Obviously there is only one god. and no it’s not me… LOL

“Rafale/Typhoon:

“Top Speed: M 2/M 2,02”

False.

Even Eurofighter themself recon the Typhoon is limited to M 2.0 by design; and this is a Dash speed, not a sustained one as Rafale A demonstrated, they would advertised it loudly as is the case with virtually everything they do.

If it does go to M 2.02 it is purely accidental depending on conditions, and nearly every aircrafts have a %age margin in Max perfs of the sort.

So this would apply to Rafale too, these Max speed datas are not only false but also a little BIAS to say the least…

We still are trying to etablish Rafale Max speed, so your figures are a lot more than just assumption as you obviously cannot “see” what would make it go at M 2.0 by design alone….

Datas from web sites varies from M 1.8 which is the requiered specs to M 2.1, soi we could claim the higher figure as well… Advantage Dassault in design and speed.

“Top Speed at S/L: 1390 kph (M 1,14)/1390 kph (M 1,14)

False

Mach speed differes according to atmospherique pressure, one wouldn’t give the ground level speed in Mach number but in KTs which is normaly either ground speed or corrected wind speed.

Jane’s does it by pure professionalism for those like you who doesn’t understand Nautical miles 1 Nm= 1.852 m but less regarding writers would come up with the M 1,14 figure which is that of Rafale A demonstrated prior to Farrnborough airshow 1988.

The datas for the other Rafales haven’t been disclosed yet and the one you got are obviously wrong.

Requierement for Rafale C/D/Ms was 750 Kt which was a little optimistic, but for your info, at 0 Ft and on a normal atmosphere model, this would give you <> M 0.98.

“Supercruise: M 1,2/M 1,2-1,3”

Now what a feat! The Mirage III Avon supercruised at the same speed in 1962… Do you understand the usefuleness of supercruising?…

Eurogighter are giving the figure for commercial reasons, Dassault are not as the rest of the datas for the amateurs and concurents to guess wrongly…

“Ceiling: 18000 m/18000 m”

What ceiling? Max or Operational?.. Same as above for the reason for posting this and the results, ask Singapore MinDef what they thought of it all…

“Climb rate: >305 m/sec /~315 m/sec”

No one at Eurofighter is giving this sort of figure, i would imagine the two are fairly similar appart for the advantage in aerodynamic which obviously give Rafale a better climb rate with any warload…

An aircraft with little fuel and little playload have a a little usefuleness even if its climb rate is that good…

“Climb time to: 40000 ft in <2 min/42000 ft 1,5 min.”

Done with Santa’s dear puling it upward. YeP!!!

You’re obviously taking the mickey again, have to be better for Typhoon no?

Most analysts are giving bot aircrafts for 305 M/sec in optimum conditions and Typhoon is the aircraft which have taken on weight, not Rafale…

Climb to 30,000 Ft from 200 Kts to M 1.5= 2 mn 30 sec given by Eurofighter…

We believe you can you give us the source please before i call you a liar? As for the 40.000 ft of Rafale it’s done with a M weighting at <> 500 Kg more than the C and equiped with a 1,250 l tank and 4 X AAMs: Advantage Dassault by design.

“G-Load: – 3,2 to 3,6 g/+9 g /-3 G/+9 g”

“g-acceleration: 10-12 g/sec /15 g/sec”

What sort of acceleration are you talking about? Vertical? Longitudinal?

In both case if these were true, Typhoon would have an ITR and STR higher than Rafale this is not the case.

“ITR: 32°/sec />30°/sec”

“STR: 24°/sec /25°/sec”

“Operational AoA: 32°/30°-35°”

There again, you fail to take notice, the picture of Rafale i posted with the caption regarding the subject shows it at more the 40* AoA, the soft limit is something the hard limit is Rafale easly with a 40* AoA advantage at least. Advantage Dassault by design.

“Rollrate: 270-290°/sec /250°/sec”

“range on internal fuel: >2100 km/2600 km”

If anything, this is the mark of pure ignorance of: Design/Aerodynamics/ Operational conditions of military aircrafts etc. The full monthy.

