With 8.4 t of fuel, it will outfly an EF (EF can fly 250 Nmiles in SC at 1.2M and 250 back in subsonic). The F 35 can cruise in AB for the same 250 nmiles, but it will also can do 500 Nmiles in subsonic.

Funny that you leave out the fact that Typhoon supercruises for 250 nm, LOITERS for 30 min and then return subsonic. Also funny you leave out that the Typhoon does so on internal fuel (~5t) and with 8 AAMs!

Re RBE2AA number of TRMs.

The fox three issue 8 states “around” 1000 modules.

Had you read it you would have figured it couldn’t have been more accurate considering the source of the interview (development phase director Martin Friemer). :p

I read it more than once already long ago. It’s actually not the first time you posted that link. If you would bother to read and understand my posts, rather then making up something out of them which was actually never part of them, you would realise that your responses are to 90% way off what I have discussed.
I said that that article isn’t necessarily more accurate than the EF aerodynamics doc from Keith McKay. That doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate or wrong. And while being released earlier than the aerodynamic document it’s not something “of that time” when the design choices were made.

It doesn’t change anything to the accuracy of the comment made.

No it doesn’t.

It depends which design you are mentioning, clearly BAE had other ideas spdid Herbst atearly stages of the TFK-90 design history.

BAE P110 clearly wasn’t a long moment arm conceipt as for Herbst TFK-90 it also saw the distance between the canard and wing increase as time passed for the reasons explained in the above article (See pitcures provided).

Well that’s true but P110 was a pure british design and they jumped on the german approach.

The reason was the aerodynamic interference between the canards and inlets and then some more unwanted effects.

The low forward position was kept all the time and the long moment arm was ever there. That’s the point you seem not to understand.

TFK-90 wing shapes changed several time over but the reason for the decouplage of the canards had nothing to do with this (See pitcures provided).

Not discussed at all besides me.

Then again a blatant innacuracy, everyone was looking at improving maneuvering characteristics at lower speeds while retaining the low drag ratio of the steeper swept wing.

MBB felt so at that time and there was a reason why they switched from straight to cranked. No one said it was the perfect solution.

The definition of coulped canard doesn’t change when canard vortexes and wing cortexes interects in such a way as to increase lift significantly the surfaces are said coupled.

The term long moment harm reffers to a mechanical solution NOT an aerodynamic one.
WRONG. 1984 design of TFK-90 are clearly NOT decoupled.

ARM not harm. I spoke about the long moment arm, that you try to drag the discussion in the direction of the aerodynamic coupling again just shows you don’t have to make a point in regards to what I said.

Scorpion: It would be very nice if you were to stop inventing stuff, standards, definitions, history etc.

Desinforming the members of this forum isn’t a very honnest thing to do, everyone have the right to read things as they are in real life, not the distorted version you find convenient to post because it might look better. Cheers:cool:.

It would be nice if you could leave out the steady personal attacks and provocations in the first place and if you could simply stay on topic rather than dragging the discussion into another direction and simply make up things out of other users posts which did never exist.

Btw not a single source you provided to date spoke about close coupled canards with regards to the EAP. And there is certainly a difference between long coupled and decoupled.

but there are other, non-quoted reasons which the press of the time highlighted.
F-I is full of good old infos, very useful and generaly released before censure or PR takes over the programe managers freedom of speech, this one is quiet interesting and it also demonstrate the limits of the technologies of the time (Actuators).

Well 1999 was not the time the design choices were made and it certainly is an afterwards report, like many others and by that not necessarily more accurate. The Eurofighter programme moved into the production phase at that time and the first two export campaigns (Norway & Greece) were running by that time.

An important point to take into account is that the canard position was low forward from the very beginning, starting with MBBs first delta/canard TKF90 proposal presented in april 1978. The fact that the distance between the canards and wings was shorter up to the EAP in conmparison to the Typhoon is owed to the fact that the wings were stretched much farther. The initial wing design of the TKF90 was “longer” due its much steeper sweep angle, but had a shorter span. Following wind tunnel tests a cranked delta was found to provide a general improvement over the initial highly sweept plain straight delta and was subsequently adopted for all following design concepts ranging from ECF over ACA up to the EAP. The long moment arm is given by the relation of canard position and CG, not the point were the wing root starts. That means the concept of how the canards should work was at anytime the same up to the Eurofighter or in other words the long moment arm was ever there at any given time since the very first TKF90 delta/canard proposal from MBB.

The German gouvernment did withdraw but DASA technical staff didn’t they were there although not at the same level than BAe.

Actually MBB, though they were ordered to cease work and stay out. But they had an observer status. MTU and Litef were still involved as subcontractors however.

I doubt very much they were long moment arm and they CANOT be “long coupled” either.

That’s what one of the articles states you have posted a while ago under one of your alternates:

The ACA design featured a cranked delta wing, long-coupled foreplane, chin intake and twin fins. After MBB withdrew, the rear fuselage from the Tornado had to be used, producing the single-fin EAP.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/16/52567/coming-together.html

Might be worth noting that EAP is actually derived from the ACA but with a different tail section due Germany’s withdrawl.

The most amusing part is that for all intents and purposes the Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale, F-16, Flanker, F-22, etc. are all in the same ball park in the majority of the envelope they’re likely to be in. It’s not like we’re comparing an F-105 to an Edge 540. Sure, the F-22 and Typhoon will exceed the others by differing degrees at the outer edges of the envelope and the Flanker will do cooler things at airshow velocities but as far as today’s AAMs are concerned, from a manueverability standpoint they’re all pretty much the same aircraft.

Well the difference mainly occurs at medium to lower subsonic speeds and at supersonic speeds. In the higher subsonic and in the transonic speed range the turning capabilities are pretty even for any modern combat aircraft rated at 9g. Though this only applies to lower altitudes either. And not all aircraft which can pull 9g can sustain it for a longer time. Dogfights are fought at lower speeds and BVR preferably at higher speeds than that. Albeit BVR combat has often taken place in the speed range where the F-35 is even with other types and I think it’s what you are aiming at?