“Concurent aircraft” engine pressure recovery LIMIT in DRY power IS M 1.5 and “Concurent aircraft” NEVER flew at M 1.5 in DRY power, it was just suggested that this would be possible once the engine limits had been lifted.

“Auch ohne Nachbrenner-Einsatz ist ein Marschflug mit ca. Mach 1,5 möglich (Supercruise).”

This comes directly from the manufacturer. Translated:
“Even with afterburners it is possible to cruise with ~Mach 1.5.”

The difference is honnesty here,

Honesty like the Rafale is better at everything and a full generation ahead?

and perhaps a tad of respect for the other posters,

Respect like offending people not even involved in a discussion? Respect like accusing someone for saying things he never said?

we dont generaly disclose what we canot substanciate or/and INVENT the rest.

Things like “superiority everywhere”…

Visibly, the “Concurent aircraft” fanboys aren’t bothered with reality checks and when one come their way, the only solution is making as much noise as possible in an atempt to minimise the “damages”, then try to get the guilty part banned, it worked before it might well work again.

WOW! The truth HURTS sometimes doesn’t it?

See post above for your so called reality checks.
The reason why people ask for you to be banned has nothing to do with the “hurting reality” but with the kind of your behaviour. How do you expect people to react if you can not make a single post without blaming someone for whatever, even if it is completely unreasoned? How do you expect the people to react, when the so called Typhoon fanboys can have a quite polite and informative discussion with the Rafale enthusiasts (Well according you anyone likening the Rafale is an enthusiast or expert, while everyone who might have the slightest interest in the Typhoon is a fanboy)? Why is it so difficult to make a post about the Rafale OR the Typhoon without automatically refering to the other aircraft?

So what we clearly established is; there is NO substantial evidence whatsoever of “Concurent aircraft” superiority in most field where it was “advertised”.

There is indeed no significant superiority in most of the areas, at least there are many details missing, details which would be necessary to know before making such statements. Yet the situation is not much different the other way round.

ONLY Mirage 2000 mk2/9, Rafale, F-22 and F-35 uses this IT architecture.

ACDP, MACS etc. are all no modulare computer designs and structures?

There can be as many processors onboard “Concurent aircraft” as its makers will, their level of effisciency depends before all of the BUSES architectures.

More to the point; Dassault and Thales says of MDPU that these are 18 MODULES, NOT CPUs and we do not know how many CPUs each modules are countaining.

All we know is that each of them are 50 X more powerful than the Mirage 2000 5F 2084 XRI which in turn were of a newer technology generation than the “Concurent aircraft” processors by a good TEN years…

More to the point, as opposed to what “we’ve been told” by our venoumous friend, we know from Thales that Rafale F2/F3 uses MULTITHREADING to the full, meaning FULL redundency, as well as being fully upgradable in terms of processing power, already possesing a 5th generation core system architecture and buses width to use the power.

Ah the superior MIL STD 1553B and STANAG 3910 buses which can only be found on the Rafale:dev2:

It is quiet OBVIOUS that Scorpion have LONG ran out of arguments, NEXT desperate measure, get the poster banned… :diablo:

Says a LOT about him doesn’t it?

But he no one is perfect. 😀

A history lesson for you Fonky Donkey:
Back in the 1980s two new russian 4th generation fighters made their appearance and were soon quite famous and well know in the aviation world. The aircraft I’m talking about are the MiG-29 and the Su-27. Those two russian fighters were able to fly a maneuver called the Pugachev Cobra where they achieved a max AoA in excess of 100°. No western fighter of that generation, including the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 was able to reproduce that maneuver and achieve a compareably high AoA. Yet the AoA was just achieved during the cobra and the maneuver itself could be flown in very specific narrow circumstances only. While the cobra was nice to watch at airshows and while it demonstrated those russian fighters superior max aerodynamic AoA performance it was of little to no practical use in reality. The interesting part about that story is that those very same russian fighters had quite similar operational AoA limits as their western counterparts. Hence they enjoyed a minor to no advantage at all. While the russian fighters retained an AoA override capability, their western counterparts lacked it due FCS restrictions. Yet no one ever suggested any practical application of this AoA override capability to gain the upper hand in a combat situation. One might wonder why… (rhetorical question for the retarded guys)