Typhoon range was about 25% shorter on full internal fuel before it was added 250 l intenral capacity.

With 750 Kg it was 750 Kts vs 1000 Kts. The 250 Kg extra fuel doesn’t make much difference as Typhoon will still have a shorter range that Rafale for the given fuel fraction.

Exept if the engines had a lower fuel consuption, it still would use a good part of it pulling the extra weight.

Also aerodynamically it will not be as effiscient with heavy loads so all in all the more “useful” it is the more the difference… This is where design is showing to be much better on Rafale.

Fuel fraction is a matter of ballance, too much and weight is a penaly at full internal fuel, too little and range suffers, this stil depends on engine specific fuel consumption for a target range as well as requiered specs.

That of typhoon was always computed lower as its requiered role wasn’t long range penetration as well as air superiority, we take notice that you fail totaly to remember that, among numerous other things.

Advantage Dassault by design.

“ferry range: 5593 km/3700 km+”

That’s about the only thing you can’t invent as it is too obvious Typhoon cannot carry five fuel tanks.

“max. CAP range: 1853 km/1389 km”

Sorry say again? In which configuration? AdA and MN doesn’t use the same, 1,250 l, 2000 l, 3000 l, 1,150 l CFTs?

All of us can see what you’re trying to do here, as you can’t prove Typhoon to be “superior” otherwise than posting bogus figures that no one can actually check on.

NOW; for the weight, you fail to aknowledge the rules of the industry so let’s try to educate you a little:

Rule 1) There is always the need for margin at design stage.

So, definitly NO:

Rafale C-01 wasn’t structurally lighter than the other aircrafts as they need to have a precise CG to get the best datas possible, its target empty weight was 8,500 Kg and the structural strenghtening you mentioned lead to the increase we know. In the case of Rafale M 9,650 kg.

Rule two: Patching up doesn’t work:

The avionics were also part of the empty weight in terms of volume and Max target weight.

Quoting Jane’s all the world’s Aircratf 1999/200:

“Dassault Electronique/Thompson CSF/Matra defensive aids package named SPECTRA (Systeme pour la Protection Electronique Contre Tous les Rayonements Adverses): Wholly internal IR detection, Laser warning, electromagnetic detection, missile approach warning, jamming and chaff/flare launching; nine prototypes ordered: total weight 250 Kg (551 lb):”

Yep you all read well even the chaff/flare dispenser was part of the 250 Kg (551 lb) target weight.

So when the programme manager was giving M for 9,650 Kg “slighlty above 500 Kg heavier than C these can be considered as much closer to the reality than yours.

Rafale M empty weight includes all avionics as it was needed to gather precise datas for carrier qualification.

i.e. AoA, approach speed, glide slope angle etc.

In the case of Rafale, it was designed from the outset as multi-role and having to replace Jaguars, Mirage F-1, IV, 2000, but more importantly, F-8 Crusaders.

This means that the airframes were to have 80% commonality but that the M would be heavier due to the extra airframe strenghtening needed for carrier Ops.

This was the case for M-01 and M-02 which carried the carrier trials at a representative empty weight and CG.

You seems to think that everyone else is as stupid as to design an aiframe too light and then have to redesign it later or as to ignore the history of the aircraft as much as you do, this is not the case.

Looks like you’re trying to rewrite Rafale’s politico-industrial history to make it look like that of Typhoon, the only problem for you is, you know too little on both of them to make an impression.

Also, I find it a little strange that you cannot begin to aknowledge a few important details here:

Requiered specs for Typhoon have changed and so did its empty weight for some very obvious reasons.

Rafale didn’t, as it was designed from the outset as multi-role and carrier-borne aircraft, still, this doesn’t appear to hit a nerve with you.

Rafales M-01/02, with or without OSF and other avionics had their empty weight kept at the same level as did their CG.

