Aerodynamics, FCS & Propulsion PART II

Coming to PART II.
Fonk you seem to have the greater knowledge of us two about aerodynamic laws. Understand this as a base and feel free to correct but please objective and without getting harshley.
I will make an indirect comparison without judging which design is or could be the better one in terms of aerodynamics.

General
Typhoon and Rafale have the same basic aerodynamics:
unstable Delta/Canard layout with a single fin and two engines.

However there’re many differences in the design of the two fighters, probably unneccessary to tell you. However many people confound the two types…

Non benchmark aerodynamics comparison
Despite the similarities of the basic design there’re a lot of differences. Typhoon has low mounted delta wings with higher sweep angle (53° according WAPJ and other sources) while Rafale has a mid-mounted delta wing with a sweep of 42° (you Fonk say 48° that may be). Independet what the exact sweep engle of Rafale wings is, the imporant detail is it’s lower than that of Typhoon’s delta. Rafale also has a higher wing aspect ratio (2,521 Raf : 2,205 EF).
Rafale is a close coupled canard design with symetrical all moveable foreplanes. Typhoon has long coupled canards asymetrically all moveable and a bit larger than that of Rafale. Additionally Typhoon has small strakes behind the canards.
Fuselage design is completly different that of the Typhoon seems to be optimized for lower drag, that of the Rafale includes LEX to increase lift (correct me if I’m wrong Fonk).
The single fin of both fighters is similar, but that of the Typhoon has an heat exchanger.
Typhoon has a dedicated airbrake directly behind the cockpit, Rafale has no airbrakes.
Question here: Can the control surfaces of the Rafale brake the aircraft and how is it achieved (which rudder/surface deflections).

The airlift intakes are very different designs. Rafale has two low mounted intakes sideways to the fuselage with non moveable splinter plates. Do I understand it right that the LEX to influence the airflow in a positive manner during high AoA?
The intakes with their (near) D-form and non moveable parts were optimized for low RCS as well.
Typhoon has two intakes directly next to each other under the fuselage. They have a rectangulary form, slightly shaped two decrease RCS and with vary cowls for optimal airflow during high AoA maneuvers and under different flight attitudes.

Both aircraft are aerodynamically unstable. It is claimed that Typhoon is more unstable than Rafale. How much? I don’t know.

Comparing the aerodynamics make it neccessary to look at the design goals.
Rafale was developed for carrier operations to and as a multirole fighters. Mid-mounted wings are better suited for carrier operations, especially with heavy loads under the wings. The combination with LEX and close coupled canards give the Rafale very good low speed characteristics, essential for carrier operations, but for close air combat too. Airlift intakes were primary designed for reduced RCS (that is what I know so far).

Typhoon was designed for high BVR- and close air combat. Aerodynamics are optimized for high supersonic performance and maneuverability as well as subsonic agility. Typhoon is highly unstable at subsonic speeds, but becomes stable at higher supersonic speeds.

Flight Control Systems (FCS)
Unstable aircraft like Typhoon and Rafale can’t be controlled with mechanical flight control systems as a pilot can’t react that fast to hold the aircraft stabile…

Both fighters are equiped with advanced digital fly-by-wire FCS. That of the Rafale is a triplex system with an additional analogue chanel.
Typhoon is using a fully digital system with quadruplex redundancy. AFAIK Typhoons FCS is the first one to feature DDA (direct drives actuators). This enables the abondonement of separate power generators to move the control surfaces/rudders.
Both FCS provides carefree handling characteristics and prevents the pilots from overstressing the airframe and exceeding aerodynamical limits. FCS is aware of weapon load configurations as well as aerodynamically and controlls all the surfaces automatically.

Special features include:
Typhoon:
– Automatic Low Speed Recovery /ALSR)
– Dis-orientation Recovery Capability (DORC)
– Emergency G-override
– automatic blast control

Rafale:
– emergency G-override (?)
– Automatic reconfiguration after taking battle damage
Something else…? All people feel free to complement this list

Propulsion
Both fighters are powered by two twin-spooled turbofan afterburning engines.