Now some 20 years later the very same story repeats, but this time we are not talking about Russian and US made designs, but about Europes latest 4th generation fighters such as the Rafale and Typhoon.
The Rafale reached AoAs up to 100° and negative airspeeds of 40 kts during testing. The Typhoon just achieved an AoA of 70° and seems to be incapable to fly at negative airspeeds due its aerodynamic configuration.
Yet the operational reality is the very same as it was for the teen/teenski fighters. The operational AoA limits for the Rafale and Typhoon are quite similar, with no obvious difference! One wonders why the F2 production examples are limited to an AoA of ~29°…While the Rafale’s FCS permits an AoA override, the Typhoon’s FCS does not. The AoA override might have saved this Rafale M pilot’s life during the near crash, while a Typhoon might have crashed in the very same situation, ignoring the fact that all Typhoons since block 2 feature a FCS function which automatically initiates a recovery/pull up maneuver when the aircraft threatens crash or to decend below the programmed altitude. Such a feature was supposed to be integrated onto the Rafale as well, but it hasn’t make it in until now as the AdA Rafale F2 crash in December 2007 showed where the aircraft crashed into the ground after the pilot suffered a g-loc. To cut it short history teached us that a higher maximum AoA achieved in specific test conditions is irrelevant in an operational contents!
Yet a Rafale fanboys wet dream is going down.
Another strange claim is that about the Rafale’s alledgely so vastly superior AoA handling. While the Typhoon performs the barell roll in every airshow routine demonstrating the aircraft’s handling qualities and controllability at low speeds/high AoAs the alledgely superior Rafale is incapable to fly this maneuver (due FCS restrictions, what an irony). Any prove for the so called superior handling is therefore missing. Yet another fanboys wet dream turns out to be hot air.
Another issue, the turn rates. While for the Rafale ITR/STR of 32/24°/sec has been reported, no data has been disclosed for the Typhoon. The only thing which is recognised is that the ITR/STR of the Typhoon are in excess of 30/20°/sec which can mean much. Yet the Rafale never demonstrated any more spectaculare turn maneuvers in comparison to the Typhoon which would clearly demonstrate its so called superior turn performance. So the evidence is lacking and another wet dream of a Rafale fanboy is going down in flames. BTW what is about your previously claimed 30°/sec STR? Just a perfect example for your so called aerodynamic “comprehension” and “expertise.”
Supercruise:
While a certain French duck was unable to demonstrate its supercruise capability in an unfavourable condition during the Singapore evaluation, a certain European dog could easily do it, even with the weaker EIS engines (8% lower thrust).
Acceleration/climb performance. Yet another funny claim, while it has been reported by well recognised informed people and experts since years, that the Typhoon enjoys an edge here, a single french guy on the internet with an unproven credibility, but known record for fanboyism claims the opposite. Funnily the so called superior French duck with half the payload needs 1/3 longer to achieve the same altitude than the European dog! One wonders how this contradicts with the Rafale’s alledgley superior acceleration/climb performance, which obviously only exists in the mint of an old frustrated fanboy.

cheers

Man you’re the one who GREATLY NEEDS luck…

Power PC? What do YOU think these COTS Motorola processor ARE? :p

Next time try to INFORM yourself before answering.

1.) To whom you are actually responding? BTW these computers in T2 aircraft are new, not 68020 processors anymore.

As for your reply on weapon load same here, just as if you had the knowledge base to comprehend the whole thing.

Have a good look at the way thew weapons are actualy aligned on BOTH Rafale and Gripen and ask yourself; how can Dassault and SAAB BOTHER aligning AAMs close to the Cg when they actualy weight only 112 kg in the case of the MICA(and not 115 according to IXARM or MBDA).

Wow 3 kg will make a huge difference:dev2:

For the other posters

I have visited and downloaded the F-16.net Forum, topics (8 pages) “F-16 versus Rafale”…

Those things these guys writes about French aircrafts and weapons!

