9Gs at 400 mph will give you the same turn whether you’re sitting in an F-16, F-35, or even the uber-Flanker. :rolleyes:

If the aircraft can pull 9g at that speed yes. And it’s fine to see that someone understands it, as many got excited about the “almost matches F-16 blk 50 and F-22” while ignoring the “higher speed portions” part.

Archives are good to check from time to time, at least they tell things as they were told at the time…

Which doesn’t contradict my statement above. The lighter isn’t disputed. The reason for this reduction was cost saving in the first place. It is mentioned in the book “Der Eurofighter”. If I can find you another source you can access, I’ll let you know.

Interesting is the summary of the DMAFT test:

The majority of the CFC damages were small defects and classified as “Minor”, which effectively remained stable and safe, for the entire duration of the test. None of the representative ones (manufacturing defects, impacts, handling damage, etc) needed repair. For the metallic damages, the majority were fatigue cracks with the remainder falling into the categories of migration, play, surface marking, fretting, etc. For the production aircraft, all the relevant DMAFT damages were thoroughly analysed. Under consideration of the advanced production aircraft requirements all critical locations were re-designed to be crack free within 3 life times.
The overall number of damages on the test was very low considering the prototype status of its maturity state. None of the damages have impaired the prototype flight test programme and none led to major changes for the production aircraft re-design.

Or short the airframe should withstand 18000 h on specified operating conditions.

JSF Program Overview
30 Oct 2007

And the F135 has been PUBLICLY known to be 43,000 lbs afterburing thrust since AT LEAST Dec 2005.

Fuel load has been slightly decreased either by the SWAT measures if we take this for granted.

Look at the number of post where you replied to mine in a totaly confrontational way and obviously got your wires all crossed. Simple.

It was the first time in this thread for few posts, which is nothing in relation to the number of posts you have made.

All topics dear to you i guess.

You guess or you are sure? Show me how often I have even responded when you came up with the usual talk about Eurofighter? You’ll have a hard time under that ID (Dare2).

Contradictrion is FINE being confrontational is anothert matter altogether, getting your facts consistantly wrong yet another.

I’m not confrontational in the first place, I just get a little bit heated if I’m attacked on unfounded grounds.

Withing the frame of a particular mission with performances given in this configuration, you don’t READ the documents providedto you; i pass them under close scrutiny.

That’s for the flight performance. Everything else is your own intepretation, even if it is correct, it remains an interpretation.

You show one source; I SHOW TWO from our MinDef then THREE more form different Empty weight giving the C empty weight for 9.500 kg INCLUDING one still in the page related to Rafale M today so WHY are you still arguuing and about what?

Really? So what is the whole point of all your trolling then? 😎

The whole point was that you accused Sens for leaving out something, which wasn’t there. And later on that while you are not shy in accusing others for interpreting things you do it yourself. I admit I could have done it in another and in the end certainly less confrontational way.

The yare selling their aircraft but YOU pretended it didn’t have anything to do with the competition ANOTHER one of your own foot-shooting.

I said it has nothing to do with the evaluation (for which Rafale Bs were used), not that it has nothing to do with the competition as such. And these kind of accusations are those which really get on my nerves.

That’s what I said:
“And the fact that Bs were evaluated means nothing in regards to that publication”

&

“The reason why twin seaters were sent there is owed to the fact that they were used for demonstration with an experienced pilot from the manufacturers country in the rear seat and a swiss pilot in the front seat.”

So how do you come to the conclusion that I stated the publication had nothing to do with the competition in Switzerland?

We try to explain you won’t listen got all jumpy, confrontational, agressive, unwilling to look at the sources provided, accuse pple of what yourself are doing.

If you would leave out offences/provocations while explaining something it would certainly be way easier to not get aggressive or confrontational. And be assured I’m looking at the sources, but I don’t necessarily interpret everything like you and you would do yourself a favour in being a bit more open minded rather than being stuck with your opinion and refusing to even think about the possiblity of another interpretation.

These are NOT fixed values as if an aircraft will always give you the same radius with the same fuel load and in any case what matters here is the weight which when given empty can ALSO have diferent values because they can be given EMPTY Equiped.

That these aren’t fixed values is clear, but they didn’t state some very specific mission profile, except for it being a strike mission. Dassaults (and IIRC other officials sources as well) states >1800 km for a strike mission, so >1600 km is certainly not wrong, but its inconsistent in its way.

