LOL. You want the FCS source codes too?

Why don’t you try to comprehend what these standards are for a start?

No I’m satisfied with what I asked for. I comprehend enough whether you mean to know better than me what I understand or not. Why don’t you simply provide the source?

LOL! Who never wants to admit spining and twisting?

:rolleyes:Ressorting to that lame accusations again, because you fail to prove your assertions?

First you do not understand what these destructive load test are, they are aerodynamic simulations, meaning simulating airframe fatigue during AIR combat missions under heavy aerodynamic loads and these test are not the same for an airliner than for a fighter they use the same 1.5 safety standard, but liners are not designed for 9.0g or above.

Second, it is pretty obvious that an airframe originaly meant to last 6.000 hours having a load factor of 1.4 instead of 1.5 or 1.85 is not designed for 6.000 hours under the same loads.

I’m well aware and I wrote:

I’m not comparing airliner vs fighter jet here!

And as you bring it forward do you know the exact mission profiles for which the loads were simulated for both Typhoon, Rafale or any other combat aircraft for that matter? Do you believe they made this fatigue test for the Typhoon on the base of straigth level flying or what do you want to imply?

So following this logic we can safely say that Rafale design points even vs a requierement for 4.000 hours was not for 9.0 g but 11.0 g, which would be btw consistent with the result of the increased stress meet by the naval version around which all other versions are built and that its designed was also overdesigned by at least 0.2 g, giving the 11.0 g capability with the 7.000 h lifespan.

And what kind of conclusions do you draw from the Typhoon’s demonstrated 18000 h (3 times the requirement)?

End of debate, whatever way you look at it, Rafale 11.0 are still WAY below the point where it would take flight hours of the 7.000 hours they figured because it is designed for this purpose in the first place.

It wasn’t designed for 11 g/7000 h but for 9 g/5000 h, it just turned out to be more stable and lasting longer.

And YES you DO mystake civilian and Military standards.

Because you say so…

Rafale is rated at 11.5 g as determined by its design points and demonstrated by the destructive tests which have sown a structural design load limit of 1,85, its design limits load were largely underestimated because its airframe broke only 185% above them.

Can we see these design points and I don’t mean the FoxThree excerpt about the structural testing, but a confirmation of the aircraft lasting 7000 h, even when you expose it to 11.5 g instead of 9 g? Especially as the required service life was 5000 h and it were studies in which it was found that the aircraft can safely last for 7000 h with the expected mission profiles in mind.

Rafale structure didn’t fail before 16.65 g :D, and its design and built standards are differents of those of the Su-27, they are not western aircrafts designed with the same standards.

Sure but it’s maximum structural load factor is still higher than that of the Typhoon for example and that with an equal load factor requirement (9), hence its airframe breaks later (at a higher load factor) but its designed service life is just 2000 h vs 6000 h. That is why I doubt that the maximum structural load factor is the only significant factor. I’m not comparing airliner vs fighter jet here!

so you are saying you dont really know what the roe was for the exercise
so we have a typhoon slapping a f-22, a f-22 slapping a rafale and a rafale slapping a typhoon
roe load the outcome for training exercises

also, from your link, damoclese with a claimed range of 40km at 25,000ft. yet the supposed obsolete IR osf has a range of 130km
these numbers dont make sense to me, do they make sense to you ? its more likely to be the other way around

Damocles is a targeting pod, whereas OSF IR is an IRST/FLIR sensor. The 130 km range figure refers to detection, the 40 km (newer sources state longer ranges if I’m not mistaken) of the Damocles refers to imaging targets with sufficient details for identification and attack with PGMs.

Sure this is actually his opinion vs known facts.

Now: HE havent been replying to MY reply and for you you can spin and twist FACTS all you want as you usualy do it wont change facts.

Good for you OPIT means comparing a 2000 to a Rafale, ask him to check on his info he won’t be spining as you do.

I might remind you of my warning, because I’m seriously sick of being accused for spining and twisting in virtually every reply made by you and attacked by other means.
You want to be taken serious? You want people to take on your arguments and not your person?
Start as a good example yourself, rather than demanding others to treat you in a way youself aren’t willed to treat others.

FACT are: Typhoon is designed with a lower structural load than Rafale and maximum turn rates like lifespan are conputed using them.

We know that the Typhoon was designed with 1.4 vs 1.85 on the Rafale, can we move on please?

Just out of interest what part of the equation can the maximum load factor be found with regards to turn rates, except for permitted g?

There is certainly much more about airframe service life than the maximum structural load factor.

… or is it simply that the Rafale is superior.

That’s a hypothesis we can’t rule out.

Or that maybe who knows.

Accoding to a arturo link and according to Bruno Falcoz – Dassault general manager then – when Dassault left the EF project the others participants were going blind in the dark with the Delta/canard/FBW configuration. They had to try to re-invent everything without any feed-back, while being a “commity” with several point of view to compromise.

Well there lays a certain truth within it, but they had varying experience, tools etc. at hand which weren’t available before. It’s ever nice to read both sides of a story not just one.

We’re still “dominated” by all the propaganda made previously by the EF side on the world media/public opinion/whatever but it’s perfectly possible.

You have to take into account that many of the “international” magazines are from the UK. The multinational character of the Eurofighter programme means that you have more voices, but this applies to both the good and the bad press for it. If everything they said was just pure propaganda then we wouldn’t read about problems, shortcomings etc.

Regarding the UAE I take it as it is for now and wait for hopefully more specfic details and reports of future encounters. Over the years we might get an average which may allow us to come to a certain conclusion.

And maybe it’s something completely different. Leaving out the one or other detail isn’t unusual. Just that is enough to create a certain impression and you don’t even need to lie to do so. So who says those two claims are contradicting?
Those HuD-images aren’t related to the reports of the ATLC.

Has Brazil ever made any evaluation of the contenders or do they rely on the manufacturers supplied data only?

BTW how reliable is that blog at all? I mean claiming Saab is working on the CAESAR is fundamentally wrong.

Also interesting the claim:

In a recent mock exercise with the U.S. Navy, the French jets “dropped” six F-18 and lost only two aircraft. The U.S. pilots said they could only see the Rafale on the radar when it was too late to react. Now, who needs to act fast is the Brazilian government.

Didn’t some say the Rafale haven’t lost against F/A-18E/F?

😮
Reaching 10/11G for half a second before stabilizing at 9 during an airshow is not a big deal. That doesn’t require specific skills either.
Pilots are trained to be smoother in everyday use you know. Because this kind of thing tends to make the mechanics quite angry and to eat into the operational service life of the aircraft. So don’t try to make everyone think that 11G turns are routine stuff in squadrons. That’s just wrong and you know it.
Thanks.

Thank you for bringing it forward, because if I say this it’s spin and twist;)