have and performances your little marvels don’t have without naming the liars and i can only deplore that it is your bunch doing it then claiming xenophobia when people point that out to you. Get a life.
The only superior thing here is your complexion. Me ,i got too little to envy you for.
FonkDepends what you consider as a manoeuvrability factor. Pure deltas like the Mirage III can have a high instantaneous turn rate but tend to drag more at high AoA expecially when highly swept at 53*.
With a higher Thrust to Weight ratio the Mig would sustain a higher G-load while loosing less energy but not necessarly because it wasn’t a pure delta.
Generally it goes with Wing load vs thrust Lift vs weight.
Both insstantaneous and sustained turn rates depends on these.
I am actually unsure of their respective wing loads but i would say the Mirage might well have had a higher one and a higher drag ratio for the same amount of Gs..
Fonk@Scorpion82 Quote:
“You misunderstood me. What I mean is is it the empty weight with all planned systems aboard or the current etc.. About that you will hardly find a source.”
Try Typhoon onw web site for a change maybe tehy do give a reasonably accurate figure but i beilieve youstill have to dig further and be aware of the popssible increase weight in avionics from Tranch to tranche.
Inthe casse ofRafale an extra 60 kg in F-3 standard would look reasonable considering the addition of MIDS and Links 16 boxes. ~For the rest Dassault are looking to decrease the weight with avionics in combining functions inthesame box. Rafale is curently upgraded for cause of F-1 standard svionics obsolescence which turn out to be a blessing.
“But I doubt Dassault gives the 10 t class figure while the aircraft weights still ~9 t (yes I know depends on the version B/C/M). “
Your oubts are ONLY dictated bythe fact that you KNOW too litle about it, about Dassault and the GIE. We do know and have less and less doubts, even the guys actually still active in the AdA.
Class means an average weight and in NO case the empty weight of the aircaft.
“I don’t want to repeat the whole weight discussion about the Rafale,”
Precisely the point I was making here andi’m not surprised you don’t want to dig it.
We have been researching these figures for years, you read them from a site which doesn’t give YOU any clue and refuse to aknowledge our finding. Keep a tit you can be sure that your datas are false but you are the only one making assumption for the whole parts you don’t know about.
“Your assumptions may give a nice hint but they are not neccessarily correct.”
These are NO assumption here: Rafale M-02 was fited with BOTH SPECTRA and OSF since 1994 and participated in this configuration to the NATO MACE-X exercise in order to test further SPECTRA. SPECTA weight 250 kg including flare/shaffs and their cartridges.
OSF needs to be ballasted so eventually its weights doesn’t matter too much as in the equation it wouldn’t make any diference. 9.650 kg is the M-02 Empty weight with BOTH. 500 kg heavier than the C is the difference in structural weight for obvious reasons of navalisation.
The landing gear of the M are designed to take -6.5 M/s vertical speed , that of the other version -3 m/s. All landing gears retract forward….
The weight given was in 2002 in the same configuration during Carrier trials by the programme manager, and the fact that you didn’t KNOW doesn’t mean i assume anything; it just means i know more than you do from a more reliable source. You can dig all of this in Flight International from 2000 to 2002.
You can’t get close to the empty weight in this particular configuration without knowing the history of the aircraft for this simple reason.
My only assumption is that this gentleman knows his stuff FAR better than you’ll ever do. If you want to figure it out for yourself, you got a load more diging to do.
Fonk5.) I doubt you know for which exact configuration the 11 t figure stands for.
very EASY isn’tit it is given as empty weight by both Eurofighter and Jane’s.
7.) Rafale was planned as 8,5 t fighter at the beginning now Dassault claims the weight with 10 t class… think about it.
Think about what I keep telling YOU. 10 ton class and M1.8 are the requierement specs NOT the actual, empty weight and perfs of Rafale.
As for the 8.500 it was target weight for the airframe before avionic fitting as well. Politico-industrial history????
To get to the truth aout it you’ll have tio get datas dating from the pre-GIE period where the actual prtogramme managers from Dassault were more or less feree to give datas.
The early MN/AdA sites give the aircraft for M2.0 for example as they only had them home for a few month. Particularly the AdA as i didn’t even have time to scan their web page before theye reverted to the Bunkered datas. Look like i am right. = Politico-industrial history????
According to our researches. M in carrier trial configuration for OSF and SPECTRA was Quote Programme manager Revellin-Falcoz “At 9.150 kg 500 kg heavier than the C.” This gives you Rafale C at 9.150 kg empty and D at 9.480. You REFUSED to aknowledge this but we had later confirmation by Assemblee Nationale doc of the FACT that the aircrafts have to be ballasted when the equipemnt wasn’t fitted.
