Scorpion821.) F-16s can carry 2270 l tanks as well (600 gallon)
2.) 1500 l tanks aren’t used by the Typhoon, but 2000 l tanks are a proposed option for the future
3.) Combat radius depends on fuel load, weapon load, mission profile and planned reserves.
We don’t know what the 833 km radius for the F2 is for (mission type, profile, payload etc.).
Scorpion82Did YOU write all this nonsense when obviously BOTH L-M and AdA/Dassault were showing CLEARLY that you were wrong?
Operational reality proves you wrong my friend. That nonsense is the hard reality like it or not. Most service ceilings given in publications are upper limits. Can the aircraft operate there? Yes it can! Does it operate there on a regulare base? No! And why doesn’t it operate there? Because the performance at such altitude would be insufficient!
My reply was clear, with tanks they are EQUAL without they have an advantage of 0.4 Mach and you’re WELCOME to prove they CANT fly at M 2.0 with AAMs or that the DRAG issue is the reason for their Max Mach. Please…
Care to elaborate why the operational top speed of the Rafale is given with mach 1.8 then, rather than M2.0? Care to elaborate why the MiG-29 which achieves M2.3 clean just achieves some M1.7 or so when loaded with a crappy pair of 2 R-27 and 4 R-73?
SAY WHO? YOU? Who should I believe? Marine Nationale AND Dassault or YOU?
If you would leave your little aviation world which seems to be centered around Dassault, the AdA and MN you might face reality!
Rafale Operational ceiling IS 15.000 ft HIGHER; period.
Care to show a single source which suggests that Rafales are operating at 55k ft on a regulare base?
TRANSLATE in proper Aerospacial terms PLEASE.
Cinematics is a widely used term in military aviation and means speed expressed as energy. What was that with ABC and home work?
Please stop you’re making this topic another one of your now famous “I didn’t write this” mess!!!
If you stop wrong turning everything I say just to make your point…
Scorpion82When you will be talking according to proper aerospacial standards instead of inventing them i will probabily understand.
SPIN/TWIST and the usual nonsense all over AGAIN.
Dont try to make up you were R.I.G.H.T. to pretend F-35 ceilings were the SAME because it is jus t NOT the case.
I was and I’am right:p Like it or not facts don’t change because of your fantasy!
I do not need to interpret you ,you already write it all wrong in the first place.
You interpret it wrong in the first place or maybe just turn it wrong to look like the smart expert nothing else.
Scorpion82NO mate, as opposed to you, HE doesn’t try to blur the difference between Maximum and Operational ceilings.
He knows what he is talking about, you on the other hand, clearly DONT.
Please save your accusations such as “you don’t know what you’re talking about” and such. If you would actually try to understand what others say, rather than counter every claim and wrong turn it, you might see that there is much common sense between some points, you just need to reach the centre. The fact remains, aircraft like the F-16 or F/A-18 for example weren’t designed to operate at 50k ft on a regulare base either, yet the manufacturer and customers state 50k ft as its operational ceiling. That might be the upper limit, but that is true for many aircraft. The data provided for the F-35 represent the typical altitude range at which the aircraft can be operated most effectively. It can go higher, like the F-16 or F/A-18 and I bet with you the operational ceiling will be given with at least 50k ft in the future. The fact that the aircraft won’t typically operate at such altitudes remains.
He desagree with YOU clearly by stating that the OPTIMISATION of F-35 reuslts in a lower OPERATIONAL ceilling and LOWER performances at above 40.000 ft
Where have I claimed that the performance will be the same or better at 40k ft and above? Nowhere, it’s surprising how much crap you interpret into some statements and it makes me wonder why, but I have the feeling it’s just your personal disease with my person that causes such reactions, rather than a rational logic behind.
Scorpion82What, no argument? 😀
Credential speaks for some wise revisions of your views Scorpion82….
No argument? Lol LmRaptor just said what I have said since quite some posts, just the selection of some words was different. Yet agree with him, but claim that I’m wrong and have to do my homework. I don’t know if I should be angry about that or if I should just laugh about it. Maybe you should start to put your personal problems with other users aside, would help much for such discussions. Everything else is just flamming.