When Equiped is quoted somewhere in the same document, then you have an idea.
So if you agreed on all point what are still doing if not all of this? 😀

There is merely one point I disagree with as stated before. I read “Performance with equipment for an airpolicing mission” as the aircraft loaded with external stores (AAMs, ETs) or in other words equipment to fullfil this mission. And afaik no empty weight definition includes external stores.

Not asking YOU no, but the contradiction is somewhere else than where you say it is, at least we still can figure empty weights from our official MinDef websites.

To be honest I have no idea what you are refering to here. What contradiction and what has it to do with me at all?

Scorpion. Take a break really, and try to learn about standards before jumping to conclusions at the first PDF you don’t understand and keep trolling until pple blow their tops.

You atempts at enerving me only makes me laugh at your ignorance. 😎

Nerving you only? How often have I done so since you registered a few days ago? How many of your ~300 posts have I responded to and contradicted you? I’m free to speak out what I think and I won’t shut up just because you can’t handle any contradictions without ressorting to personal attacks and then complain when people shoot back at you.
When I have questions I ask them, when I have an opinion I state it, but make clear it’s an opinion and when I claim something then it has its reasons. That humans make errors should be clear and I have no problem to admit if I’m proven wrong on something, but I don’t admit to be wrong if I’m not.

Treat others as you want to be treated! Be a little bit more patiant and keep a little bit more cool and drop the game of your alternate egos. If you are what you claim to be then you should/could be able to relaxe a bit more. I have contradicted you on one occassion after some 260 posts and you instantly turn red and attack me.

I have confirmed what Sens said: The document (not me) states EMPTY WEIGHT 10220 kg. Don’t blame us for that. Might well be that this is equipped, but it is not stated as equipped EW in the document. And all reasoning apart that’s what it was all about for me. Not more, not less. I’m working with the 9500 kg/4750 kg figures for the Rafale C since I have learned about them ~1-2 years ago, as I consider them to be the most accurate.
All explainations for the empty weight you gave were quite fine, though senseless for me as I’m aware of them and use them as well. But that is something you’ll never realise, because you believe that I behave like you do, albeit you deny your own behaviour. I’m not seeking for the worst/best looking data for this or that aircraft, but for the most accurate and that for all types and not only the one I like most.

If Rafale International Switzerland has nothing to do with Dassault, I stand corrected, but still wonder from where they get their data. I suppose it’s not Lockheed Martin. Yet there are still some contradictions, even if you leave out the swiss pdf. The MDLD document you posted states “combat radius >1600 km” and internal fuel load of 4.5t. WE know that the internal fuel load is 4750 kg for the C/M and that the combat radius should be >1800 km not 1600 km, but there is the contradiction. And while you were not shy in calling me troll and accusing me for twisting and spinning you simply left out that bit when I showed it.

So what’s the weight of the STRENGHTENED T 2 TYPHOON TODAY?

Ask Eurofighter or some of the companies involved. I’m not making up numbers I don’t know about and if I state a number I’m not sure about I make clear that it is an assumption not a fact.

It makes NO difference, they did not demonstrate the Rafale C or M, if they had they would have had given different weights.

10320 kg is the empty weight equiped of the B.

NOW a reality you chose to IGNORE but of course would be a perfectly VALID proposition for the concurent aircrafts…

Ignorant? Who? You? Certainly yes.

All datas are given Empty Equiped for one particular “Police du ciel” mission, the results is the weight for this particular configuration.

I thought Dassaults data were for a combat configured Rafale as well? It’s at least what you alleging here since years. And why is that stated on top of the flight performance only, rather than at the beginning of the document?

If you say so i certainly wont challencge this claim.

Sarcasm is obviously not a strength of yours.

NO There is NO “much different (and heavier) equipment”, you make it up, we know the weight of all equipements down to the latest.

I make up nothing I asked a question what has this to do with making up things?

Here is the real thing for C and Ms, substract 200 l to that and you have the B internal fuel it’s VERY simple as for the difference between C and M it’s <> 650 kg which gives you OFFICIALY, TWICE 9.500 kg.

Can you tell us something new?

Which doesn’t change from one version to the other.

Can you tell us something new?

Even the Ms are now cleared with the 2000 l, yet another thing you don’t know and yet keep spinnning about and refusing to aknowlege the result of the difference of weight between the M as given to you officialy by MN..

.

Lol. As usual laying words in someone elses mouth to create your self an argument you can counter. What a poor mans approach to make a point.