9.150 kg is the C empty weight without the latest black boxes (Link 16 and networking avionics).
This is confirmed by the MN web page i scaned giving the M weight in S-U 0 config witohut spectra WAY below 9.650 kg. SPECTRA weight is 250 kg
Rafale C in this configuration would have a higher TWR than Typhoon.
So YES the extra 1.100 kg or so made a difference. And i’m NOT bashing you up here i’m just surprised you didn’t at least TRY to get to the point on your own…
about Typhon it’s all equiped (avionics/gun). Anyway i would imagine that for something that forward of the CG it would have to be replaced by ballast too even if it is only 1/3rd of OSF weight…
>>>>>
Steve Touchdown
Your posting of a news item from 1997 when you thought it referred to future developments of the M88 told everybody here all we needed to know about you and your so-called panel of “experts”. Dismissed.
So WHAT? did it change ANYTHING as to their accuray? No they were actively marketing the engine.
FonkREAD the following
FonkRob L
“You are the biggest troll on these boards Fonk/Gegene/Gogo/thunder and are an absolut nationalist who is so blinded that you can’t even comprehend different views.”
You views on the subject are that of a blindfoled gold fish. Mine have more chances to understand the basic principle of flight mechanic than you do. Talk about trolling…
Is that because i post oprecise technical stuff WAY above your capabilities to comprehend them? I think so. You couldn’t tell the diference between your mum Iron and a delta wing. Let alone understand what i posted on the subject. Dismissed.
@Nicolas10 Fonk, I think you’re going way over the top when you compare Scorpion to Jack… it’s an insult in my opinion, and the two haven’t shown the same form of behaviour.
True that, quiet please to see we share the same opinion on the so called Jack. Note it is not a straight forward comparison. I just compare the way they actually understand the aircrafts and i have read some peretty hair raising stuff writen by Scorpion too.
“Maybe you feel that scorpion needs knowledge about this or that domain, but he hasn’t lied or tried to drawn the fish like jack does all the time… nor has he ever attacked anyone’s character or nation…”
I concur at least he is an honnest poster as opposed to some among which the guy i actually replied to here…
>>>>> I’ll try.
S@corpion82
“Simply look into the last Typhoon threads and search for NungesserCs and my posts countering his nonsense.”
what hewas saying on that one was making sense and dismissing it in this topic made little.
“You still failed to recognize that I like both Rafale and Typhoon”
Well if you do, you will certainly keep diging and learn more about both. Not that i actually need to do so in the case of Typhoon. Your remarks are still far from showing how long and difficult it is to get proper informations on Rafale and i don’t think you have been that far according to the datas you were editingat the time. Maybe do you have some new doc on the subject?
“I have no intentions to degrade Rafale like other degrade Typhoon here. I simply counter the nonsense some guys like NungesserC are posting here. Interesting to see that you don’t bash him for not backing up his statements and inability to prove that, probably because he is pro Rafale and Contra Typhoon. That shows one time more that you are narrow minded in that direction.”
Again there was NOTHING in this particular topic i had to say about it andi DID desagree with him on the weight of the aircraft….
“Do you remember about what we have disccussed month ago in such threads? We discussed about aerodynamics and flight performance of both, not more not less. I have learned things related to that matter also from YOU. So don’t say I’m not willed to learn or something like that.”
I wouldn’t dare taking credit fop what i learnt or know, i take care of geting good teachers that’s all.
“Additionally you should realize that aerodynamic and aircraft history isn’t all.”
It’s actualy the main part. A barndoor with a firecracker in the back isn’t going to make agood turnig fighter….
“And by alleging I have no clue about the developement history of EF2000 or Rafale you once more show your ignorance.”
On the reasons forchosing the long moment harm for Typhoon design you misssed a bit. I didn’t. But it’s always a question of doing more researches.
Fonk😀 1.) No that’s not my definition of narrow minded. But you perfectly show with every post again how ignorant and narrow minded you are.
2.) I know you know all and you are Mr. perfect and the only aviation enthusiast out there in the whole wide world.
Prove IT. Bring up yor so called counter points and let’s SEE who is actually informed and gives accuarte infos to others. As i say the more i read about your so called analysis on both aircraft, the more i see a guy with little knowledge of all necessary basics on the subject.