Since you dared mentioning the landing gear: For your infos, they were designed from the outset for 3 m/sec and 6,5 m/sec vertical speed and it is the bring back limitation which could haver caused a problem; it didn’t.

An increase in Max TOW would make too much difference to them at all. There again your ignorance of Rafale history and any evidences thrown at you is striking.

RAF Typhoons needed a ballast for correcting the CG in the absence of gun, obviousdly it’s an obscure point but for anyone flying like i do (occasionaly still) it’s pretty obvious.

“I doubt you are a pilot to judge so you have to rely on what other people are saying to you.”

Well if you did like me have any flying lesson you wouldn’t be writing this bag of bulls in the first place.

The funny thing about you is that you have the guts to write complicated “datas” without having the slightest of chance to understand half of what you actually write.

Note that i have provided with the evidence of the weight issue and much more, but you chose to ignore reality in order to keep your fantasist writing up.

So what is valid for Eurofighter is not fo Rafale then?..

We’re laughing at the amount of BIAS and inacuracy in display here, you invent in order to keep Typhoon a so called “advantage” in TWR, BUT…

Everyone who knows Dassault just that little bit knows this; they managed a far better aircraft with Mirage from 2000 C to 2000-5 with NO increase in weight so there are aircrafts which doesn’t get fat.

Also, you forgot to do your home work, and don’t know that the increase in %age of light materials used on the final Rafale are accounting for a gain of about one ton.
You seems to like Jane’s as a source of datas, well now you can check thast one too.

As a matter of fact Dassault are constantly looking for weight saving measures and as opposed to you they wouldn’t design a weaked aerodynamic platform only to fit the kitchen sink on it and loose its manoeuvrability, question of brain power.

Something else, avionics is composed of electronics, they get more powerfull and lighter as time goes unlike your arguments.

As for just designing the airframe and then adding all the goodies into it, it’s more suited for your collection of FROG/airfix plastic kits than real aircrafts, expecially instable delta canards.

In a few words, there is little in your post that make any sense to the enthusisats appart the fact that you invent and distort a will. Good one.

Now questions time:

Rafale C/D/Ms are smaller than Rafale A, one can see that technology demonstrators are usualy heavier and as a matter of fact the followers uses 10/15% more light material, how would 500 Kg of avionics add 1,250 kg to it as you allege?

Why do you chose to interpret Jane’s in what they mean by “equiped”, as is the way they give Rafale empty weight for the past three years but cannot be representative of the aricraft weight at all as i demonstrated again.

I never heared before of Avionics being optional for a modern multi-role aircraft and as everyone knows by now, the avionics on Rafale were either fitted or replaced by ballasts for datas collection. Too bad you’re not a pilot….

To finish, the clue that says it all about you writing these, the total inhability to understand aircraft design and pretend that Typhoon canards are actually used for roll.
This, AGAIN is not only aerodynamically but also mechanically not viable and every beginer out of a flynig school would know that one…

Referes yourself to Eurofighter own web site…

I really liked the part where you asked someone esle if they knew Typhoon, you’re the worse i have been reading ever. You obviously know zith about it too.

“Yes the Rafale seems to have at least one interesting feature for a delta/canard and that is the LEX.”

I believe the rest is fare above your intellectual capabilities, You’re forgiven for understanding less of it than my goldfish…

About Rafale LEX: They are designed to provide with an energised airflow above the wing, by generating (Vertices) the very same way that the canards surfaces does,
So there is no point (forthose who knew better) in trying to imply that their position relative to the air intake prevent them doing this.

There is no difference weither they root where they do now or on a fuselage like on F-16.

The important point is that they are doing what they are designed to do, for those who have seen Rafale flying often enough, they will have noticed that.

So we established two thing here: First the so called increase on weight of Rafale is pure manure, it suits Typhees fans but is far remote from reality.

Second, their arguments rests on the same trechnics as the one we dislike: Total inperpretation offacts, distortion, invention etc…

All what these guys are trying to do, knowing damn well that Rafale is a superior design, is to “prove” that Dassault had the same problems.

