FonkI’m not in favour or agravation but…
:dev2: 2DJJ
2. “Fonk refers to a Qinetiq report. This wasn’t ‘swept under the carpet’ as he suggests.”
I added by MoD, (i know you guys are talking rather freely about issues like these in Ppprune and it’s one of the things i like about it). And yes i refer to it.
“Fonk was, IIRC, posting on Pprune at about that time (as Gegene)”
And permanently BANNED in order to protect Jackonico’s back side…..
You don’t want me to get further into it believe me.
“but it is regretable that one of the more knowledgeable contributors to this site (and to Key magazines for that matter)”
Great style and what we call “rubrique des chien ecrases” specialists, “name withold” and “anonymous author” but allow me:
We’re REAL Ex-AdA or still AdA Active specialists some of which educated flyers too.
Our conclusion: He doesn’t know his nose from his BUT when it comes to it. So it is just a question of opinion.
There are far better journalists in the UK, thanks God.
Making a victim of a repeated offender who keep writing staments and amakes allegation NEVER actually sustentiated and even proven totally innacurate with time takes some compassion.
You might be related with Mother Theresa, I’m NOT.
Myself and most French posters/readers suspect a much more “sournoise” motivation; it looks like it endly creeped out from under his skin.
But from my experience in Pprune it not a surprise.
Just imagine if we were flooding the Forums with unverified stories about how bad the Typhoon is because we’ve been told by a “reliable” source anjd spoken with this or that guys etc…
Doesn’t do any good to Pprune, only to the egos of some readers and i personally would rather been proven wrong and learn some (by guys like Tarnished writing on Typhoon FCS) than read this insipide stuff again and again…
I think the Rafale GIE doesn’t really care about the guy, they know he wasn’t ANYWHERE near the aircraft/crews and pilots and can only report rumours and as one of us is due to see them soon, we will know.
I for one knows for sure that:
He doesn’t understand both aircrafts, doesn’t know their politico-industrial history and can only bring figures and commercial statments as to why they does this and that.
One cannot make any kind of proper analysis on that little with that little understanding of the subject.
You should TRY to read from a real specialist for a change, and i assure you, you will notice the differences fast.
“Rather like the Qinetiq report on the Typhoon, though, the level of risk is more theoretical than real….”
Funnyly enough this Quinetiq report is related by birth with one of the most popular way with him (and some Typhoon fanatics) to prove its superiority over Rafale…
Talk about double standards; so is it safe to say that the accuracy of the famous “simulation” is “more theoretical than real”?
And to finish, it is this attitude into taking people for stupid because their English isn’t as technical or academic as some which is your guys problems. (Not you personally, i apreciate your civil behaviour).
When some seriously informed geezers (including active Air Force specialists like Opit or ex like myself) are debating a subject, bringing good infos only to be dismissed arrogantly by some quasy-(visibly for the informed)-ignorants it doesn’t look too good…
And is far from being informative to all.
>>>>>
2NungesserC
Agreed in the main points appart for the total weight increase from 9.900 gk to 11.000 kg. The planned TWR and Wingload are gone in the guter.
Funilly enough, i have been banned from this forum for arguing on the same subject with the famous Jack.
Now developement are proving the articles which i incriminated as being innacurate to be…exactly that.
And those arguing sales to make a point forget that Typhoon is still far from selling as well as the Mirage 2000 did and still does. Go figure why???
It is also true though that one can’t really rely on a landing accident as an evidence of bad design or quality but the fact remains:
Some concurent aircraft have been in service for longer, some on board Carriers and flying combat missions too, the MaX bring back weight of a Rafale M musn’t be too far from that of the Max TOW of a Typhoon Tranche 1 in A2A configuration.
Without any MAJOR problems.
>>>>>
2 SOC
Eh? Defamation of aircraft character? That’s one I haven’t heard before”…
I know a certain Jack who would spend time inside for that if this was applying to the letter…..
How many articles did he write and/(or) posted in forums too are now proven to be total Defamation? I counted at least THREE recently.
>
“Eurofighter ahead in battle with Rafale”. LAUGHABLE.
“Eurofighter’s Full Operational Clearance (to be delivered by industry at the end of 2006) will include an air-to-ground capability using Paveway II and Enhanced Paveway laser-guided bombs, though there is no customer requirement for an early integration of stand-off weapons. By contrast, Arme de l’Air Rafales will not be operational for some time, and will have stand-off weapons but not LGBs, again following customer requirements.”
Reality is: Not available before 2008 with Laser designation pod and LGBs when Rafale F-3 enters service with full A2A/A2G Anti-Surface AND Nuclear capabilities….
>
Rafale ad: fair comment or darned cheek?
“I thought that the only Rafales in current operational service were the Aéronavale’s F1 standard jets, and that they offer little real improvement over the F-8 Crusader – carrying only Magic, Mica, and a refuelling pod?”
Reality, the first PESA/LPI radar in service in Europe fully cleared for MICA EM and alrerady being deployed twice in Afganistan for combat missions having made a cold meal of every F-whatever in the region and Europe both in BVR and WVR. etc…
>
“Easten Smile” i pass the article dismissed by the RAF personel deployed there, Rafale M supercruising with 4XMICAs and a 1.250l central tank etc…
Defamation? The guy in now WELL known for doing only this for a living. For the rest i never heared of him…..
>>>>>
Blk 60 down
b: the Typhoon represents the pinnacle of European combat aviation
c: the Rafale is the only aircraft offering a sensible mix of A2A and A2G capabilities…
About: Demonstrated all-weather-totally-passive tracking/detection and BVR engagement as well as remote targeting from other network centric assets over 360X360* envelop…. Very sensible.
Standard F-2 in OPEVAL and entering service with AdA this year with 1/7 Squadron.
“represents the pinnacle of European combat aviation”
The only reason WHY you can write this is because some guys have been constantly feeding this false impression that Typhoon was superior in A2A to Rafale.
This eventually without ever been able to bring any evidence of this nor sustentiate or elaborate technically because they can’t… But we can.
Get yourself informed properly, (it will take a lot of time , efforts and then some more). You might well rethink your definition of “pinnacle of European combat aviation” before long.
__________________
But this is a Typhoon topic i don’t think i will go further in this vs Rafale thing.
I just would like to add that our criticism of Typhon is based on technical point that we can not only explain and elaborate on, but also which history (of the aircraft) seems to be sustenciating with time…
I just hope that Dassault designer were WRONG as to the reasons why they dismissed the dual-chin-mounted air intakes design.
But the double flame-out (which cause was actually never explained, only the reason why the engine couldn’t be relit was) that caused the Spanish dual seater to crash still makes me wonder…
Untill we have an official report on this i will obviously not try to imply whatever reason for the accident as i don’t KNOW.
It still doesn’t make it a better case as a for design choices and software programing.
>>>>>
2FAR
“Saying that an aircraft is overweight because it is heavier than it was initially planned to be is a bit of a daft argument.”
No it’s NOT. Turning performances are dictated by the Thrust to Weight ratio as well as wing loading. (all of which happens to also play with the drag ratio and enegy rate through increased AoA expecially with a 53* swept delta)
One ton of extra empty weight out of 10 is a considerable difference.
FonkAppart from theeting problems common to all new gen aircrafts, Rafale didn’t suffder ANY major one and more to the point from: F22/Gripen/Typhoon/Rafale, it sill is the only one which have never crashed….
Dunno if the US lost any F/A-18s thought but this is a fact. 😀
I hink that crashes due to technical reasons during developement is not necessarly unavoidable. For Dassault the last one is Mirage F-1 killing Rene Biguant during low level/high speed testing due to eccessive fluter…
Fonk:dev2: “However if I know that I´m going to spend a winter operating from some rudimentary wind-swept runway in central Asia without the luxury of a heated hangar I know which plane will be on my wishlist.”
Good one…
And i personally know which one i would fly without any fear of a double flame out due to its design features…. Still searching for the AFM article eventually i’ll scan it again.
FonkSomething else on twist and spin technics…
You guys keep coming with numbers, to try to prove how much the British Aerospace industry have done….
Question WAS: When was the last time it produced a high performance/front line fighter on its own?
Answer: Sea Harrier. some time ago isn’t it?
As for comparing the number of prototypes, we can argue with the number of home made as well, the point is HIGH performance isn’t going to be found in large number in the UK as the only companies which were able to design them are long gone and the only one still capable to a limited extand isn’t doing it for nearly twenty years.
