Scorpion82It’s in Janes, but subscriber only.
I think any naval version shouldn’t be called Sea Gripen, but Kraken.
LMAO. That was a good one:D
Scorpion82No, what you and pfcem are trying to say is that Dassault wouldn’t have known in advance the structural limits of the wing. That’s basically calling them incompetent fools.
The A380 wing was designed with zero margin, it was computed that it would break at 150% and it finally broke at 147% because of the imperfect modelization of materials used (it did however break at the expected location and stresses distribution were conform to the model -> the fix was simple to make and light enough). That’s the way it should be, airliners wings are designed to break at 150% or close enough (777 wing broke at 154% but then it wasn’t designed with no margin in an effort to reduce weight at all cost like the A380). The 787 structural issues are the anomaly, not the rule.
If Dassault designed their wing for 150% and it broke at 185%, heads would roll in the engineering department. This was a deliberate decision to either increase the airframe life, allow for higher g-load limits (anticipating new flightsuit developments) or increase MTOW/payload – or a combination of all three.
Ok once again form the FoxThree 9 issue:
The comprehensive test
programme initially concentrated
on fatigue trials
and two aircraft lives – equivalent
to 2 x 5,000 flying
hours and 2 x 3,500 flights – were ‘flown’ without
sustaining major damage.
French MoD initial design specifications for the
Rafale are 5,000 flying hours/3,000 landings with
a severe usage spectrum, but studies have shown
that the expected economical life (that is without any
major structure component replacement) is 7,000
hours and 5,300 landings.
In other words the Rafale exceeds design specifications, also with regards to the maximum structural load factor, it doesn’t mean it was supposed to break up so late or last that long. And why should heads rolling when the aircraft matches and/or exceeds design specifications?
Scorpion82Why don’t you leave it at that. Lindermyer admitted that it was invented. We had a good laugh, so could we move on now?
Scorpion82AFAIK, The rafale were simulating fox 1 shooters during this exercice.
Or in other words acting as red air simulating MiG-29s and Su-27s? Or what other purpose could it have to simulate fox ones with an not fox one capable aeroplane?
Scorpion82Unless trade training has really bottomed out then that would depend on individual experience and/or Q annotations.
A combined maintenance force is not unthinkable, it just requires careful planning.
This is just possible to a limited extend. In the UK technicans already have a broad working spectrum, stretching that even further by training them for another type isn’t likely to happen and increases the risk of mistakes. There is a reason why personal is separately trained. You might be able to switch a crew chief etc., but not the specialists for avionics and airframe/systems responsibility.
Scorpion82Its is up to LM to explain that. They coined that term. Dassault and other manufacturers can define ‘super cruise’ to suit the limitations of their product. But the real Supercruise is what LM/USAF defines it.
It would be better if the others would call their phenomenon supersonic cruise.
LM has just changed the definition after it became clear that other types would fit the definition as well. And supercruise = supersonic cruise, it’s an appreviation.
Scorpion82Correct. To run 20 fighters in Afghanistan your are in need of ~400 people, be it a single typ deployment or a split in two types f.e.
In short, it does not matter if you send 20 Harriers or you send 10 Harriers and 10 Jaguars, when both types have a similar cost per flight hour f.e.
That’s incorrect and oversimplified either. A 2 type force requires more personal and spares, as spares and most of the personal isn’t interchangeable. The Jaguar engine technican won’t work on the Harriers engine and vice versa. The result you need more personal and of course more spares just to be sure. A force of 20 aircraft instead of 10 of the same type could still do with the same number of personal, with few exceptions.
Scorpion82In fact I don’t know if the contract is very important…I mean do you remember previous batch signatures ?
It is the vote at the national assembly which really count here, I don’t think they will advertise the signature as it is part of the normal process following the vote.
There were at least these announced orders june 9th 1999 for batch 2 or december 6th 2004 for batch 3. So far we haven’t seen something like that for the batch 4, just that Morin approved it. That’s why I ask.
Scorpion82The image is to small and says july – august anyway. Batch 4 was approved in november, but afaik no contract has been signed by now.
Scorpion82Is there any news about batch 4? Is a contract already signed?
Scorpion82A comprhensive rafale TV documentary (approx 1h) a just been posted.
It is called “Rafale : The king of the skies”
3 parts :
The first one is mostly about the prgramme history and why france left the european programme. One interesting info : the rafale C01 could fly easily 2H30 in clean config (13’30)
Some very nice mirage 4000 sequences also.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbk565_le-rafale-le-roi-du-ciel-13_tech
The second you can learn (if you don’t already know everything) rafale technical specificities. There is a long ex JAG (demo pilot) interview on the rafale qualities with nice cockpit view and switch explanations…(around 9’20)
Scorpion you will like this part ! (for MMI understanding)http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbk4p9_le-rafale-le-roi-du-ciel-23_tech
The third part is about operational activities etc…
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbk48g_le-rafale-le-roi-du-ciel-33_tech
So it is a good summary of what we all know…No big scoop but you can put picture and in contex interview of what have been already discussed in articles etc…
Thanks for sharing, watched them in a row. A pitty my french is so rusty:(. Anyway nice watch.
