Scorpion82Please don’t compare this to JOUST, as JOUST wasn’t conducted by the maker of the Typhoon, unlike this study.
Scorpion82Really……………
A quote from Wg Cdr LoI Bennet OC 3 (F) Squadron;
“The fact that I can fly throughout the full flight envelope with two tanks and eight missiles with no reduction in performance, gives us the key edge.”
Do you actually bother reading what I have stated? Seems not to be the case…
P.S.: Your thumb down remarks bore me
Scorpion82Yet, that doesn’t change the fact that the Typhoon suffers a loss in performance. While carrying external fuel tanks and weapons………Especially, TWO EXTERNAL TANKS AND SEVERAL AIR TO AIR MISSILES.
The orginal “quote” was extremely misleading and totally disingenuous………..Regardless, on how some try to spin it!
No one specifically said that there will be no degration. The quote is somewhat misleading, if you interpret it the wrong way.
Scorpion82The RAF pilot’s statement in question was made during an interview with AFM back around august 2007, when AFM reported about the RAFs declaration of the Typhoon’s QRA readiness.
The statement was indeed made like quoted, but it can be easily misinterpreted. What the pilot meant is there are no specific limitations, hence no degration in performance. That means there is no specific speed or altitude the aircraft shouldn’t exceed and that the pilot can pull high g’s without care.
BTW in the more recent airshow routines Typhoon’s were mostly carrying a centreline tank while still performing all the stunts we have seen before from empty or just AAM equipped aircraft.
Scorpion82Stop the BS.
I am not in any way disputing the risks the F-35 has to overcome.
But those risks have nothing to do with the fact that the flight performance of modern aircraft is designed, wind tunnel tested, computer simulated & known well before flight testing begins much less is completed.
I spoke about the entire aircraft as a weapons system, not about flight performance alone. I’m well aware that with todays tools designers are able to predict the handling characteristics and flight performance of an airframe quite closely. But that is related to the aerodynamics them self. These computations don’t take into account FCS laws (though they should be programmed accordingly), engine performance or airframe stucture. These are other important factors for the overall flight performance! So instead of shouting BS you should start using your brain.
Scorpion82Could we plase stop this nonsense….
How is it that the F-15, F-16, Fulcrum, Flanker, Gripen, Typhoon & Rafale all turned out to be such good performers?
Starting production on a largley untested aircraft involves a risk you fanboys play down for whatever reasons. There were some serious design flaws discovered in the F-22 after LRIP has been started and the Raptor was much more tested at that stage than is the F-35. Computer tools and simulators are fine and help. but they don’t neglict the necessity of putting an aircraft through real tests! There is a reason why the F-35 will perform the most comprehensive REAL WORLD test programme ever, despite all the computer simulations etc. And while you guys point to areas where the F-22 exceeds its specifications such as radar performance, supercruise speed and stealth you completely blank out the areas where it does not, i.e. maintainance requirements, range specifications… The current achievments in the JSF programme are relatively small as the initial goals are set quite low. The most important part have yet to be tested. Such a procedure isn’t unusual for modern combat aircraft at all, but never before the phases of development, testing and production has been overlapped so much as is the case with the F-35. Like it or not, but there is a not to understimate risk, that the first dozens or even hundereds F-35s will be hampered by serious flaws. It’s not a must be, but could be situation. Something you guys blank out.
Scorpion82Yeah… I’ll stick with the reality that the JSF will perform as advertised.
After just 2% of the test programme being passed you speak about reality? Quite brave Mr.
Scorpion82To add my 2ct…
Gripen:
Just complete the NG and it’s fine in its proposed form.
Rafale:
– stronger engines
– AESA
– HMD
– Additional NATO weapons
Typhoon:
– CFTs
– AESA
– more AG weapons
Scorpion82the captor specialists are claiming everywhere that thier “babe” is even better than AESA and they doesn’t need extra for meteor entry!:D
it would be the sole moment where the brits that aren’t no more able to build a fighter by themselves will taste the mica greatness, meteor has the mica head!
dah lost empire, dah lost economics illusions, dah lost pawar!:diablo:
Unlike the RBE2, Captor has already sufficient range to support the Meteor in its current form. The Meteor seeker includes MICA technology, but it’s not the same seeker at all.
The rest needs no comment.
But could we please come back to the topic which is Rafale?
What about EC 2/7? I know some aircraft were flying with this squadrons markings, but is there any news about a possible inauguration?
Scorpion82The claim of the Rafale is based of data published more than a decade old and never been adapted to the growth path from F1 till F3 f.e.
By all sympathy for the French engineers I do not believe in that French miracle, what the Russians, Americans are unable to achieve for good reasons.
A small glimpse about the reality is shown, when the producer gives in the 10 tons class on his present website. The interpretation of the “fanboys” is, that 9,5 or 9,7 tons was ment 10 tons class before and not 9 tons class.
That is wrong just a few years ago the weight was still given as 9.06 t C, 9.4 t B and 9.6 t M. These were the more than a decade old data. The newer data has been published in a document and for the Rafale C on the EC 1/7 webiste as well and are 9.5 t, 9.72 t and 10.13 t respectivley. Dassault gives the weight with 10 t class which is well in the range of the data mentioned above, closer to 10 than to 9, considering that this weight is a rough indicator for all variants.
Janes gave empty weight data of 9.85 t (C), 10.4 t (B/M) back in 2004 or so.
According the more recent pdf fpr the Swiss competition, empty weight is 10.2 t for the Rafale C.
So we have a lot of different numbers from different times. It is clear to say that the original weight numbers are dated and to low. There is no question that the weight has risen over the years, but the question is how much. Janes is mostly not very reliable when it comes to data, but French sources give different figures either.