YOU are twisting and spinning as well as refusing to ankowlege official documentation to make a false point.
This PDF doesn’t give you the empty weight but empty EQUIPED with resultant performances for a particular mission on the Heaviest land-based version…

It’s what you interpret not what is stated. So who is making up things? It’s obviously YOU ALONE!

On the other hand ALL other source I posted are OFFICIAL and give EMPTY WEIGHTS without the smallest ambiguity but eh, Mr Scorpion decided they are not good enough for him, what does Marine Nationale and the French Minister of Defense knows?

I decided nothing here Mr. lier. I proved your claims wrong by showing what was stated in contrast to what you made up.

Sorry this PDF IS it is for this SPECIFIC competition and it is Rafale International Switzerland NOT Dassault-Aviation or Marine Nationale or the Minister de la Defense, it is not even the GIE who is in charge of the programme.

So Dassault and its partners let someone not involved make the marketing for it in some foreign country.

You can believe what you want; your usual trolling/spinning trick and refusal to aknowlege official sources is well known, you lost the argument big time again, next time try READING the docs and figure the sources too.

Hard to stay calm with a troll flaming topics while consistantly showing he is incapable of understanding what he himself writes don’t you think so? :D[/QUOTE]

LOL. You call me a troll? Should I remind you who was a thousand times banned from this forum? One wonders why… Who is the one making ~300 posts within few days, hijacks various threats to pretend the superiority of anything french? And you call me troll? You should visit a doctor Mr. “WEEE”.

Let alone your ridiculous efforts to mask your identity. Everyone knows who you are, but you keep lying. What a poor man must you be to hail yourself in form of an alternate ego and treat it as if that ego was someone else. And it’s not the first time you do that!

Sorry i got the original French document and it is CLEAR Masse a vide EQUIPE.

It doesn’t, it states Masse a vide only as the german document which says Leergewicht. There is no “equiped” mentioned in these documents. If you have a different one feel free to share it.

EQUIPED is NOT OPERATIONAL and is NOT EMPTY either.

There have been NO increase in empty weight for the type and you’re more than welcome to stop spreading noises and legends about it because you can’t get your weight straight in the first place. Cheers.:D

The usual nitpicking on improper terms:rolleyes:. Ok take equipped, my point is still valid neither the german nor the french document states equipped or anything else than empty weight only that’s it.

What i am doing is posting an OFFICIAL document from our Defense minister stating the EMPTY weight of two F2 types and giving the weight of the M from the same source (Marine Nationale website), in ALL cases they end up to 9.500 k for the C.

And your official sources don’t comply with each other to a certain extend. You can’t bring up a single source which states all the data at one time. You usually have different sources stating different things albeit they all are offical. Dassault is not even conform within its own publications. Just take a look at service ceiling and climb rate in the document and on the dassault web site!

That’s the internal fuel load of the C and M versions, the version proposed to Switzerland displace 200 l/<> 160 kg of fuel and weight on <> 200 kg more, it is specified in the document i posted but again you’re writing before reading.

Wrong the Swiss will purchase a few twin seaters for training purposes at best, the rest will be single seaters as it was with the F-5 or F/A-18. The reason why twin seaters were sent there is owed to the fact that they were used for demonstration with an experienced pilot from the manufacturers country in the rear seat and a swiss pilot in the front seat. The same was true for Eurofighter and Gripen. They all sent twin seaters because of that very reason.

Thus your figures are all BOGUS due to your lack of knowlege of the type, mystaking the two seater for the other versions takes some doing.

I merely show you that even within your different official sources the data aren’t consistent! Blame Dassault, your MoD et all, not me.

And I’m certain to know much more about the Rafale than you would ever willed to believe or admit. And I couldn’t care less would you believe about my knowledge.

From which source?

There was an AI/AFM special issue on the Eurofighter a few years ago, I have in paper form which states kinetic ranging capabilities for the PIRATE. Another sources which confirms the ranging, albeit it doesn’t state kinetic is this:
http://www.selexgalileo.com/EN/Common/files/Galileo_Avionica/Relazioni_Esterne/Scheda_Prodotto_2/Radar_2/PIRATE.pdf

Multiple Target Tracking
Where engagement (detection, tracking and prioritisation)
of multiple targets in A/A, look up/down operations over
the whole field of regard or in a selectable volume are
executable. Passive ranging data are also available.