Get a life i’m done arguing wiht guys of your kind, i learn too litte appart for that they keep trying to look knowledgeable in forums coming up with the same low-technical and historical stuff time and time again.
Not informative enough for my liking. I will avoid responding to your post from now on for all the good reasons..
For everyone else info: Rafale front gear retract forward, meaning there is aerodynamic forces involved in case of mecanical failure for getting it down….
Fonk@Sens
“Had those R-25 engines?”
I don’t know but a quick researche on the type in use (Mongol two seaters) at the time would tell you….
FonkIt is true that none of the main writers on the subject can recall the reason behind the design or the original planned role.
I can because i follow the aircraft programme from the begining. I wouldn’t mind if they were writing it as it is but infortunatly we only hear from Bad Rafale and good Typhoon. From where i am standing as an air enthusiast it’s nowhere near as simple as that….
FonkMy ex-flight instructor was Head of the CEV (Flight test Center) of Bretigny back in 1975. He flew the Mig-21 during one of the Normandie-Niemen Squadron exchange in 1973 at Reims. His commentary were rather elogious on the Mig. Rabit-like acceleartion; quiet more maneouvrable than a Mirage III at low speeds. His only critisism was about the 23 mm which ballistic was inferior to the 30 DEFFA mm and the gunsight which was limited to less than 4 Gs…. The high kill ratio obtained by the Isrealis was partly due to a far better training lecvel and tactics. The Mirage III still records in the history book as the world first M2.0 Mig Killer. Good topic i hope i shaded some light on it.
Fonk@DJJ
“The report got into the British press in May 04, so that seems about right. Hope that helps.”
It will probabilly help; i’m always the first to look for accurate infos. This doesn’t involved the landing gear issues which was also quoted by QuinetiQ as being a source of concern.
I will try to put some light in this matter for my own stake as laways….
“The report (which led to tales about how the aircraft couldn’t enter cloud)”
“As far as I know (from the lack of nervous Typhoon drivers around and about my places of work), the RAF doesn’t seem too concerned.”
Nether was I, i didn’t think personally that this was a MAJOR issue as they are normally equiped with a mechanical back-up for IFR instrument aren’t they?
Airplanes and crews have been know to be lost this way; i.e. engaging another F-15 in ACM by night and have your HUD freeze on you is not a good thing, even with the mechanical back-up.
Result: Ejection out of parameters (Speed; vertical dive) one crew member killed (Back seater on the Strike Eagle incriminated).
Naturally stable aircraft tends to pull 1 G in every condition on their own when they are trimed for horizontal flight.
Blind, there is only one way you can tell the problem occurs and it is windscreen noise indicating a difference of speed. This saved the life of this guy.
As Typhoon is unstable and posseses a FCS i can’t tell what would happen in case of instrument failure in IFR flight regime but i believe it is a serious issue and that MoD have given it the attention it requiers…
It is the second part of the report concerning safety issues due to software problems which i have personally find more of a potential problem particularly because it did involve the flight regime where the gear were down, so low speed and energy, leaving the crew with little manoeuvre room in case of problems.
When flying even a Piper cub i alwyas felt more vulnerable during a landing patern for all the good reasons (Low altitude and speed.)
For the rest the “squadron noises” about new aircraft problems are common to all Air Forces.
You would be interested to hear some from my time at B-A 102 Dijon equiped with Mirage IIIEs…. Which still was a fantastic “Zing”. So i don’t give too much attention to these even concening Typhoon.
Fonk@Jwcook
“The reason given for the double flame out was because the software was an upgraded version that was incompatable with the older series of engine.
The engines flamed out, they tried to relight them, couldn’t and they stepped outside 😉
Your interpretation of the FACTS is totally WRONG.
It was a iddle test on ONE engine only. The flame out of the back-throtle engine can be explained with software probleme not that of the SECOND one.
Dassault rejected the design of the dual chin monted intake precisely because this design involved such a risk of the aerodynamic disturbances caused by one engine disfunction to cause the second engine to flame out.
This was clearly explained in Flight International interviews of Rafale programme managers (Around M-01-02 involvment in OSF/SPECTRA carrier qualification so it should be 2002) The guy i think was Mr Revellin-Falcoz….
For the rest your post is rather interesting but i have to point out that giving new configurations to engine part is unlikely to change anything to the result of the air intakes design choice and the risks associated to this particular configuration. All it would do it to make them less likely to react to a sudden change of pressure and flame out, not solve the problem at its root.
__________________
Marc Sampaix. PS i reedited for reason of peace keeping….
Sign In