Scorpion82Im not disputing that lol – I don’t need a techie fan to illustrate this to me – I study the subject as part of a masters degree at one of the better institutions for the subject.
All I am saying is the F-35 will be able to fly at 50 kft. It won’t have the performance level the EF or the Rafale will have up there as there is no doubting the EF/Rafale will have superior top end KE + PE performance. And despite what the general public think – there is still a lot of dynamic performance gain over what we saw in the 80s – mabye not so much in terms of absolute performance gains.
amen
Scorpion82NO but you inplied it by making a comment on the F-35 “operational configuration” which isn’t that different to that of the European fighters.
What you interpret is not my problem and not what I’m implying.
More to it, if you do not use proper technical terms the meaning of your post is lost…
If it is explained, everyone can follow it, at least if he is willed.
Go and find a source saying so, you realy think that AAMs designed to fly at M 4.0 drag that much?
You want to tell me an aircraft with 6 or 8 external AAMs mostly on pylons will have the same drag as the same aircraft clean? Sorry but that is ridiculous. Sure 2 or 4 missiles won’t hurt much, especially if fitted to wing rails or semi-recessed fuselage stations, but if you have 6 or 8 missiles and 4-6 of them need pylons, you are going to have increased drag and that will have an impact on the performance, like it or not.
= LOFTING.
Usually the result is, but the cinematic doesn’t mean lofting itself.
I cant SEE why it wouldn’t be possible the only reason they keep them and why they are cleared for supersonic speeds is cost…
Being forced into combat earlier than planned, with external fuel not used to the degree as planned in the mission for example.
NOT in AdA/MN or even Dassault nomenclature…
Plafond = Ceiling in French…
Not surprising.
You chosed the WORSE example possible because RB199 is a total SLOUCH at high altitude, NOT the case of M88 or EJ200…
This does NOT reflect reality in MN/AdA service, if they need to they would fly higher, and AGAIN it is NOT a question of “practicality” it is a question of SAFETY.
We’re rewriting ther books here… I’ll pass, i have enough of this…
Neither AdA/MN nor Dassault are of interest here, we speak about a US design, so anything related to the AdA/MN or Dassault is completely irrelevant!
NO it isn’t it is by DESIGN 20.000 ft to 35.000 ft in best case and its mission profiles reflect this perfectly.
According a briefing from Maj. Davis from the HQ ACC the typical ceiling will be:
“Normal” operating altitudes will be in FL300-FL400
•
Does not preclude low/medium altitude training requirements
Anyway you don’t get my point. In the end LM or the customer will state a service ceiling of 50k ft or something like that, that the aircraft wasn’t optimised for that altitude is true, but it will be able to operate there. It just makes not much sense, as the aircraft will have insufficient performance at that ceiling. That is true for many aircraft including the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29 or Su-27 to mention some examples. Neither of these aircraft is operated at altitudes of 50k ft plus on a “regular” base as you claim, though all of them are capable to fly at that altitudes.
Scorpion82In the case of WHICH aircraft would low drag AAMs and pylons cause it not to reach DASH speed?
By the drag imposed by the pylons and stores… Max dash speed with AAMs is given with M 1.8 for Rafale or Typhoon for example, NOT M2.0.
It IS also a DASH speed never being mentioned ANYWHERE as SUSTAINED, BTW just because you seems not to know, it was a F-35 design requierement from day one: “Supersonic DASH Speed”.
No one here mentioned sustained here!
In this topic, “operational configuration” doesn’t mean anything, all of these aircraft can fly at DASH speed in A2A configuration, this mean without tanks for the Europeans but they CAN jettison their tanks, F-35 stays with its extra internal volume and structural weight.
They can fly at a dash speed but the dash speed with AAMs is not equal to the max dash speed clean!
Meaning? Lofting?
Simply giving the missile more speed on launch to increase their effective range.