The real problem is they don’t know about both aircrafts not to have to assume, invent, rewrite all the rules in the aerodynamics, physics and design books, without the knowledge needed to do so properly and still not look like a bunch of petty amateurs.

The unanswered questions:

Why were the Typhoon dispatched to S’pore a ton lighter than the “in service” aircrafts?

How are Eurofighter designers going to increase the cross section of the air intake by a margin large enough to allow for an engine upgrade?

How come that RAF Typhoon would need a ballast for the gun but Rafale wouldn’t for OSF and SPECTRA.

2Scorpion82

“You contribute nothing to that topic here except your senseless, stupid and unqualified comments.”

Sorry say again? Who is constantly doing THIS here? Who doesn’t know: Aerodynamic basics, Aerospacial history Basic of Air Combat and couldn’t tell a the difference between his mum ironing plank and an aerofoil?

You’re the guy who can be saying whatever, at least you could have the decency to take the critics your constant BIAS and false writing is attrating.

You’re iritating at least and only trying to deny the most obvious thing here, Rafale is a better combat aircrfaft by design point.

All you’re manipulations of datas without any provision of whatever evidences, mixed of Jane’s and others sources to try to make you point stick proves only one thing, Aerospacial matters are the least of your problem, yours is pride badly placed on an aircraft which isn’t going to make history for its qualities.

I couldn’t care less if Rafale had been designed by the Papou-Guineans; it’s a stroke of genius like there is one every 30 years, but your lake of general knowledge would obviously prevent you to understand any of it so why don’t you stop taking the P and insulting eveyone intelligence? Go back to school kid!

Get a life.

——– Fonk ??? —– I need your point of view —-

It is said that the 4000 reached mach 1.6 on its first flight. Was it with AB or not ?

This is something i don’t know about, it is possible but i coudn’t say…

About Typhee and Raf comparative, it’s quiet obvious with the picture that their aerodynamoics are totally differents.

I’ll come back later with the all M 2.0 design history but if one can have a look at the Mirage 4000 the clue is there…

We still have the very fantasists figures to the glkory ot the Eurofighter…

Scorpion82; You’re living in Disneyland at the look of your datas…

That Eurofighter themself wouldn’t dare coming with..

Typhoon climb rate is barely equal to that of Rafale with a <> 60.000Ft/mn, when carrying anything.

30.000 Ft 2.30 mn. Official from take off. Can you guys cut the bulls?

I would advise YOU to learn about Rarale because most of what you write is inacurate.

Design? What do you know, about Rafale design?

As i said to you one you got,so littie in terms of understanding of its aerodynamics it’s not worth trying to explain it,to you.

Now let’s see how you can actually explain to us how it was designed to reach M1.8 and not M 2.0 and why it’s so amazing it can do it…

You can’t even biggin to make the difference between requiered specs and the design itself as your theories on its empty weight proves.

So get to your doc and dig because there is too much there for you to do it by memory. Areros, history, airframe design it’s all there but please stop this it’s the worst piece of writing on the Rafale i have had the displeasure to read for a lon long time.

The clue is on the Mirage 4000 arrangement.

End of debate? Yes in terms of never ending discussions with Fonk.

Appart for one thing, you got absolutly NOTHING to discuss. All your argument are weak or suggestive at best.

I’m not a professional writer in the “sepcialised” press, a technician in the GAF still i managee these and you guys have zilth to oppose to it.

Before i dare debating i at least do a little research, no need to take on the posters, i can handle the subject. You can’t.

Try to find another excuse for your ignorance than Fonk.

“Eurofighter and Rafale and who have not the intentions to degrade one and boost up the other, depending on personal preference. “

Your opinion won’t change fact, the fact that you don’t know about it doesn’t give you the right to assume i have an opinion on it.

My staments are based on scientific evidences and natural laws. You desagree with them, not me.

“So that’s another point. I never said Typhoons aerodynamics are better than that of Rafale, but also not the other way round.”

you’ll be hard press to do it, and inever said you did either.