SO again we end up with the Tony’s twist and spin technics to prove a point that is obviouds for every other but the usual.
Instead of trying to turn tha table, could you show us how well you could actually anwer the original question if the first place???
When was the last time the British Aerospace industry produced a high performance/front line fighter on its own? We know the answer so just keep bull#$%^&*us…
2@PilotTGHT:
Rob L have a long history of bein inventing stuff to the extand that he believes the JAS 39 was designed by BAE as well as part of the F-35, overlooking the fact that the aircrafts were already designed and ignoring the fact that redesiging for production tooling is somethingh else, don’t waste your time with him, he already knows the the French Aerospace industry in Number two worldwhile. He likes ihs little figures you see. They all do apparently. Jealousy is creeping out.
FonkAnd the bull factor per square as replies…
“You’re a waste of time, Fonky.”
Not: he can’t elaborate technically, he uses familiarities and can only be dismissive of what i write without actuall elaborate any further. A good politician maybe for as long as one doesn’t did too deep…
“Even ignoring your unsupported, unsustainable allegations about Rafale’s turn rate and energy states, you’ve managed to pack more complete nonsense into your posts than anyone I’ve ever read.”
Prove it if you can…
Guess you don’r read that much on it ever so i understand that you can’t grab the basics…
“You misinterpret and misrepresent the causes of the Spanish crash, you talk utter bol.locks about an eighteen month grounding, and you make infantile and ignorant comments about the FCS. You clearly have no clue about AIM-120B (let alone AIM-120C and D), and you fail to understand the most basic rudiments about BVR tactics. “
Absolutly not my friend, Jane’s quoting and not the first time BAe was in trouble with a FCS on an advanced aircraft: Resuliting of the last F-22 crash…
“Rafale was offered to Austria and to Greece. Austria didn’t shortlist it, Greece selected Typhoon.”
They did NOT test-fdly it point.
“Get over it. Korea selected F-15 and claimed to do so on technical and operational grounds (I suspect otherwise, but that’s life). The RSAF preferred Typhoon but Mindef may select Rafale. If they do, then celebrate a lucky win and congratulate the French Government and Dassault for some clever, astute and very hard work.”
Blah-di-Blah revisionism at its best. You’rer too mediocre for me to keep corrcting you, by now all of us have seen how thin you are mate.
“The frontal engagement at M 2.0/launch/break IS a cold war tactic to face a large number of Warsaw-pact assaillants.” No. It’s the best way to avoid a return missile shot by the aircraft you’ve targeted, or his wingman, and to avoid being sucked into the unpredictability of a close in engagement. If RoE permit, you always shoot your enemy at maximum range, bug out and re-engage to your maximum advantage. This applies one versus one or one versus many. Your grasp of tactics is risible.”
Your English is risible, how do you call a large number of Warsaw-pact assaillants? A single aircraft???
Still you’re triyng to distract to the fact that this is a cold war scenario and that the new way to do thing is high supersonic in dry power not Mach 2 and high G turns at Full A-B.
Good example on how you taist, spin dismaiss and still fail to make any elaboration on the subject…
“When was the last time there was any fully indigenously high performance/front line aircraft was designed in Britain?”
“Who cares about ‘fully indigenous’ if it results in second-best? Many people regard Tornado as being the best low level strike attack aircraft of its generation.”
Sure, they didn’t serve too well in Afagnistan because they are not onlu underpowered but also equiped with an engine which is notorious for the lack of thrust at high altitude, Tornado is nowhere near as successfull in the export market as Mirage 2000 is, ands in its casr it is the second best to the French aircraft. Trying to rewrite history doesn’t make you look smarter.
Mirage 2000D continuously top the PGM scores when aligned with all other NATO fighters and way ahead of Tornados…
“Better than Gripen? Hornet? F-16? MiG-29? Su-27? No.”
You were the one who said that Mirage 2000 turned better than any aircraft until Typhoon and Rafale. It doesn’t.”
Yes it does, and you would be hard pressed to prove otherwise. Again you don’t have the bottle only the ingonrance and lack of intellectual honnesty.
The only aircraft bettering the Mirage 2000 are of a newer generation.
“I wouldn’t want to disrespect French aviators, who are among the best in NATO, but only a blind fool would claim that they have performed better than the RAF in recent operations. Like in Bosnia? The RAF Harrier/Jag/TIALD combination scored a 96% DH rate. The AdlA rate was well below 75%. (Source? The official lessons of Deny Flight). Like in Warden, where the French were withdrawn from joint packages? Like in Granby/Daquet, where 12 RAF Jaguars flew more sorties than 24 French aircraft, dropping more weapons and scoring more DHs?”
OK Jack IT IT IME TO PROVE TO THE REST OF THE WROLD THAT YOU ARE NOYT A L.I.A.R Give us the source…
For what we know, they weren’t equiped with the pod to do it, Harriersd were getting shot because they couldn’t shoot their targets and had to do a second pass. LIAR this the tittle you just gained.
“Mirage 2000 wins 90% of all its engagement vs F-16” This is empty boasting, and I’ve heard F-16 pilots say exactly the opposite. Any genuinely neutral observer would agree that the F-16 enjoys an edge WVR over the M2K.
“Then, you still cannot comprehend how they manage to beat these all in mock combat day in day out. Indians Flanker, German Mig 29, all types of NATO F-16 etc.” That’s because I recognise AdlA PR spin for what it is, and listen to and read what the opposition say as well.
“The best of the Ada believde they could outurn Mig 29 with their 2000-5 Fs and they’ve done it.” Occasionally, yes. And they’ve been waxed by Tornado F3s, Lightnings, F-16As of every hue, German MiG-29s, etc. Of course they’ll win sometimes – as you infer “Mind you, all Air forces having operated both types will tell you that well flown a F-1 still can win a fight vs F-16.” Of course it can. I know RAF Jaguar pilots who have shot down F-16s and F-15s on Red Flag. But would that lead me to claim that the Jaguar is a good air-to-air aeroplane? Of course not. Any more than the drubbing that Indian M2Ks meted out to USAF F-15Cs would lead anyone to suppose that the F-15 was inferior.
“I was 15 years old, fying solo on Piper-Cub, Jodel-D-90 and MS 880 Rallyes when i saw the three competitors F-16/ SAAB 37-E and NMirage F-1/m53 flying at the Paris Air show. Even Dassault didn’t claim the Mirage F-1 M-53 to be better at the time, it actually was qualified as having a “more mature” technology, which was as bad an excuse as that you used now for Raptor.”
“Solo at 15? That’s not legal here, where you need to be 16 to go solo. But whichever way you cut it, we’re virtually the same age, and I know that I hold a current PPL, and that I was also at Paris, and know exactly what Dassault claimed for the F1 – do you remember what they called it, by the way? Eurofighter!”
Why don’t you sak the French Civil Aviation Authorities? All i needed wa my Mum’s agreement…
As a PPLK you’re pretty low in knowledge of the basics, i wonder how much you paid for the licence…
“What i have constantly been doing it to demolish this myth you Brits have been trying to establish on the so called superiority of a German desined Fighter that some MoD fatty have pompeously named after the worse design of WWII.”
“The Typhoon was a great fighter bomber, and rather more successful than the Dewoitine D520, or the Bloch, or…. (you get the picture?) Hardly the worst design of WWII, fool!”
REvisionisn at its best you’re too low for me to pick you up my friend.
And nor is Typhoon a ‘German design.’
YES it is. Obviously you keep ignoring fdact here, aerodynamic arrangements comprising: Long moment harm canard, crqncked and straight delta, chin-mounted dual air intake were designed by MBB when BAe P100 was of a totally different make up.
Trying to rewrite history here again. MBB was testtunelling their design when that of Eurofighter wasn’t even agreed now obviously that all their preliminary design dsolution have been adopted to the finished article, you have the arrogance to deny them like the presence of your own nose in your faece…
“While it drew heavily on TKF 90, the ACA was a Warton led project incorporating elements from MBB’s design.” The Eurofighter thus drew at least as heavily on the ECF and twin-engined P.110 and on other Warton AST 403 submissions (including P.106B) as it did on JF90/TKF90. Moreover, further input into the final Typhoon design was made as a result of design work on EAP, which was a similarly British-led Anglo-German design. The most obviously similar ‘pre EFA’ paper design was P120 rather than TKF90, in point of fact. I’m not in any way claiming Typhoon as a British design – it’s great strength is that it was designed and built exploiting the best that Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain could bring to the party. “
Bull, P110 was side mounted air intakes etc. everyone can see this.
i already scored a kill on you only by being honnest.