They still think that the MICA have a range of only 50 km, when it is given for 80km by the MinDef wesite for years now.

As for Rafale, they still can’t grab it to the full, they speak about it like a larger F-16, regardless of its large advantage in wingload and TWR in A2A combat configuration (50% internal fuel).

Still i got some interesting datas from a guy called toan:

NOTE: From what i can remember of the doc i have read at the time of the Korean contest:

The Korean press WAS reporting these 35*/sec figure, saying that the aircraft was the one with the highest INSTANTANEOUS turn rate ever, that it could “SQUARE” a turn and loose its adversary this way.

As a matter of FACT one only have to look at the figure called “Square Dance” to have an idea…

Obviously i would LOVE to get my hands on this article again, i can’t remember reading the SUSTAIN turn rate figures though but the 24*/sec are the figures demonstrated by Rafale A at the Frarnborough AirShow 1988, SAME for the stabilised AoA of 32*…

In all the figures posted, i can spot MANY of them being those for the Rafale A (AoA, SUSTAINED turn rate) but i am certain of the INSTANTANEOUS turn rate figure for the Korean contest.

Having said that these figures still have to be validated in one way or another…

Ah yes M2k = Rafale, Eurofighter = F-16. Great comparison:diablo:

When it comes to rough figures, if one believes what have been published there and then, a Rafale C would be quasy on par with a “Concurent aircraft” which can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds.

That’s 370.40 km/h compared to the start point given by TMor of 300 km/h.

Q: TMor, Where did you get these figures from?

BTW not ver useful in km/h, only the Russians uses metrics for speed.

In the WEST we use Kts = 1.852m or 6,076.1155 Fts/sec exept for the Mach (M), which is dimentionless, being the ratio of true airspeed to the local speed of sound, and is function of the square root of the ambiant temperature.

A photoshop scale give an idea of the acceleration capabilties of the two aircrafts…

Read under. Could well mean 29.9 sec but also 25 sec. According a Lw pilot just 25 sec is needed (have to look for the exact statement), according
BAE the aircraft accelerates to mach 1 from takeoff in under 30 sec.

So please, give me MORE of “Concurent aircraft” superiority in whatever form you wish…

Mach 1.5 supercruise with half internal fuel clean and the ability to demonstrate supercruise when a french duck wasn’t able to do it.

Climb to 40k ft in 90 sec with 4 x ASRAAM + 4 x AMRAAM + 2 x 1000 l tanks (according RAF Typhoon pilot)

Climb to 40 k ft in 120 sec with 4 x MICA + 1 x 1250 l (According MN Rafale pilot).

:p

photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/DoesNotCompute.jpg

Yeah yeah Fonky boy

The answer is simple NO.

Thanks

[*]The F3 will had the full high resolution A2G scanning which will allow Rafale to self designate ground targets for the AASM (i’m not sure about this point).

Yes AFAIK SAR mapping is currently not present in F2 standard aircraft, but will be introduced with F3.

uhmm the typhoon academy rebelion , can’t argumet anything so trys to drags ppl down and beat you by experience.
..

😮 :p

:D:D

Interestingly there’re quite a bunch of french Rafale enthusiasts here with whom we (in your language Typhoon fanboys) can have a quite civilised and informed discussion. Arthuro, TMor, Niclas10 to mention some of them. So what do you wrong, what they do right?

?????????????

Enough spin please, EVERYONE can READ total of 4 missiles, and skip the paranoiac bit and finger pointing every time you shoot yourself in the feet.

I corrected a GROSS inaccuracy about Maximum MISSILE load and there was NO questions in you reply ABOUT THE MAXIMUM BEING METEORS. :diablo:

We all understood the question but the reply is NOT about that was asked but “TOTAL OF 4 MISSILES“.

AGAIN: For everyone to SEE THIS was YOUR reply.

I didn’t write this, YOU DID, i corrected it because the MAXIMUM missile load proposed by GIE is NOT 4 but 8.

Salut OPIT…

Yeah of course strange that everyone understood it right except for you. But I understand I’m no french man so I can’t reply to a question about a french aircraft:rolleyes:
Troll