Design (M88-2E4/EJ200):
Number of main modules: 21/15
Lenght: 3,54 m/4 m
Diameter: 0,696 m/0,74 m
weight: 897 kg/990-1035 kg
LP-stages: 3/3
HP-stages: 6/5
Turbine stages: 1+1/1+1
Fan pressure ratio: 4,2:1/4,2:1
Pressure ratio: 24,5:1/26:1
By pass ratio: 0,3:1/0,4:1

Performance (M88-2E4/EJ200):
Airflow: 65 kg/sec / 75-77 kg/sec
Temperature: 1577°C/up to ~2000°C
Specific fuel consumption Dry: 0,8 kg/N/h /0,74-0,81 kg/N/h
Specific fuel consumption R/H: 1,7 kg/N/h /1,659-1,73 kg/N/h
Dry Thrust: 50 kN (5100 kg)/60 kN (6120 kg)
R/H Thrust: 75 kN (7650 kg)/90 kN (9180 kg)

————————————————————————–
@all
Ok that’s all for the moment more to come soon. Feel free to discuss and more important complement and add informations/data you have.

So Fonk & PilotTHX…

I finally decided to reengage into the discussion with new “energy”. I’m willed to continue the discussion under following conditions:

1.) Let’s get back to a more polite and higher level. Don’t blaming others for some wrong informations he may have or some less experience in some areas. We could complement each other.

2.) Accept that I’m interested in both Rafale and Typhoon. They are both my favorite fighters and I want to learn as much about them as possible. Being objective isn’t ever easy but at all it is possible.

3.) Let’s make some points, running circles discussions to bring us forward. I agree with statements like RBE-2 uses more advanced antenna technology and that this has advantages. I never said the opposite or denied that so there is no reason to repost the same thing to prove something what has been already proven. I’ve not the intention to defend something where is nothing to defend!

I think we must stay logic.
Thales and the AdA decide to go with a “basic” electronic array with a “limited” range in regard of what a AESA can give but with much more functions like simultaneous A2A AND A2G and so on, which fit better with an “omni-role” fighter.

Hi Glitter,
I agree for that.
For the Eurofighter it was decided to use a mechanical array because phased array radars for fighters weren’t developed that far at that time (early 90s).
Would it has been clear that entry into service would delay by so many years I assume that phased array would have been developed for Eurofighter too, but that wasn’t the case. However AESA is under developement but it is an open question when it will be available for Typhoon.

On a french forum, I heard that that array hasn’t anything to do with the project AMSAR, more like a quick and dirty AESA.

I didn’t say it has to do with AMSAR 😉

@PilotTHX

Typhoon is 13g limit???

http://www.google.com/search?source…fighter+G+limit

well even the MoD discuss about the g limit of the typhoon +9/-3

Rafale G limit ares +11/-3.6

Don’t know about the possible max g-load of Typhoon. -3g to +9g is the normal limit. But the FCS includes an emergency g-override function so that the pilot can pull even more g’s.
Rafale is limited to +9 g too by it’s FCS. But there is probably also a possiblity to override that. -3,6 g is an old figure, I see enough sources stating -3,2 g. But that’s not relevant as negative g’s will not be pulled very often.

typhoon replacing 9 specialised aircrafts??? there ares planes sweeping the soil???
where the typhoon was designed for aircrafts carrier, or strikes? recce?

i don’t speak about somes of the roles of a aircraft will be able to do, i talk about the first design, and it seems that the eurofighter was designed as an air superiority jet, not a striker or others roles in mind first, as the rafale was designed as a omnirole fighter, being equal to all task he will have!

What I want to point out is simply that Rafale was designed as multirole fighter for attack and airdefence missions, with two versions for land and carrier based operations. Originally AdA wanted to replace it’s Mirage F1 and Jaguar and Aeronavale it’s F-8 and Etendard/SEM. 7 specialized aircraft sounds like fighter, transport, bomber, AWACS… lol In fact todays fighters can all be used for multirole. Look at F-15, F-16, MiG-29 or Su-27 (newer version) all designed as fighters and they are used for AG missions as well and that very successfully (at least the US designs). It doesn’t matter who many types Rafale will replace if a lot of them have similar not to say the same tasks. At least Rafale will replace 4 types as mentioned above. Recconaisance does not require special designe for Rafale as only a recce pod is installed if required as external store.

Eurofighter was primary designed as air superiority fighter right. But there were requirements for AG capabilities as well from the very beginning.

AG capabilities had a higher priority for Rafale than for Typhoon that’s another fact. Aerodynamics for the Eurofighter were optimized for AA if that is the point you (and probably Fonk) wants to make. That’s a fact and there is nothing I would deny and I never allege the opposite.

talk about the fact that integrated sensors and software of rafale give it the multitask abilities to strike and follow land maps while simultanously able to AoA any thread, it’s the only one in the next gen fighter to do it, you say that captor is able of 70* angle “to what distance?? “, it’s ridiculous comparated to a fixed array, as i said if dassault was for a “captor mecha like” radar system , they would put a RDY 2, i don’t even talk about the doppler’s modes and speed sweeps diferences between a old tech as captor and an electronic array as RBE2!

beleive me, if the captor was a title winner, all the yanks and others would put back an old mecha antenna on their products!