You can’t even spell honest……
No but i am weither you can and aren’t.
“I have no clue why you should live in England, since you obviously despise and resent the English. Perhaps if you went home you’d lose the chip on your shoulder. “
It’s not Britain the problem mate, it’s jokes like you making a mockery of everything good it have to offer.
Now i’ll advise you to get back to your flying school and relearn youre basics if ever you’re a pliot because flkying with sdo little understanding of what you’re doing put everyone else into danger.
Fonk2Scorpion82
“1.) Keep the level we had.”
How about you keeping the bull factor out of the equation?
“2.) You self spoke about 9300 kg in your last posts and now you go back to 9100 kg? Sorry but select one number, but don’t change and mix it as it suits your mind”
This was to illustrate woh YOU could come up with this sort of figures, not me.
As far as i am concerned, the weight of OSF was includeed in the empty weight of the aircraft as well as that of SPECTRA during carrier qualification trials. Ther empty weight of M-02 was given for 9,650 kf by the programme manager.
Since then, the number of black boxes added to them have been very limited, in fact LINK 16 termainal and maybe one or two other devicews of limited weight.
So the figure i like to give myself for Rafale C is 9,150 kg maximum.
“3.) Thrust is given in kN right, but weight is not given in kN. So you can decide recalculate weight into kN or recalculate thrust in kg. It doesn’t matter as the result will be the same.”
“4.) Would you allege avionics aren’t taken into account for Typhoon’s empty weight?”
No i don’t, and so far the only reliable source we have giving a remotly accurate figure for Rafales is Revellin-Falcoz.
M= 9.650 kg
C= 9.160 kg
D= 9.585 kg
These are just estimets calculated from his comments. And as a matted of fact i didn’t claim them to be accurate until i could validate them by figuring the evionics/ballast procedure.
My understanding of the matter was good enough to suspect that they needed ballast and they confirmed it with this article of the French Assemblee Nationale LPM.
“5.) You can’t give us non-static figures too. So what’s your point? We can only deal with that what we have and that is static thrust for the moment!”
That’s correct, but as a matter of fact, one orf us is good enough to suggest that M 88-2 is better equiped than EUJ-200 to retain a high level of thrust with altitude. I cxannot confirm this, but it makes sense to me to see Rafale M capable of going passed 40.000 fts in SU-2 configuratrion in less than 120 sec and still supercruise. If one cannot understand how aircraft flyes, how delta wings flyes how can you even roughly evealuated the accuracy of the so called superiority claim made by the Eurofighter fan club?
These are not only subjective, they are based on a total ignorfance of fact as far as Rafale is concerned.
If i couldn’t come up with any proper descriptive of Typhoon aerodynamics i would simply zip it. This doersn’t stop your pal to pretend that its level of instability id whjat makes it more manoeuvrable, and to ignore the very basic principles tha tmakes it fly in the first place.
Not to mention: ignoring the fqct that Tpyhoon is not the only instable aircraft there, that Rafale %age of instability isn’t known as far as i’m concerned in could be equal to that of Typhoon no one here could see the difference.
More to the point, there are basic aerodynamic laws, in particular regarding the delta planform and it is obvious that Typhoon wing sweep angle is steeper than that of Rafale, this means a lower lift/drag ratio and nothing anyone can write about it would change the fact. No level of instability would change this either…
The again we ignore the extra lift enhancing devices Typhoon doesn’t posses, and try to make up that it have been designed for low/speed performances when these weren’t even part of its requiered specifications, and it is so appearent for the enthusiast it’s laughable to pretend otherwise.
You for one were asking how could Rafale canards do it? How come you cannot even see it by now? Do you want to constantly be denying the obvious time and time again.???
What does the leading edge slats higher situated than the wing plan on this wind tunnel simulation??? ETC ETC so maybe one can understand that i’m quiet fade up to try to make legal points where some are just sticknig to legends ands false sciences….
Fonkto all French.
We have an ultra nationalist with little knowledge of aerospacial matters starting by history and finishing at the very basics of aerodynamics.
The guy is so arrogant, he doesn’t hesitate to re-write every books on the industry, and didmiss even the most potent Anglo-american writers as incompetents. Question: How do we care wasting our time with such a low level scribouillard?
Its’ pretty obvious to everyone in this forum now that he have too little to offer in terms of anything he wrote so far appart for political style lines on matter too complicated for him to elaborate on.
Juste take notice: The German fighter pilots them self reccon they lost more than 650 aircraft to the AdA during the invasion of France and this ignorant is claiming otherwise. Typical. He doesn’t know what he writes, hence his inspired and provocative style, he believes that he could ourun a Marathon winner simply by doing the local pub run, as did the whole of the British aerospace industry since 1945.
Dassault designed and flew more prototype than the whole of it since the end of the war. And of course NO it doesn’t make any difference:
But does.
BAe list of cluster-sized FCUK-UPs is large enough to become noticeable
Nimrod: Wing spars didn’t fit the fuselage:
Harrier II, the 35% left by the US manufacturers to design and manufacture, the rear fuselage is cracking on a significant number of aircrafts.
This is leading to a mid-life programme to retrofit them with new rear fuselages while pouring millions of pounds on it to keep the aircrafts flying.
Very same for the central plug added to the Tornado F-3: fatigue life problems too, not to mention the need for MoD to call Electric Boat (a US company) to rescue BAe designer after they screwed up ASTUTE design too.
So this is reality and exactly what this cartoon character tries to deny.
He have no choice but to keep going with the very same anti-French stuff and show the French Aerospacial indutstry (Number ONE in Eurpoe and ranked Number TWO worldwhile) as “inferior”.
Reality is different to these guy wet dreams and desinformation won’t change a thing….
FonkA little more of the same here…2Scorpion82 and the “Journo”…
” It doesn’t matter if you take kg or kN. You can also say kp for thrust. And weight isn’t given in kN as it has simply nothing to do with performance.”
kN is Neuton for static thrust and YERS it does make a lot of difference, as many engines have different thrust in no-static conditions.
So normaly the indusstry stabndard for thrust is the kN, and trying to rewithe the book again is not making you look smarter.
“In fact you have to recalculate the thrust if it is given in kN to make your calculation and the result will be the same.”
Too bad he? Fact is you still can’t come up wit hthe real non-static figures at the end of the day…
“2.) So Typhoon weight growth every year or what? I doubt you have any reliable source to prove the 11350 kg!”
Do you have ANYT reliable source saying Rafale C weight on 9,800kg?
As a matter of fdact, the reilable source proving that Rafale N is way lighter than anticipated (Marina Nationale early web page) and the reason why, i.e. the EVIDENCE that the avionics are included in the aircraft empty weight by design are what you choose to ignore an the one using the BIAS datas for Rafale in a constant basis is YOU.
As far as anyone can see the empty weight for Rafale C is 9,090, Rafale M weighting 9,650 kg. This equiped with the all avionic, SPECTRA and OSF of the equilavent ballasts.
“3.) As Rafales empty weight is classified the 9,1 t figure is not more than an assumption of you based on what was published in the 90’s.”
Conveniently used by yourself to allow you to show how good a would be analyst you are by using the heaviest figures you can find. Much easier to rewrite the aerospace industry procedures and ignoring the clues we keep dinig. Tihs is called mediocrity.
“4.) Internal fuel load of Rafale is 5750 l according to the manufacturer (FoxThree 6?). So how much kg is that? As liquids has different weights and litre is a volume so what is the factor we have to calculate with? ´Many sources give Rafales internal fuel load with 4700 kg. I guess if it would come again to fuel fraction you will take the 4700 kg figure to “prove” the overall superiority of Rafale.”
What do they tech you in the GAF? Are you sure you’re a technician?
“5.) In every configuration Typhoon will carry at least 2 SRAAM.”
“6.) 94,5 kN for EJ200 is warsetting as I said.2
“7.) 75 kN*2 = 150 kN not 155 kN
So who’s data are biased?
Yours. AND THIS IS THERE FOE EVERYONE TO SEE
——————————————————————————–
Fonk,
“Matt Elliott was not on the AoA limit when he had his ‘spectacular’ at Fairford.”
Its AoA was limited by the energy level it had. At the same speed, Rafale would obviously generate more lift and less drag and therefore be able to go through the limits where Typhoon couldn’t go…
As for you writing like you are teaching me anythging, you’d better read the ABC first…
“You keep making unfounded and baseless assumptions about the relative energy states of Typhoon and Rafale in particular circumstances. You base these on your limited understanding of the aerodynamics of different Delta winged configurations, yet ignore the effect of instability, and of the use of canards on a fully unstable configuration.”