As opposed to you i dont’ try to argue the equivalent of “Rafale have as much stealth features built-in than F-22”. Get real if not good on the subject.

Avionics may be difficult, but not much more than performance. A lot of data in all areas are classified for new aircraft like Eurofighter, Rafale or F/A-22… So the most comparisions are grey theory based on what is known by the moment. We have informations and may they were beefed up by the manufacturer, but may be they are only a minimum what could be achieved.

Agreed, these are the less obvious to figure out as they aren’t appearent.

In my opinion both fighters are equal at the most, if not all areas with some differences and both have some advantages and disadvantages.

In what? Air combat? Most engagements takes place at M 0.90 not M2.0.

The cold war is over and F-22 was never designed to be optimised for high altitude M2.0. No one argue about it being superior. A superior design with the same avionics gives a superior fighter history is full of examples, what might **** of some is that this time the best design is French.

” Why discussing weights over dozen of posts for example?”

Waste of time to pretend that the Jane’s datas are for an aircraft empty,
expecially whan they say equiped…

The doc i posted proves otherwise and for your info, i E-mailed all of my finding to Jane’s today.

Awaiting the raction. But no one can explain the suddent increase in weight appart in trying to deny the fact that to obtain precise datas while opening these aircrafts flight envelope and qualifying them for ground based and a carrier Ops, they need to be representative of the finished article with the corect CG and weight. The ballasted Typhoons is the nbest example of that…

This is what i can bring forward to figure who knows what and as far as i can see most Typhoon enthusiasts knows very little.

End of the debate as far as i’m concerned. good’ay sirs.

The clue is in the pic…

The letter B, this is where they have gone much further tha neveryone lese, they actually use an aerodynamic phenomenon called expansion waves.

Basically, the air is compressed at the point A where it is splited in two behind the spliter plates, (some of it being directed inside the airframe to cool the hot parts of the engine and create a coller layer of air around the exhaust nozzles as a IR reduction measure) , but also at quiet low speed begin to compress against the ramp, a speed decreases, pressure increases and temperature too, this forms a compressive wave:

At B the opposite occurs, the air pressure drop as the boundary layer follows the airframe curvature and expands, speed increase, temperature drops and the whole area airflow is further dynamised. This is an expansive wave.

This creates and amount layer of dynamic air which increase the effect of the canards and LEX, which is why Rafale doesn’t need the long moment harm as the all upper fuselage/fin/trailing edge assembly beneficiates from a far higher level of energised flow at much higher AoA, this is also increased at speed around the Mach meaning this is the absolut transonic design.

C show the 70* sept LEX which give Rafale a much higer mach line than its own 48* swept wing or Typhoon 53*.

E: The fruit on top of the icing on top of the cake, same aerodynamic details on the bottom. Better transonic performances overall.

Guess why they could take her up to passed 100* AoA and 40Kt negative speed. There is NO substitue for clean aerodynamic arrangements.

As i said, Rafale aerodynamics are of a far more advanced design than that of Typhoon. Beat this…

2Scorpion82

Some give Rafale for M 2.1. Just to show you’d better be sure of your sources…*

Even Rafale A demonstrated it’s ability to reach Mach 2.
According to Janes empty weights for Rafale are:
C = 9850 kg
B = 10450 kg
M = 10460 kg

(Equiped)… Not empty Scorpion82, and only hardly a silent wish from the Typhoon fan club, history is part of the making of any aircraft my friend, as our friend Jack/jon Lake doesn’t know apparently, something tells me he might well have “entered” these for them just in time for the Farbo’ airshow three years ago…

Nice try but…

Marine Nationale gave Rafale M at 14 tons SU-0 configuration.

= 4,750 internal fuel + 2 X 90 kg Magic II

= 9.070 Kg + OSF <> 250 Kg + SPECTRA <> 250 Kg = 9,590 Kg.

Believe me they know far better than Jane’s what their aircraft is weighting. As for Jane’s figures, you’re welcome to have them telling you what (equiped) means, maybe Jack/jon Lake knows some about it.