STILL a M 0.4 disadvantage if the european aircrafts jettisons their tanks, just about EQUAL if not.
Basically true, but there might be situations were dropping the tanks at a given status might not be desireable.
“practical operational altitude” doesnt mean anything, Operational ceiling does.
“Practical” operational ceiling is a term I use…
This mean Scorpion that you still have a little home work to do or join your own A-F for a little while…
Operational means in this case “regular” Ops, otherwise said without the use of a pressure suite for safety reason.
Tornados operational ceiling is given with 50k ft, but you will never see them flying any mission at that altitude, they can reach it but flying at it is not practical, same for the F-16, F/A-18 and whatever aircraft you want. Apart a few exceptions where operational ceiling is really a practical altitude at which the aircraft can operate. The F-35s operational ceiling is for sure 50k ft or more, but the typical altitude band for operations is 30k-40k ft, as the performance/economics ratio is best here.
Scorpion82I know DASS perhaps better than you do, i also know of its VMC limitations and this is what you are fooled by.
I suppose you mean DAS (Distributed Aperture System) not DASS (Defensive Aids Sub System)? I ask, because you repeately said DASS, but obviously mean DAS.;)
I’m looking for the Doc but i have to remind YOU that F-35 systems were partly developed by European companies in particular BAe systems which, if they are good can hardly claim being better than SAGEM and Thales in this field.
A Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon actualy supercruise with AAMs and tanks, F-35 doesn’t supercruise AT ALL.
A Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon actualy fly at M 2.0 which is a M 0.4 kinetic advantage over F-35.
A Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon actualy aren’t structuraly G limited the way F-35 is…
A Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon actualy have an operational ceilling 10.000 higher.
But you have to take into account external stores on the ECDs as well.
Interesting in the “speed department” would be what the considered typical max. speed of the F-35 is in an operational configuration. Will it accelerate out to mach 1.6 to launch a missile with best cinematics? The M2.0 says pretty much nothing as it is the defined max. speed. Operational speeds with AAMs and ETs are much lower (~M1.6 for Rafale and Typhoon, don’t know for Gripen).
The ceiling given for the F-35 (30k-40k ft) is the practical operational altitude. The aircraft can be operated at higher altitudes, but it might not make much sense. The operational ceiling given for most aircraft is exagerated from an operational point of view. The Gripens ceiling is given with ~45k ft, though sources suggest it is more like 55k ft, but that doesn’t mean the aircraft usually flys that high.
Scorpion82From a pilot’s viewpoint, I would prefer that the added drag from the TRD be at the center of thrust… not as far to one side as possible.
Something about assymetric drag… I know the computer will automatically compensate, but it will, absolutely, not only create more drag in the process, but also create a situation where the aircraft will turn more quickly, and to a greater turn rate/turn angle when turning into the TRD side than away from it.
That could be a problem in some situations.
How much drag can be produced by such a single small item? I doubt that it will have any noticable impact on performance or handling.
Scorpion82AFAIK the burn through problem was indeed an issue for the SHs TRD. If I recall right this has been countered by a kind of stand off holder. The wing tip pods of the Typhoon are an integral part of the airframe design, it’s different from the Super Hornet were the TRD was added as an after thought.
Scorpion82AFAIK the burn through problem was indeed an issue for the SHs TRD. If I recall right this has been countered by a kind of stand off holder. The wing tip pods of the Typhoon are an integral part of the airframe design, it’s different from the Super Hornet were the TRD was added as an after thought.
Scorpion82Specific fuel consumption of the EJ200 dry is between 0,74 – 0,81 kg/kg/h or 21 – 23 g/kNs
Scorpion82Specific fuel consumption of the EJ200 dry is between 0,74 – 0,81 kg/kg/h or 21 – 23 g/kNs
Scorpion82Then some time AFTER said fantacy came out the F-22 & Typhoon actually DID meet
Did they meet? Where is the prove? Any official confirmation?
It is an RAF Typhoon pilot who sad ‘
No it was a US guy who claimed that a RAF pilot said…
Sign In