Blah-di-Blah typical of the usual arrogant/ignorant style of yours:
Effect of instability doesn’t produce lift or prevent the delta wings to have a higher drag/lift ratio than a more conventional design. That’s your lit’ A funny.
Now for the lit’ B;
“You keep talking about Rafale’s soft limits and ignore the fact that Typhoon has exactly the same thing: “The detent in the aft stick backstop is purely to give the pilot the ability to pull 15% more ‘G’ than the limiting ‘G’ present at the time.”
As everyone understood, this is obviously an available option ONLY when the energy level is compatible with the extra AoA requiered for the extra amount of lift requiered.
So even if the aircraft could have pulled more Alpha it wasn’t going to help as the drag/lift ratio was close to nil and going to get negative, the whole thing would have resulted by an increased sink rate…
As Typhoon wing sweep angle is steeper than that of Rafale, any bigginer would conclude that when the Typhoon was already at the limit of the AoA possible for the energy on tap, there was a higher risk of dynamic stall.
As Deltas doesn’t have a clear staling point but sink instead, pulling more Alpah on Typhoon would have resuletd on a big smoky hole in the runway.
Rafale have more lift on reserve in hte same situation due to a better aerodynamic arrangement and therefore can pull through the soft limit where Typhoon couldn’t because it was a Tarnish said, AoA limited by the energy rate and the lift available.
Simple really.
Why do you keep writing at lower levels than PP1 students and pretend to lecture others on aerodynamics matter which are far above your level of understanding?
It seem to me that you can only pretend that i’m the one being living with a limited knowledge of the subject here.
“The g present at the time is a factor of mass, speed, AoA, configuration etc. The normal backstop will give either a g limit or an AoA limit and will blend seamlessly between them both.”
Nice copy past job, only you forgot the basics as pretentious as you are, all of these factors are depending on the very same thing: i.e. energy rate; therefore at very low speed, the aircraft with the best drag/lift ratio, Rafale will have more on tap.
“In other words it allows the pilot to pull harder to ‘bust’ the Alpha or g limits.”
Not with a negative energy rate NO.
“You keep telling anyone who disagrees with you that they’re not ‘good enough’ and that they need to go ‘back to school’. What’s the French for ‘silly boy’ and ‘hypocrite’? If you accept that Typhoon is more unstable than Rafale, and that its canards have a longer moment arm, then the pitching moment will inevitably be higher. You state that Typhoon’s low speed “aerodynamics are (relative) not as effiscicent” yet cannot substantiate such a claim.”
That’s what you are Jack; a mediocre in the field.
You can’t even understand that %age of unstability doesn’t make Typhoon more manoeuvrable, you could make your mum iron instable, could it turn tighter than Typhoon with an instability level 10% higher? Joke!!!
“This characteristic did force him to fly the aircraftr more agressively at time and just goes to show that some guys reporting the “more spectacular” display of Typhoon are more apreciatice tourists than specialists.”
“I can’t speak for others, but what impresses me about the Typhoon display is the way in which it is able to predictably and accurately point the nose off-boresight – a capability demonstrated most obviously in the HAVV roll manoeuvre.”
Sure mate: how about passed 100* off boresight and 40 kt negative speed. An aerodymnimic arrangement allows for this another doesn’t; difference; a full generation of aerodynamic developement and about 10 time as many prototypes designed/flown, as well as thousand of operational hour experiences. All what you keep denying asd being insignificant.
Typhoon Aeros are dated and its design is inferior in many qways, you’re not even capable to argue in a proper way to prover the conttrary, eventually you couldn’t because this is the truth.
“If Rafale can fly at higher Alpha, pull more g, turn more tightly, change direction more rapidly, roll faster and pitch better then why isn’t this obvious in its displays? Why don’t Dassault incorporate a high alpha velocity vector roll in the Rafale display?”
Not obvious for the guy impressed by a Mirage 2000 style of flight and not capable to notice that Rafale actually turn inside their radiis… And why should one pilot emulate the other?
I have seen Yves Kerherve flying hig-Alpha low speed turns at Farnborugh in a way that woud shame Typhoon now, the fact that you know little about it doesn’t make your point sticks and it doesn’t.. You don’t know Rafale enough, Typhoon just a little more but too little, and have seen not ernough of them to talk about it let alone make a living of it.
“In fact it is quiet obvious that Typhoons deployed there were underweight as the standard aircraft supercruises slower. More clue? The British parliament proposal to sell the first RAF Typhoons and the refusal of India to buy them among other….”
“You keep repeating these lies, but repetition doesn’t make it any truer. The aircraft deployed were bog-standard Tranche 1 jets straight off the Case White flight line. No lighter than any other RAF Typhoon, except the ISPA (which is loaded with instrumentation) and perhaps the T3 jets if they get conformals, etc. Only the heavyweight DAs and IPAs ‘supercruise’ any slower – not ‘standard’ aircraft. Nor has the UK offered these Tranche 1 jets to anybody. Haven’t you realised that the RAF are using these aircraft pretty heavily right now? Don’t you realise that the RAF will need these particular two-seaters as the core of the training fleet. They’re not for sale.”
Blah-di-Blah: AFM/British parliament are liars and you’re god.
“And no BAE/Aliena didn’t screw up with EFA wing, Typhoon FCS was never a problem either, neither was a spanish Typhoon victim of a double flame out during engine iddle test etc.”
“Like every modern jet fighter, Typhoon has had development problems. A minor fuel leak from the Alenia wing, a fin root skin weakness, minor FCS issues,”
More than i was quoting, and “minor” enough to ground Typhoon for 18 month a disrupt the flight-test schedule for another year or so….
“a particular engine issue in one individual engine standard.”
The issue was for reliting the engine inflight… How about the reason for the second engine to flame out? No explainnation here, appart for the one Dassault engineerd gave when the yrejected the design a basic aerodynamic principle too..
“EF GmbH and BAE will give you chapter and verse on any of these historic issues, happy that they are long since solved.”
Not on the rsong for the flame-out no they didn’t.
“And Rafale has had just as many glitches and faults, all of them just as annoying, and just as temporary and short lived as the Typhoon issues you’re trying to refer to, though Dassault are much less open about them. Grow up!”
Ennoynig as alldevelopement clitches, not actually grounding it for nearly two years and causing one of them to crash.
What a sense of measure here, not even the intellectual honnesty to reconise, actually it’s true, Rafale is the only one which didn’t experience a crash due to techgnical problems. (Gripen/Typhoon/F-22).
So here you go deeper in your usual “Best”…
““Just between us; i have been writing all of this without opening my books.” You don’t say. Perhaps you should open your mind and your books before posting any more of this unreadable propaganda and nonsense.”
I strongly suggest you do the same and stop thinking that you know more then most of your collegues, i think it’s not only insulting but also making you look ridiculous as it is more obvious with time that you don’t.
Fonk2Scorpion82
“Yes ok I rethought something and it’s right that airflow over the wings is important as the pressure creates a pull effect, necessary for lift.”
But I wouldn’t confirm that that is the reason why weapons are mounted under the wings.”
That’s the problem with those who doesn’t even know their nose from their backsides when it comes to aerodynamics and keep writing whatever insyead of learning them.
85* of the lift on an average wing profile is generated by the low pressure on the upper wing vs <> 10* for the intrados and <> up to 10* loss.
These figure depends on wing progile and other factors and arer given to first flight student as thumbrule theories…
This is absolute bigginer stuff. You an Jack REALLY HAVE to go back to school…
As for his bit on me having a “limited” knowledge of the subject, the guy write absoluts manure on istability among other things:
Question, if i made you mum iron 45* instable would it outrun Typhoon even with the equivalent TWR?
You two are jokes, no offense, and keep showing yourself absolutly incapable to write whatever without bringing the house down. Appart for this, you’re not IBAS no…
I’ll be back later, i got a score to settle with tis so called “specialised press prfessional”… as for you Scorpion82, i’ll advide learning your basics once again instead of making a funny shame of yourself.
Fonk2Scorpion82 learning to twist at Jacko’s tune…
Quote:
Philippe Rebourg, Dassault test pilot for the Rafale programme.
“So that does not prove that the normal FCS limited AoA is above 32°” etc And that is what I speak about.
Are we trying yourself to some political twist here? do you understand “soft limits” or not?