Typhoon can also make terrain following flights and strike a target (better said will when weapons are integrated).
Rafale was the first fighter designed to carry out AA- and AG-tasks simultously, meanwhile F-16Block 60 and F/A-18E/F Block II could do the same with their AESA radars.
Sensor fusion is available now for upgraded new versions of fighters like F-16 Bl60, M2k-5… Don’t no if it is as advanced as it is by the F/A-22 or Eurofighter but these types were the first to be designed for that and maybe Rafale to, which also incooperates sensor fusion.

Yes RBE-2 uses a more advanced antenna technology than CAPTOR and that provides advantages. That’s another point were it’s not neccessary to argue about as I don’t deny it and I don’t allege the opposite.
But the advanced technology does not mean the RBE-2 is totally superior to CAPTOR in all areas.
As a little additional info Germany and the UK were working on AESA technology together with France since 1993. CAPTOR will probably be upgraded with AESA in future. And yes I know that RBE-2 AESA has already been tested since 2003…

I’m sorry for having attracted you here. I’ve to recognize that you’re quite honest.

No problem and no need to say sorry. It was my own decission 😉
It seems to be a difficulty for some people to realize that there’re people like me who are interested in both Eurofighter and Rafale and who have not the intentions to degrade one and boost up the other, depending on personal preference.

You’re right. Actually, nobody could really defend Typhoon on aerodynamics (without trying to put that all the theories were wrong, which I doubt). This came to a point that someone told us (french) that to make Rafale better than Typhoon, Dassault would have defied the laws of physics…
And then, pro-Typhoon tryed to deal with avionics… But speaking about it is far more difficult to my mind. It seems to me that both aircraft are equivalent in this domain.
Whatever some journalist saying that typhoon’s MMI, radar, data fusion are better than Rafale’s (using the pretended customers point of view), this point is quite unclear… End of debate ?

So that’s another point. I never said Typhoons aerodynamics are better than that of Rafale, but also not the other way round.
Avionics may be difficult, but not much more than performance. A lot of data in all areas are classified for new aircraft like Eurofighter, Rafale or F/A-22… So the most comparisions are grey theory based on what is known by the moment. We have informations and may they were beefed up by the manufacturer, but may be they are only a minimum what could be achieved.

In my opinion both fighters are equal at the most, if not all areas with some differences and both have some advantages and disadvantages.

End of debate? Yes in terms of never ending discussions with Fonk.
Why discussing weights over dozen of posts for example? It’s a waste of time especially when it contributes nothing new to the people here and is at least senseless because it was already discussed.

@Fonk,
the discussion ends up for me here right now. I had enough of such discussions a long time ago and I know why I haven’t participated in such for a while.

This debate is running endless circles with no real result. More than that it’s becoming more personal and I hate to see me being pushed into a corner like “Eurofighter fan club”. If you or other people aren’t able to understand that I primary want to collect data and information, giving some input if required then I can’t change it, but I won’t take part any longer on such kind of discussions.

You call for things you can’t give either. You telling stories saying that’s from there and there and we should believe, but you don’t believe anything if you can’t read it your self. Further more you only believe what you want to believe. All you read about Eurofighter is only right if it does not destroy your view of the superior Rafale. The other way round if people like me research
something about the Rafale which doesn’t suit your mind it’s automatically wrong. That’s no base for a discussion, at least not for me.

You may know more about aerodynamics I never questioned it, however you’re making a lot of senseless points argue about things which were never questioned or denied by me. But you only speak about aerodynamics and history, what about avionics…? You said nearly nothing and never really engaged into the discussion in that respect. For you PIRATE is simply a FLIR for example.
Should I now react like you? …ok…
“Go back to school and learn the basics. You know nothing”
That’s the way you react and that’s another reason why I’m not interested to discuss with you any longer.

Language is another issue…

SNA is a generic french acronyme that means “weapon and navigation system” in english.

for exemple, the SNA of the mirage III didn’t have sensor fusion 🙂

Hi Kovy,
I know what it means translated, however that it is a generic acronym for french fighter aircraft is new to me. Thanks for that information.
But that also doesn’t change the fact that Rafale has sensor fusion AFAIK.