Scorpion82[B]WHY is Typhoon NOT navalisable?
Who says it isn’t? There were no requirement and there still is no requirement.
Why is Typhoon Roll rate a full 90* lower than that of Rafale?
Ask the manufacturer.
Why is Typhoon approach speed a full 20 kts HIGHER?
Long coupled canards.
Who says “Operational” Maximum AoA are the same?
Quite similar is what I wrote and 29.5° for Rafale and a similar limit for the Typhoon…
Can YOU comprehend SOFT and HARD FCS LIMITS?
Why SO soft limits if the aircraft can safely do SO much better?
CAN Typhoon pull 11 g?
Up to 15% of the normal max. g (9) in override.
Rafale is NOT the Su-27 for some VERY good reason you don’t understand and YOU are still talking WAY above your knowledge base.
Well you don’t speak about anything else for obvious good reasons.
Rafale 290* is ONLY a FCS limit to allow for an average Jockey to fly it through the full of its flight envelop.
Before it was 270°, with a maximum of 290°.
Close coupled canards doesn’t SUPERSTALL, control authority REMAINS.
In any condition? Why any restrictions at all?
That’s the difference between the REAL world and your fantasist one you canot make; precisely…:D
You couldn’t find a more worse excuse, could you? :rolleyes:
I was under the impression myself that all the doc i posted proved you dont have anything else than impressions to oppose to some very documented and official official doc.:D
xxx
Not FIVE NO, last year or 2007 at worse and in the same conditions, Rafale or Gripen doesn’t MISS their targets.
The pitch up mitigation and ALSR document is from 2004, we have 2009…
Well as John BOYD would have said, i never designed an aircraft but if i tried and then ******-up i could do better.
40 years later with the knowledge of others…
The very FACT that you CANT comprehend all related phenomenons is the reason WHY you keep talking horsewind and trying to spin your way around and imply these problems doesn’t exist when in FACT, they are so well documented.
XXXXXX
OR LEX, which is the REASON for trying to fix the problem by mounting them there and flight-testing them too.
Improved manoeuvrability at low speeds was the main aim.
Obviously you not only counterdict youyrself but you now imply Germany had the budget for it. NICE.
xxxxxxx
Scorpion82Maximum AoA reflects the aircraft capabilties to REACH high AoA and RECOVER from them without problems, the higher the better.
All nice, the operational AoA limits are still quite similar with no obvious advantages. Just take a look at the Su-27 which also achieved a significantly higher max AoA. And while the aircraft proved its ability to recover from those AoAs (~105°+ during the cobra, not 90°), it was by no means “controllable” in ALL axis.
Reaching an AoA 30* superior also means retaining control in ALL axis at an AoA 30* higher, which in turn translates by a higher roll rate and higher level of roll authority up to higher AoAs which according to the USAF maneuvrability classification framework are part of what makes an aircraft USEFUL in a turning fight = AGILITY POTENTIAL.
The F-16 max roll rates are faster than that of the Typhoon either, so do other aircraft. Does it mean they provide higher roll authority and better handling at high AoA? No.
PLEASE GET YOUR NOSE OFF YOUR AIRFIX BOXES AND EUROFIGHTER’S COMMERCIALS.
Airfix? Quite harsh words for someone who is consitently posting commercials stuff from Dassault etc. to “prove” his points…
A = One doesn’t ignitiate a TURN before ROLLING.
B = Once in the turn having the capability to reverse or roll while pulling Gs at HIGH AoAs is an asset.
C = The higher the roll rate at the highest AoA is the highet level of useful mameuvrability.
So far I don’t have the impression of higher roll rates at high AoAs, not even on the Rafale.
Transonic pitch up mitigation, who says it hasn’t been solved in the meantime?
You see from when the sources are 5+ years ago.
And BTW about the landing distance:
“…in the most adverse conditions the specified landing distance would not be achieved…”
And this, Scorpion82 is NOT the ONLY design issue inherited fro MBB “expertise”…
And Mr. Lordassap of course knows all much better than the MBB experts. .. :rolleyes:
Thus reverting to non-integrated long moment harm canards and loosing the close-coupled
Non-integrated in relation to the wings…
SO GERMANY WAS NEVER “INTERESTED” MERELY CONDUCTING STUDIES AS WERE MOST DEVELOPED AEROSPACIAL INDUSTRIES.
The intention to develope a new combat aircraft was there, not just the intention to study…
SO WHAT? It’s MBB retained design features which are cause of Typhoon problems at this level, not that of BAe.
…
You REALY lost a (YET another) good opportunity to stay quiet.
Another opportunity for what?
Scorpion82TFK90 never made it further than the aerodynamic studies and model simulation stage and it is very doubtful that Germany would have been designing developing and producing it on its own.
More to it it was ALWAYS intended to be fitted with TVC which partly explains Typhoon’s AoA and pitch-control issues.
😎
Not achieving a AoA of 100° is an “issue”? Transonic pitch up mitigation, who says it hasn’t been solved in the meantime?
No Germany never intended to go it all alone on cost grounds, but a participation in a multinational programme playing a vital role was the intention. Let alone that MBB was studying and developing a lot of technologies as part of TKF90 and even long before!
Scorpion82Yeah sure, ENLIGHT US!
Whats does the R from LERX stands for?😀 COLOR=”Red”]XXXX[/COLOR]
.
The R stands for Root. Just type LERX in google you’ll get a lot of hits. So don’t blame me Mr.
Scorpion82[B]
LERX is YOUR undoing DUDE, from a badly informed website and repeated TYPO….:DI believe it is you who needs to flush …… DUDE
YOU are the subject of much laughing right now, guess???
Well LERX is used since many years by many sources.
Sign In