These are software induced to allow for a safe use of the aircraft in all configurations by any pilots throughout the entire flight envelope.
Fortunatly they are “soft” meaning” the pilots are allowed to go through them in order to save themself and the aircraft from a difficult situation.
In the case of Rafale, a more advanced aerodynamic arrangement allow for lower speed limits and higher Aplphas to be reached even if t he soft one are lower than some other aircrafts…
And that is what I speak about.
How did i compute the AoA on the picture.
First i got the video and i wihh you did actually have a look at it , this would have avoided another senseless debat.
Second i splited this sequency in individual franes.
Then i determined at which point the aircfat was at its lowest and in is this particular frame as Kovy already figured.
Fourth, i corrected the camera paning it is now just by about <> 0.5*.
Then i traced the aircraft trajectory along the horizontal and vertical plans frame by frame.
This gave me AoA by default when its flight path was horizontal just previous the aircraft pulling up…
In this picture it is well above 40* AoA.
About the difference in AoA between the two, only not appearent to the “bean in the eye kind”…
“Right Typhoon’s aerodynamics are better than that of a MiG-29 and that is the fact where I based my STR figure for Typhoon, but as it is only an assumption I took a not to high figure so that I don’t overrate the aircraft.”
Never saying you were, i did give my opinion based on known figures…
“Typhoon was designed for both supersonic performance and maneuverability AND subsonic agility!”
Wrong: you are reinventuing the aircraft history again;
Low speed requerements never was in the case of Typhoon, this is where your lack of unserstanding of even the most basic aerodynamics strikes too and apparently Typhoon politico-industrial history…
Gripen was designed for field deployement on improvised runways, Rafale was for carrier ops.
I’m tired to do repeat the elementary basics for someone who doesn’t give a toss while pretending being neutral, expecially when they keep coming up with the very same stupidities time and time again to try to make points that doesn’t stick:
Typhoon role called for requierement which called for design featured which called for aerodynamic characteristics.
Not the other way around, there is no point into trying to rewrite history and the whole industry books.
It first role was M 2.0 interception of Warsaw pact raids and its wing sweep angle is testament of that.
Its basic aeros ar the same for the Mirage 2000 (steep sweep angle deltas and strakes) which had the same requiered specs. These were cold war established requierements like ti or not.
” About the G-limit of the F-104G I don’t know it’s not an aircraft that ever interested me.”
Well maybe you could have beneficiated to learn about it too.
“How do Rafales canards affect airflow for the wings? They are mounted much higher as well as the LEX. So did they have such a large effect on the airflow around the wings?”
Pretty obvious if you have the slightest interest in the subject. I won’t bother posting anymore pics, you chose to play dumb, your lot.
They do have the same effect than Mirage 2000/Typhoon strakes and much more due to the fact that their envergure and chord are much larger. Rooted where they are, they actually energise the airflow from the suselage down to the LEX/wing junction, the LEX doing the same and extanding this to the rest of the wing too.
According to your logic, mirage 2000 and Typhoon strakes are there for the show only…
As for the bulge where the canard are situated, if you have had a look at the pressure scheme i posted you would have seen that they aslo provide with a fair amonut of fuselage lift (red pressure zones).
Looks like you don’t look, but observation if the most important quality for any harm chair analyst like you, that’s why i’m not interested on trying to get anywhere in collaboration with you.
First, you know too little and apparently prefer to invent or grab the first “source” available to make your point while ignoring the comments of the very people who opened Rafale flight envelope.
I also don’t supposed you bothered checking on the ONERA web site, so i strongly suggest you leave the subject of Rafale since you won’t be learning anything about it anyway…
Second you still manage to refuse to aknowledge the basic laws of aerodynamics and try to re-make impossible point time and time again.
“I don’t know that much about aerodynamics, so I can only quote what I read in that case.”
So why don’t you bloody LEARN about it instead of trying your luck only to complain about people critics later on?
And No Typhoon canard don’t provide the wings with airflow generation:
They are too forward and to low, the airflow is deflected downward by them as they get a pitch up attitude… This is valid for ervery canard surface.
Hence the strakes Typhoon need to compensate for the lack of canard airflow, and more to the point (again i’m tired to repeat for the deaph) these are quanted downward so that when deflected leading edge up, the resulting airflow is blown below the wing and not over it.
The only two delta designed to do that are Rafale and JAS 39 Gripen. I believe you’re Typhoon BIAS despite all what you can say.
“At this base Typhoon’s TWR is slightly better than that of Rafale even if you take 9 t empty weight for Rafale as the base.”
No it ain’t because you keep using the so called “war” setting for EJ-200, and the highest possible empty weight you did find anywhere for Rafale.
With normal setting and the minimum Rafale C weight of 9.090 kg, Rafale c wouold have a better TWR by a margin.
M 88-2 Green have the same “war” setting (60.90 kN) and some of us have reported seen a Rafale with a climb rate to dream of during testing with AdA. You totally failed to mention this too.
Apparently maintainablity and reliability are more important to AdA/MN and the “big figures” are left to those who cannot comprehend the importance of operational realities.
Rafale have the advantage without reducing the engine life-span and risking them to shred themself appart in flight. This is why the M 88-2 green have little chances to see squadron service.
“With increasing loads TWR ratio for Typhoon will be increasingly better than that of Rafale.”
Same as above, your arguments are rather weak there and more and more BIAsed.
The fact remains that M 88-3 is being developed, tested, and cleared for flight.
The bigger EJ-200 is three years late. It should have been flight tested on X-31 in 2002 and chances are it’s never going to be retrofited to Typhoon.
In every case, the next stage for M 88 is 75/110 kN.
“For wing loading it would be a little bit better for Rafale if you take the 9t empty weight as base, or equal with a higher empty weight. However it will change with increasing TOW. That’s a relativ simple calculation.”
That’s totally BIAS comment too. In the same comfiguration Typhoon even with a slight advantage of thrust can’t compete because of its aerodynamic arrangement, since you can’t go against this, the only way to try to prove it to be equal or even better is thrust. It doesn’t work like this.
“Accelerating at 9 g with 500 kts should be no problem for Typhoon too.”
Here we go: rewriting the book of aerodynamics, not a problem, more of it than a delta wing with more lift enhancing devices and a less steep sweep angle, you’re atotal waste of time my friend.
“About the maximum g-limits they are irrelevant at all as to much g can’t be consumed by the pilot and couldn’t be hold as the aircraft would bleed energy to fast.”
Still refuse to learn or actually aknowledge realities.
“The km/h could come from translation of the interview or maybe it was said by the pilot as some pilots give metric numbers to the public as the most “normal” people can’t deal with knots and feet.”
Yeah if my Antie had some she would be my Uncle too.
“If you refer to the ALSR function of Typhoon’s FCS it will engaged automatically only if thrust setting is to low”.
No it’s not, regardless ot the thrust it will if the SPEED is too low, looks like the words Dynamic Stall are still totally alien to you and that a report by a Tpyhoon dispolay plito would actually allow you to interpret the all thing. .
“With full engaged afterburner the system shouldn’t be relevant as the aircraft has enough thrust to turn even at low speeds and the FCS will prevent the aircraft from getting more AoA than allowed. But Typhoon will also use not that much AoA for turning to produce the necessary lift according to airpower.at.”
What a bag of bull this, the speed/Aplha/drag/thrust equation have little to do with the amount of maximum thrust on tap, if the drag/thrust ratio is higher it’s down you go, so you do right now.
I stronlgy suggets you stop writing these bulls you look realy stupid.
“According to my calculations fuel fraction is:
33,5% for Rafale C
31,25% for Typhoon”
“So it’s right that Rafale as an edge here, but only a slightly. It’s right that EJ-200 is larger, heavier than M88-2 and that it wouldn’t fit into Rafales engine bays. However the EJ-200 reaches a higher compression with at least a HP stage less and has a better TWR.”
We all know how you compute your figures for Rafale, you see mine were so with an empty weight above the minum of the C at 9.090 kg.
Your figures are BIASed, as for the EJ-200 slightly superior TWR i never would deny this but what really matters here is NOT this detail, not the specific/static figures but the real operational figure.
M 88-2 have a lower fuel consuption at all flight regime too.
“With same thrust both engines would have the same or an equal fuel consumption however it’s right that EJ-200 burns more fuel with 100% thrust tha M88-2 with 100%. But EJ200 produces also 20% thrust.”
Are you sure you’re a technician?
Does the fact that Typhoon have more wet area and more empty weight to push not a factor?