Given by Mr Revellin Falcoz head of Rafale Carrier qualification for Rafale M: 9.650 Kg “just above 500 Kg heavier than C. Conclude for yourself.

” Aussi, afin de valider le fonctionnement du Rafale, quelles que soient ses configurations, les campagnes d’essais ont été réalisées et satisfaites avec, puis sans, l’optronique secteur frontal, son remplacement par un lest ayant permis de respecter le centrage avion et les performances aérodynamiques de l’appareil. “

Here (above) is the evidence that i was looking for:

French Assemblee Nationale on OSF:

Then, in view of validating the Rafale functions in whatever configuration, some qualification campaign were satisfactorly carried out with, then without the OSF, its replacement by a ballast allowing to respect the aircraft CG and its aerodynamic performances.

Meaning all avionics and OSF is included in the 9,650 Kg empty weight given during the Carrier qualification of Rafale M.

Rafale M = 9,650 Kg
Rafale C = 9,090 Kg
Rafale D = 9,540 Kg

Damned! i really wish i was payed to do this sometime…

—–
L’optronique secteur frontal (OSF) est un équipement optionnel du Rafale apportant, en complément du radar de pointe avant, une capacité passive de détection et de poursuite de cibles grâce à deux voies vidéo et infrarouge.
L’OSF est monté sur le Rafale si la mission à effectuer le nécessite. Conformément au besoin exprimé par les états-majors, un avion doit pouvoir exécuter sa mission ou la terminer si elle est déjà engagée, avec un ou plusieurs équipements absents ou en panne si ceux-ci ne sont pas strictement nécessaires à l’exécution de la mission.
Aussi, afin de valider le fonctionnement du Rafale, quelles que soient ses configurations, les campagnes d’essais ont été réalisées et satisfaites avec, puis sans, l’optronique secteur frontal, son remplacement par un lest ayant permis de respecter le centrage avion et les performances aérodynamiques de l’appareil.
Par conséquent, l’absence de commande d’optronique secteur frontal dans le cadre de la commande de cinquante-neuf Rafale passée par le ministère de la défense n’entraîne pas la nécessité de procéder à une nouvelle campagne de validation de l’appareil et n’engendre donc pas de coût supplémentaire.

—–

“I meant the range between 250°/sec and 270°/sec will have no really large affect if any in combat.”

Debatable at very low speeds and on a dogfight, and still show some differences on roll capabilities, 250* is rather slow by modern standards but a diference of 20* is still marginal.

The problem with F-16 roll rate of 360*/sec is the difficulty for the average jockey to exploit this to the full, much easier at 270*/sec, so at the end of the day, the extra 20* will still make a difference to some pilots.

“My words, it’s much easier to reach high instanous turning rates than maintaining them.
The advantage of Eurofighter and Rafale compared to earlier delta designs is that these aircraft have more lift, more thrust and they reduce the drag while maneuvering by influenceing the airflow to the wings with their canards decreasing the drag. Eurofighter and Rafale lose much less energy while turning than a Mirage 2000 for example”

No disrespect here sun, but You better go back to flying school pronto to learn your basics. You put the chariot in front of the horses here…..

At the way you’re writing about it: One, you didn’t read my post on the subject, Second you have no idea what you’re saying and Third, you don’t understand it either:

Since when exactly are Typhoon canards energising the airflow above the wing? you’re right, Never:

They are far too far from the wing leading edge for this, further more they are quanted downward, making sure the resulting vortexes are going to be deflected under the wing; that’s why Eurofihgter had to ressort to strakes “A la Mirage 2000” to compensate.

As i said, Typhoon aeros are much closer to Mirages than that of Rafale, same 58* sweep, low cantilever near zero adrenhal and shoulder mounted strakes.

Typhoon canard are long moment harm, older design than closed coupled canard and more suited to stable aircrafts…

More to the point: Instantaneous turn rate involves a lot less the drag/power ratio than drag/energy ratio: first you get the instantaneous turn rate depending on the amount of energy you have, second once you’ve lost this energy into turning, the drag and power ballance each other to give you the sustained turn rate.