Scorpion821) Assuming wrongly that the Eurofighter “demonstrated 18000 h” were destructive test, thus demonstrating vividely that even Eurofighter documentation is above your level of comprehension.
Lie. I haven’t said anywhere that those tests were destructive tests. So safe your crappy invented accusations.
2) Mystaking structural designed load with FCS load factor soft limits.
Lie. You not getting the point isn’t my mistake.
3) Refusing to admit that an aircraft designed with a higher structural load than a 6000 h/ 9.0 g one with a factor 35% above it could not only pull 11.0. g but also have a longer lifespan, = possibly up to 8100 h when limited at 9.0 g. 7.000 h with normal uses at up to 11.0 g, (and NO that’s NOT a Typhoon i compared it to).
Lie. I have never said the Rafale won’t pull 11 g, but you obviously don’t get that so you ressort to another accusation based on your non existent understanding.
Simple maths, and there is still 0.5 g margin to stick the point.
Simple math based on simplified assumptions.
The rest isn’t even worth commenting.
End of debate.:p
Scorpion82Coverage of intakes is a usual procedure to protect them from FO etc.
Scorpion82Scorpion, the day wou will UNDERSTAND what is writen in such documentation, this forum will be a FAR better place.
Oh me evil bad person, the entire forum is suffering from me:dev2:
Basically you do your outmost best to try to make up that there is not difference between 1.4, 1.5 and 1.85 designed structural loads
I’m not making up things, but recognise what structural load factors mean in the first place.
If it is done on a permanent base for sure.
to make up that Rafale would actually loose flight hours by pulling 11.0 g
You want to tell us it won’t make any difference whether the aircraft pulls 9 g or 11 g on a regulare base and that its airframe life isn’t affected? Start to learn the fundamentals yourself.
if the Rafale designed structural “load factor” was 9.0 g it wouldn’t be pulling 11.0 as simple as that.
Appears to be new to you that airframes can withstand higher g-forces than usually cleared to.
Trolling is my speciality, as is making up things, end of debate. 😀
I corrected some minor issues for you:cool:
Scorpion82You don’t need to point this out as for an evidences of lack of evidens which is your favourite spining trick as always.
You appear to have a quite weired definition of the term “trick”. You make a claim which you declare to be a fact, I ask for prove and you call it trick.
Since you ask for something classified which result can only be determined by studing the standards you keep twisting to make your false points and concluding acording to know, non-classified results and known FACTS (*).
Those non classified facts are bits and pieces and just a fraction of what is required to come to a definite conclusion. Yet you call your conclusions facts, whereas they are opinions based a little factual base filled up with a georgous amount of assumptions.
Ressorting to your refucal of reality, lack of knowlege and undestranding of international standards again?
It’s just to obvious that you can not do without accusations and personal attacks. If you aren’t capable to prove your point as this would require classified data, you obviously have no access to, you should better admit that or at least shut up rather than taking on another poster because he demands a proof as strong as your exeggerated claims.
Do you know what standards means?
Or is this because you want me to point out tha this looks like yet more spin and twist?
I’m well aware what standards are, you pretend to know them so what are the standards for the load and stress on the Rafale and Typhoon applied during the simulated mission profiles and what were the typical mission profiles and what expected percentage of the overall missions did they have?
I know that you can’t answer that, but I still ask as you imply you can. Once again you fail and want to blame others for it.
They applied the same standards conducting similar tests (*).
Obviously, applaus.
I draw the same conclusion than i always did, you can’t distinguish between maximum values.
These”demonstrated 18000 h” were not computed under combat loads and it is well specified in the document you refers to, they were NOT destructive tests which proves my points without even digging this doc (including you twisting debates endelessely).
Yes they weren’t destruction tests, they tested the airframe with the anticipated mission profiles (that includes loads and stresses which occur in air combat).
No, it was designed for a much higher lifespan than this and at higher loads as well, because 9.0 g/5.000 h is already below 1.5 and that 1.5/6.000 h is the load of the 2000, NOT the Rafale M (*).
“French MoD initial design specifications for the
Rafale are 5,000 flying hours/3,000 landings with
a severe usage spectrum, but studies have shown
that the expected economical life (that is without any
major structure component replacement) is 7,000
hours and 5,300 landings.”
…FoxThree
Load factors………………………………………………+9g/-3.2g
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/aircraft-characteristics.html?L=1
If you are not capable of doing your homework others are.
Home work = Making up things for better feeling:confused:
Sign In