“No I can’t see the difference.
The Typhoon pilot said:
“with the burners in at low level you can find yourself accelerating despite being at 9g.”
You wouldn’t reconise you birth certificate even if ti was wroaped around a brick and hits you between the eyes.
AGAIN trying to rer-write the basics of aerodynamics.
“He don’t give us the speed or defined what is low level at all, but he says the aircraft will accelerate at 9 g too.”
Low level is low level you’rer twiting and spining, 10.000 ft is considerably higher.
Well there are also more than Typhoon and RAfale to do that. The problem for you is that by design, Typhoon will always need more AoA and drag more.
Now stop pretendinhg to be better than mother nature and ty to break evry rules in all aserspoace books.
“And it is a simple physical law that an aircraft has to unload AoA at low speed to be able to regain energy again. And that’s valid for the Rafale too. You can’t fly endless circles with 9 g at 360 kts neither with Typhoon nor with Rafale.”
Man you are really getting BAD have you ever seen a display where they do just that?
“And the simple rule is you begin a turn with much g and low AoA at, let’s say 350 kts. You will definitely loose energy and that means your g-load decreases while your AoA increases and somewhere you reach a point where it makes not much sense to turn further as your speed is to low to maneuver really effectivley and some aircraft will simply stall.”
Funny they say the opposite.
Definitly, try writing in the Disney channel.
Quote:
This saved the life of the Rafale M pilot, if it had been a Typhoon, he would have made a wet mess of it, as no matter how hard he would have pulled on the stick, there was nothing left there to be given by the aerodynamics of the aircraft.
If Typhoon CFS wasn’t limited the way it is, the pilots would face an increased risk on dynamic stall.
“Earlier in the thread it was said Typhoon was flown with anAoA of 70°, so it’s not an aerodynamical limit but one set by FCS software”.
First Typhoon automatically recovered form this atitude, it was NOT manualy flown through this and in any case it is still more than 40* alpha of difference.
Second, Typhoon CFS limitation are not only AoA but also speed related, as a matter of fact to prevent it to depart, as for Rafale they never managed to put it into a stall this proves how little you undersdtand the differeence about the two.
Dynamic Stall do you copy or is this too far away from your intellectual capacities? Yes it must be.
Funny, you did NOT understand a single word of what i wrote i doubt very much you even tried to and it looks like it.
End of the attempt to make your education, and give yourself a favour, learn your basics, I won’t bother arguing with you from now on you proved too mediocre a conversation.
So good night
FonkA little corrective to twist and spin techniques…
“1) Korea ranked the Rafale first and buy Eagles for political reasons. I happen to think so too, but Korea say otherwise, officially.”
Maybe but Rafale was no more mature as you put it than Typhoon in S’pore: Poor excuse for Typhoon dismissal in both case ans Rafale was still rated higher.
“2) a quick avaluation in Netherlands put the Rafale really ahead of the Typhoon. There was no evaluation.”
Nice piece of desinformation: Had to figure an explaination for the difference is rating again…
The Typhoon was flight-tested and rejected like Rafale appart for one thing, the French aircraft was quoted a lot lower than Rafale after they evaluated them, not everyone need a year and a half to make up their mind, they chose F-35 without even seing the blueprints as being the mostr advanced solution…
—–
Dutch fighters competition results:
F-35 : 697/850
Rafale : 695/850
Eurofighter : 585/850
—–
“3) RSAF said the Typhoon “No thanks”. The Singapore MinDef said “No Thanks” – the RSAF said something else entirely.”
No they did not, did they say yes thanks? You xcan keep this sort ofthungs for teenage turtles comic fan Jack, poluitical correctness does little to hide Typhoon previous low ratings and rejection and this one was even more spectacular…
“4) In Austria, the Typhoon was opposed to the mirage and in few years, they will have a very basic Typhoon The main competitor in Austria was Gripen. Austria didn’t shortlist Rafale. They need Tranche 1 capabilities (A-A only) but are getting T2 standard jets.”
So what, fact remains that Typhoon didn’t “beat Rafale during this evaluation either.
“5) Greece suddenly decided to buy overpriced Typhoon without any evaluation. Dassault make a bid 15% lower.
If I must believe an article in “Le Point” the french secret service asked to a greek minister why his brother in law got a huge fund movement on an account in Lebanon and the following week Greece dropped the Typhoon.
1) There was an evaluation, though nothing like Singapore’s.
2) The bids were based on through life support costs as well as unit procurement cost. Dassault were not cheaper.
3) I hope you have a good lawyer.
4) The competition is still running.”
Precisely, Typhoon still did NOT beat Rafale in ANY of the evaluations they were pited vs each other, so we still can clearly see a pattern here and it show that everywhere they competed, Rafale finished ahead by a margin…
Nice exercise of damage limitation, but it won’t do anything for your case nor change facts, and fact remains that the so called “world beater” have been an also-ran to French and US aircraft everywhere they meet in contests.
“Sorry, the single source I know about that is an article (smiling eastern or something like that).
Eastern Smile was the name of the RAF deployment of the aircraft to Singapore. I know of at least three articles about the deployment. I wrote one of them and know who wrote the others. I know who I spoke to, and I’ve talked to the other authors about who they talked to. I could embarrass loads of French and American and Singaporean people if I named my sources, and I can guarantee that no-one could give you a BAE, EF GmbH or RAF name who talked to the press about the Singapore evaluation. Believe it or not, it doesn’t matter one iota to me, but the Singapore sources were independent, which is why the articles were written. Had it just been some BAE PR bloke saying “Ah well, we won the evaluation” do you think we’d have paid it any attention?”
Like you care about embarassment…
Frankly we’re laugthing, the most optimistic of all article of all was writen by you isn’t it?
At the way you write about Typhoon but also Dassault and Rafale in particular, are WE supposed to take you seriously at all?
And yes, the Spanish representative of EADS was saying a week or so before Typhoon rejection that they were close to a contract… We read the articles, and thought for the most that they were totally BIAS and writen by either guys who were on Eurofighter GMBH payroll or a bunch of ingnorants.
I can tell you that this sentiment is now even stronger and growing because you guys cannot beggin to understand French aircrafts nor what they eare capable of doing for their customers.
Now i suppose BAe sold a load more Tornado F-3s on the export Market than Dassaults Mirage 2000s…
“Just between us; i have been writing all of this without opening my books.” You don’t say. Perhaps you should open your mind and your books before posting any more of this unreadable propaganda and nonsense. I admire your ability to speak three languages, but if you’ve been here 14 years your English ought to be better than this, surely?”
Sorry say again? Irony coming from the master of propaganda? You wouldn’t even try top oppose any proper arguments on the subject which is the reason why aircrafts are flying, well or less well.
Let’s see:
1) Typhoon 18 month grounded: dubbed the “Hangar Queen”
No FCS problem there, BAe was also responsible for producing the faulty software/harware that lead to F-22 last crash.
We’re amazed at the level of expertise here and of course this is no information but propaganda again, good your fellow journalists doen’t read your prose in these forums…
2) Dassault retires an aircraft which was flying with a FBY FCS since fourty years, Mirage IV, III NG, 2000s, 4000 and Rafale A/B/C/M never experience anything of the sort…
3) EFA crancked delta which centre of pressure were changing assymetrically with supersonic speed (logically when it is about 50% of the chord, not a problem (lost its so precious instability at these speed).
Here again your lack of knoledge of the laws of serodynamics are preventing you to understand this logic, while after my B.I.A i already was well aware of the phenomenon.
I thought the first Dassault Delta, the MD 550 was actually 3 years older than me, having being flown in 54…
4) AFM, which forum you are flooding with this desinformation, reported the loss of the Spanish AF/EADS CASA Eurofighter Typhoon XCE.16-10 following an in-flight iddle test, when the second engine flamed-out at 40.000 ft and M 0.7.
I thought Dassault rejected the dual-chin mounted intakes on the ground that one engine failure would affect the airflow of the remaining one, during an interview of Rafale M carrier qualification manager; Mr. Revellin-Falcoz in 2000/2001 in Flight International.
Typhoon air intakes are qualified of “bizarres” at Dassault, they see them as “as advanced as that of Concorde as far as the reacquired specs were concerned”.
No need to fear any embarassment here but does it hit a nerve twith you that rafale better design allow for the same speed with no moving parts?.