What limits Max turn rate is the Max Gs one can pull; at 450 kts, 9 Gs are going to be twice more in terms of turn radii than at 900 Kts. So there is a maximum corresponding to the aircraft structural G-Max called the turning point.

For as long as one have enough energy, one can get an optimum instantaneous turn rate, that’s why, as opposed to sustained it depends a great deal on airspeed rather than instaled thrust.

The ability to keep your energy level high while turning is called energy sustainability, one aircraft which is reputably goos at it is the… A4 Skyhawk.

Yep! Indeed, the scooter can get into the pants of a F18 or a F-15 easly if they don’t kill it BVR, more to the point, its Max roll tare is 720*/sec. They’d pop rivets on the airframe puting 8.5 Gs rolling sometime by accident as one or the other leading edge slats woud deploy assymetrically.

*It can turn an ailreon roll at <> 28* AoA ad from 100 kt minumum in all configuration included max TOW.*

“With MTOW? You should know that stalling speed increases with heigher weights and also the drag plays a role. Have you a source for that (even if it is in french)?”

Minimum speed is 80kts empty, not the stalling speed and doesn’t depends on airspeed alone, if you flew a MS 880 Rallye you’d know it can fly backward with 1,250 Rpm against <> 30/40 Kts wind and with maximum flaps setting;

100 kt all configuration and it still can turn an aileron roll at this speed demonstrated from 100/120 kts on the power.

100 kts being the lowest figure quoted.

Source Eric Gerard Dislpay pilot Le Bourget 2003 video and a few more Rafale test pilots.

*You guys don’t know the aircraft at all, but in your case i reccon you know Typhoon better than i did. That’s good. Thanks for the infos….*

Correction, none of you still understand Typhoon aerodynamics even less that of Rafale. I won’t mention history by decency.

—–

“Typhoon has already been flown with AoA ~35° according to an EADS Test pilot. ” 70* AoA actually. Which is still a full 40* behind RAfale demonstrated Maxi.

“About corner speed there’re little to non informations for the Typhoon, but the 360 kts could be realistic at all.”

No it’s not, if its instantaneous turn rate is lower than that of Rafale unless it is its structural G limits which arehigher which everyone compraing the Max external load would doubt rightfully.

What you’re talking about in fact it turning point, the speed at which the aircraft will pull more Gs that it can structurally or aerodynamically sustain.

In both case Rafale wins by design, and i doubt very much that the 350 Kts is the real figure, more like 450 Kts at 50,000 ft which is also a factor.

At 350 Kts and 15,000 Fts Rafale pull 9 Gs and still accelerates.

Otherwise said, turning speed means the speed at which it can turn in both case M 2.0 and above.

I sweared i wouldn’t…

Rafale was originally predicted for 8.500Kg, the low-level high/speed requierement justified the increase in weight from this figure to above 9,000 kg.

There haven’t been any structural strenghtning other than with the M as all the airframes are the same before the navalisation with shock, corrosion and anti-EMI measures taken.

MN was giving the M in SU-0 configuration wih full internal fuel and 2 x AAM (Magic II) for the equivalent empty of 9,090 kg. add the weight of OSF/SPECTRA componnents to this and you get the “leaked” (By Revellin-Falcoz head of the carrier qualification programme) of 9.650 Kg equiped with an extra 500 kg more than C. They sandbaged the figure since the creation of GIE…. And we’re still tyrying to figure them out.

Jane’s are quiet a good base for research work, but their last on Rafale “World’s Aircrafts 2005-06” is a little wague in some areas. More to the point the weights given are “equiped” (With what?).

Generally propaganda works a lot differently in France, they’d downgrade rather than upgrade figures to give the concurents a false sense of superiority… The customer are figuring this for themself with practical and operational perfs rather than catalog ones.

Keep debating but bashing up Dassault isn’t going to help yo ugetting any close to reality. Regards. Fonk Alias Thunder.