Though for the ethic of journalism and not looking too good either for the British Civil Aviation Authorities if they delivered you with a licence with this level of knowledge. Any Paraglider would understand the problem…
“One day, every fighter will use AESA radar. But not just yet. Today it’s limited by cooling, performance and reliability issues. The USAF have run a squadron strength AESA trial on the F-15C, and yet still find the original mechanical APG-63 operationally superior.”
So is your aerospacial culture my friend, as far as the 12F is concerned it didn’t take them too long to sort these problems, this is the benefit of fielding a new technology and having the will to iron out the problems.
“Getting to your gimbal limit (putting the target on the edge of your radar’s scan limit) as rapidly as possible is of crucial importance in the BVR environment. That’s not a ‘Cold War’ only tactic – it’s a foundation stone for BVR combat, and is the reason you want an agile platform for BVR. This is why instantaneous turn rate (you’re not turning far) is more important in BVR than sustained turn rate. I suspect that even Fonk would acknowledge that Typhoon’s instantaneous turn is at least initially faster than the less unstable Rafale’s. Fonk might not appreciate the significance of gimbal limits, and minimises the significance of a 10° difference (that’s 10° each side of the centreline!) but anyone who has even heard the term f pole will understand.”
Twist and spin pure Number ten revisited again….
The frontal engagement at M 2.0/launch/break IS a cold war tactic to face a large number of Warsaw-pact assaillants.
Now the buzword is “supercruise” as it is widely reconised that IR signature at full AB and M 2.0 is detectable from hundred of miles even from the front sector by any good TCS/IRST sensor.
Enters OSF and Elvis is runing off the building and again, this is called operational reality i believe…
As for the RBE2 Gimbal limitations they are NOT preventing them to beat any type of previous generation fighters they encounbtered on BVR.
The limitation is 10* each side of the longitudinal axis, 60* instead of 70*, this i know and keep saying to Brits clasiming flasly RBE2 range as being the problem as it is significantly higher than RBY wich can practically detect and lock-on a F-15 at more than 140 km.
Only some of us actually servicing the radars can come up with these sort of infos, after being briefed by a US exchange pilot mamazed at the fact that he just beated his old squadron collegue flying F-15 Cs on a BVR engagement.
“This is why instantaneous turn rate (you’re not turning far) is more important in BVR than sustained turn rate.”
Rafale’s is superior to that of Typhoon by up to 5* sec and in any case it’s not the lateral gimbal which would count during the whole duration of the turn…
Plus the fact that for an equal M 2.0 speed, the limitation is the number of Gs available and that the turn radii will result on it seems to elude you.
Rafale is reputable for changing direction faster than anything else, ask the US/USN pilots among others…
Then again operational practicality is eluding you, this scenario is for a one vs one only, the most unlikely scenario.
The sweedish AF have long came up with the solution to this problem and for good reasons:
The first aircraft of a pair launching and breaking away, in factgetting out of the target weapon envelop, the second guiding the AAM from a safer distance via the shooter mid-course guidance and their own data links.
Air warfare have changed since the tranch war, but since the 12F F1 are not yet equiepd with the system, despite the Ms having qualified it and being likely to be upgraded soon, they had to do the old fashion way and still won vs every opponents….
“Mechanical arrays are old fashioned technology, but still offer better performance,”
Not to RBE2 NO, you don’t KNOW the French radar performances at all. And there is something you still carefully forget to mention again, Raptor is nowhere near as close to offer the level of LPI of RBE2 or any other ESA/AESA radar.
With modern ECM suites as such fitted on Mirage 2000/Rafale, the radar beams would actually give Typhoon position away to the supposed target long before they are returned to the Typhoon radar array.
This is an actual MN/AdA operational requierement, the radar performance being harmonised with the AAMs engagement envelop is more important than raw range.
Range is not “la panacee”, and once again you failed totally to apreciate the difference between catalog figures and opertional reality.
“But not with AMRAAM, in the nearer term. And reach is a function of the launch platforms speed and acceleration, as well as the missile’s own performance. If Typhoon accelerates quicker to launch its BVRAAM, that missile will go further. If Typhoon can support that missile to greater ranges because of its own radar performance, effective reach will be greater.”
Same as above for the radar performances.
“And reach is a function of the launch platforms speed and acceleration,”
And range is a function of all the above plus the missile aerodynamic charactersistics, that of MICA bweing vastly superior to AMRAAM allowing for a zoom-up engagement performances AMRAAM users can only dream of.
MICA is quoted for a declassified 80 km range by DGA and its aerodynamics as well as TWC nozzles allows for a far greater non-escape-zone at the end of its operational range.
AMRAAM is notoriously lacking inboth these area, as demonstrated the low percentage of hit obtained during the last combat operations where is was used i.e. Desert Storm/Kosovo.
Up to four AMRAAMS to down a Mig 29 in operational conditions, you wouldn’t be worrying a Mirage 2000-5F/9 pilots in these sort of scenarios.
F-15 Cs flies a lot faster than Typhoon and they didn’t.
This again is total catalog copy/paste work, nothing to do with operational realities.
“MMI is harder, because it’s so much down to subjective judgement, and it necessarily relies on my quoting what often nameless sources have said, though Typhoon’s huge HUD is obvious at first glance, and the brightness of the displays in direct sunlight is also apparent. I can only enjoin you to go and look at the manufacturer’s stands at the next Farnborough or Paris. Though the cockpits look very similar when ‘static’, you’ll notice that the Rafale pilot has to work much harder (eg make more switch selections) to achieve display and mode changes, and that automatic display changes in response to mode changes are less ‘intuitive’. Just wait for Fonk and PilotWAT to leap in and deny it, but anyone who has seen the two cockpits in operation, and who knows what they are looking at, will say the same. This makes Typhoon easier to fly, reduces pilot workload, increases pilot capacity, and thereby enables greater situational awareness. General Jumper expressed particular admiration for Typhoon’s MMI after flying the aircraft.”
Problem: General Jumper didn’t fly Rafale, YOU are visiblym NOT a fighter pilot and Typhoon not being a threat for F-25 in the export market, it’s obvious the US are pusshing for it to make room for their future littler “marvel”. We’re not stupid.
As your informations can be so inacurate i believe there is a margin for error here too, furthermore as far as i’m concerned, the all thing won’t make it easier to fly the aircraft and you aslso counterdict Chris Yeho himself.
“but anyone who has seen the two cockpits in operation, and who knows what they are looking at,”
At the view of your comments so far i doubt as does many other including active AdA menbers that you do.
“bvJust as well that Rafale is being flown by French supermen, who are inherently better pilots than anyone else in Europe…… If I could be bothered to find the rolleyes Gif, I’d shove it in here!”
The French supermen constantly top the score sheet with PGM in every conflict they are involved in alongside the rest of the coalition and in front of the USAF/USN as well, this not with Rafale but Mirage 2000s and SEMs.
Don’t want to remind you further of the difference between them and the RN/RAF recent records in conflicts where the opposition wasn’t quasy inexistant.
“Unlike you chaps, I can demonstrate my neutrality”
No you can’t neither any level of technicality, or some knowledge of the subject, or some objectivity or the necessary intellectual honnesty; only a style that we’ll all remember in the future i believe…
“I don’t ever claim that BAE are the best, nor that anything is great ‘just because its English’ and I can find great things to say about lots of French programmes, aircraft, and people. But I’d be surprised to see any of you lot making serious criticism of any major French programme or aircraft, to admit to any error, defect, mistake or ****-up and I’d be astonished to see you offering fulsome praise of any UK programme or aircraft.”
Well for one thing you’ll be hard pressed to make any claim of the sort with BAe recent record wouldn’t you?
Questions:
When was the last time there was any fully indigenously high performance/front line aircraft was designed in Britain?
Is there any of them in RAF service and when Sea-Harrier retires in RN service?
You are taking pride on a preliminarly German designed aircraft (TFK-90), based on their own aerodynamic arrangements, EFA was NOT BAe/Aliena draft but a clear derivated from the canard/crancked delta/dual chin mounted intake of MBB.
BAe P-110 was rejected on the ground that it was inferiro to Mig-29/Su-30.
As far as we and the rest of the worls is concerned, the British Aerospace industry haven’t made a major impact in the fighter buziness since Sea Harrier.
Then again you can say thanks to the French engineer who designed the side mounted exhaust to allow Rolls-royce to add vectoring to them.
So come up with the criticism you are expecting us to make about the Dassault Mirages, i was there loading the Mirage III Es on BA -102 you weren’t born and you hare the flaming arrogance to try to tell me what the hell it is like in real life/Operation?
I doubt very much you understand half of what you write on the subject and i would strongly suggest you read a lot more of the books you seems to be dismissing so much.
“if it runs counter to your assumptions of Rafale’s superiority, and the superiority of the French aviation industry. Feel free to prove me wrong.”
No problem about this. France aerospacial industry does a lot more with less, we are the only country in Europe to field both Navy and Air Forces equiped with our own designed engineered and produced aircrafts for more than 50 years so. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that clearly…
I think the problem erests with you and your inhability to accept the fact that your own national industry is going down the gutter,the rest of the British specilaised press is making justifilable noises about it, you’re among the none trynig to paint a totally false picture here.
Rewriting history, twisting reality, changing fact, figures, denying them is not going to get you anywhere, in the EU only SAAB and Dassault have a capabiltiy long gone away from BAe.
Who said Rafale was so superior? Its aerodynamics are superior yes, on the systems themself, neither YOU nor I can comment expecially not after being only seating on a cockpit and given the tourist tour by a suspiscious Frenchman. Plus i doubt very much you were demonstrated the full capabilities of the avionics on your credential alone…
You do it by “i’ve been told” but cannot come up with any level of clear understading of the primary reason fo aircraft performances and this is aerodynamics as far as non-stealth aircraft are concerned, even stealth have issues with these.
Unsurprisingly you know less about the aviation world than most Air Cadet i have been across including me at 16, this also apply to your pal Jimlad, a so called Navy Officer who couldn’t understand the phenomene of ground clutter when i was aware of as early as 1975 having to work with Cyrano IV radar technicians. What the ekke do we know?
“Better than Gripen? Hornet? F-16? MiG-29? Su-27? No.”
Wrong, twist and spin again: first, Gripen is of a different generation; eihter you’re really ignorant of the fact, either you’re really bad at spining too.
Then, you still cannot comprehend how they manage to beat these all in mock combat day in day out. Indians Flanker, German Mig 29, all types of NATO F-16 etc, the best of the Ada believde they could outurn Mig 29 with their 2000-5 Fs and they’ve done it.
The Greek AF Mirage 2000 pilots are requiered to have flown the F-16 for a large number of hours: Reasons, they have the toll to beat the Turkish F-16s. And they do it.
Here again the aerodynamics and history let you down by a fair margin. Neutral you? By ignorance this become a total impossibility a little more each day.
Mirage 2000 wins 90% of all its engagement vs F-16, so learn your stuff you’re not getting any better.
During their first deployement in India, AdA mirage 2000C pilots were surprised to see the Flanker engaging them in turining fight, theAdA pilots were more used to train for BVR, guess what, they still managed to get the higher WVR kill/loss ratio at the end of the exercise.
So it’s either the French aircraft or the French supermen flying them…
“The whole debate reminds me of the arguments I heard in the early 70s, when French enthusiasts loudly claimed that the F1E (not that F1E, the big engined one!) was better than F-16”
May i respectfully ask how old you were at the time?
I was 15 years old, fying solo on Piper-Cub, Jodel-D-90 and MS 880 Rallyes when i saw the three competitors F-16/ SAAB 37-E and NMirage F-1/m53 flying at the Paris Air show.
Even Dassault didn’t claim the Mirage F-1 M-53 to be better at the time, it actually was qualified as having a “more mature” technology, which was as bad an excuse as that you used now for Raptor.
As for F-16 even myself realised how much better of a turning machine it was and keep qualifying it of stroke of genius.
Mind you, all Air forces having operated both types will tell you that well flown a F-1 still can win a fight vs F-16, ignorance must be you middle name.
Not everyone is suffering from this “mine’s bigger” syndrome of yours, my passion is aviation and i doubt very much we share it.
“better than Viggen, just as Mirage III had been ‘better’ than Lightning, MiG-21, F-4, F-104, etc. Of course it was better! It was French.”
Viggen and F-4 are a different generation of aircrats to start with, showing further how little you know aobut the all thing, Lightning II was a brillant interceptor plaged with weapon systems problems an a very short range.
Mirage III C became the first M 2.0 Mig killer and if you read what i was writing about it and the Migearlier in this topic you’ll realise i already scored a kill on you only by being honnest. Fox one you’re smoke and light.
My flight instructor flew Mig 21 when the Russian Normandy-Niemen squadron visited Reims in 1973, i knew both aircraft flight envelope and main characteristics two years later, i was even given an advanced course in comparative gunnery between the GSH 23 and DEFA 530, inluding shellballistics and the AoA/G load corrections needed for hiting a target in a dogfight. The Mirage III DEFA wqere better suited to dogfighting too.
Then, i was explained the problem of high stick forces with the Mig controls and drag/lift ratio of the deltas wing (with and without stabiliser) etc.
I’m quiet sure you weren’t in age to read yet or you did not age too well maybe you lack of interest on the wlole subject left you down…
So what the hell are you bubbling about Jack? all you have demonstrated us with this attitude of yours is how little you know and how much you think you know.
I know little compared to this guy, he flew Spitfire, P51, P47, everytihng in French (and some US) inventory up to Mirage 4000 and was never ever pretending.
Pretending is all you got apparently.
You and your pals are windfull balloons compared to these people and you keep thinking that i’m a teenager teasing the hell out of your bunch for the pure pleasure to flame, i’m a troll me, yeah. HE HE HE. We all can see this by npw.
So i’d be gratefull for you to just cut the bull and consider that there is someting genetically disturbing to you, to see Dassault been the last European manufacturer capable of designing a fully indigenous high performance aircraft in Europe, second being SAAB as they equip their aircraft with liscenced US engine, expertise is NOT some god gift, it come from hard and constant work.
If you decided to leave the effort needed to know your stuff years ago, this is no reasons to keep insulting everyone else intelligence and falsly assume we know little about it.
What i have constantly been doing it to demolish this myth you Brits have been trying to establish on the so called superiority of a German desined Fighter that some MoD fatty have pompeously named after the worse design of WWII.
I was fourteen i knew about the high loss rate of the Typhoon both vs fighters and in ground attack missions just reading the Big Show of Pierre Closterman who was flying Spitfire Mk 9 in cover mission for them. No one wanted to volunteer for a Typhoon squadron.
Typhoon superior? No; Rafale? Aerodynamically yes no doubts about that at all and this is something of a tradition for Dassault.
Weither they are more or less equal by systems is another question but they certainly aren’t too far from each other there either, particularly on the radar field as you keep ignoring operational realities there too.
So welcome back to hearth mate, as a matter of fact even if you fly aircrafts, i now believe firmly that your spirit never actually lifted itself above ground level.
Try Formula One.
FonkMore spin and twist my friend? Good for politics, bad for tackling this subject…
Typhoon enters service, Mirage IV retires as the first Dassault electric Jet. Yep!!! Electric flight control since 1964. How about, you know so little all your flat stilist exercises won’t change reality.
How much does BAe and Eurofighter pays you to post all these nonsense?
Nigh night.
Fonk2PILOTHGT…You’re welcome to dig it since it’s the best you can do…
:p Apparently you like the smell of it too.
We’re all hears and no definitly not, we’re not in the same league as to pretend this sort of thing doesn’t happen, it’s typically your style, sorry mate. We’ve been missing the rubrique chien ecrases! Welcome back…
And about my hands, or rather my fingers you know how i use them from now…
So about you do the same and actually bring something on remotly interesting, because we can dig the lowest level too and there is some more on your side…
Well, done as lot of typing since your last very apreciated visit, did you get your educative video about Rafale Typhoon emulation?
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=051E9WO2
As for the info, as wearly as the film was out i had it posted elsewhere thanks.
Please change tone will ya?
Fonk2OPilotTHX
I refer you to the previous post of mine with a picture of the Typhoon in question…. (previous page). “For the real enthusiats with the guts to learn… “
“still somes buggs in the eurobugger?”
And a proper answer to this question too… conseil d’ami, copie, sauve dans un floppy et lis ca a la maison…
For the video it’s all here too…
voila quelque links interesssants
http://homepage.mac.com/pgre/iMovieTheater2.html
FonkAccording to some US military forum
Rafale RCS is a whoping 50% smaller than that of Typhoon.
Not surprisingly if one look at their shapes and radar return reduction features…. According to some Typhee fans, shape doesn’t matter…
Try to tel this to the designers of the stealthier fightet ever designed…
Fell free to conclude, but obviously these are only “pretty” pictures and the writers are either working for Dassault or incompetants…
Note; i got vey much the same visual evidences as well as technical desrciptif on the IR signature of both engines…
Sign In
