And that is exactly what I call overengineered. Yes, it’s nice that the wing I’d rather have a C-17 with standard wing, maybe 5% heavier and 5% less stiff, but 20% cheaper.

That’s the traditional Russian way vs that of the west…

See F-4 vs Mig 21 sort of thing. 😉

My choice would be the one that last me, does what i aks it to do and doesn’t kill me through design failure.

Schurem, Flex.

Nonsense.

US aircraft are no less ‘designed by committee’ – with different user and interest groups inputting at every stage. They are certainly no less of a compromise.

Jack, please allow me to desagree here, puting a set of requierement together and designing the results are quiet different matters.

Obviously changing requierements after the design process was ignitiated doesn’t help either.

The industry have been going through some form of “Design” crisis for some time, this is mainly due to the event of CG which means that basic engineering and aerodynamic skills are not thaught at the same level than CAD operating by modern Universities.

The problem for the large companies is to pass-on the traditional skills to the “newbies” in a way which is going to make sure they don’t overshoot their weight target by 33% or failt to compute wingspar stifeners strutcural limits properly while using CATIA for example.

In the West, Airbus, Boeing and Lochkeed-Martin have very publicly demonstrated this, while smaller companies like SAAB and Dassault-aviation have managed to avoid the same very costly mystakes…:cool:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2003/11/04/173264/a-dying-design-art.html

Not that good old Europe his better at screwing things up…

When they DO, the difference is that perhaps in recent history, the main military projects (exept visibly EADS and Airbus A400) didn’t manage such a feat.

frankvw
Well, the C-17’s engineering level itself is pretty amazing as well… The wing is one solid piece of aluminium, for instance… Quite impressive, when you see the size.

C-17 is a HELL of a good design.

So if you can really, please do it for the benefit of the others. 😉

Done it time and time again, i got ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ for a response…:D

Start with the A from ABC, one doesn’t do any form of analysis without starting with some SERIOUS Politico-Industrial History researches.

Programme requierements gives you a base to start with.

Engine performance, aircrafft design, a rough flight envelop.

Role gives you a Mach and ceilings where the two will be optimised or reach their maximas.

Then you can dig and use aerodynamics, physics and all; arguing with Internet links is pointless since what i call commercial bollok!ng is often replacing the good, useful infos as early as a programme is in the market as a competitor and for US the problem IS that F-35 IS commercialised VERY agressively, very much more so than Gripen and Rafale..:D

:
As for the debate on supercruise to be or not to be, i’ll live it to others to provide links for now…
at least i provided one 🙂

To make it clear here: None of these aircraft were truely designed for Supercruise to the exeption of F-22.

They weren’t requiered to supercruise.

It is requierements which makes design and results on performance when the design is sound.

What makes Supercruise possible with these design are the characteristics of the Delta wing in supersonic.

What limits their Mach in supercruise are the limitations of their engines with pressure recovery and inlet design.

As for “Hypermaneuvrability” it is very much the same topic. = DESIGN.

Before exploring Rafale’s flight envelop to its limits the design was CG-tested…
http://www.onera.fr/images-science/simulation-numerique/avion-militaire-simulation-trajectoire.php

Sig, you once posted this one too…

And I this one, funny some people still can’t believe Gripen and Rafale CAN supercruise…

How about this?

Capacite de supercroisiere. = Supercruise capability.

Jane’s World’s Aircrafts (I think 2004-2005 or so).

Another one which have supercruise potential although unconfirmed (logical).

Which has what to do with the TVC PST manoeuvers of the F-22?

High AoA maneuvers where the F-35 without TVC would BE in PST.:D

Using complicated achronymes generaly call for knowing that they mean.:diablo:

I dont think F-35 is going to do this any time soon…
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/X-31/Small/EM-0036-08.mov

During Dryden flight testing, the X-31 aircraft established several milestones. On November 6, 1992, the X-31 achieved controlled flight at a 70-degree angle of attack. On April 29, 1993, the second X-31 successfully executed a rapid minimum-radius, 180-degree turn using a post-stall maneuver, flying well beyond the aerodynamic limits of any conventional aircraft. This revolutionary maneuver has been called the “Herbst Maneuver” after Wolfgang Herbst, a German proponent of using post-stall flight in air-to-air combat. It is also called a “J Turn” when flown to an arbitrary heading change.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-31/HTML/EC94-42478-4.html

Sorry, that not Germain to the subject at hand.

Related to the article posted saying F-35 “Beats” the Russians…

And BTW i haven’t realy been looking into it but i believe that in view of; ACX requierements, SNECMA optimisation for high-altitude/High speed of M88, the “Safe” limitation to 55.000 ft of Rafale “Operational” Ceiling is physicaly realistic or also shortened lie the Mirage 2000 (although not by much)….

NOT a Maximum and certainly not an “Upper” limit as alleged by those who doesn’t know about it…

What a bunch of double talk??? First, what does the delta wings ability to fly at Mach 4 have to do with apples and oranges. As none of the design discussed will go much past Mach 2?

look if you keep talking at this level there is no point:

NONE of them is limited AERODYNAMICALY but by engine pressure recovery and ONE shock inlets.

Further, speeds past MACH 1.2 have been pretty much been debunked so many times its getting pointless to waste any more time on them.

So F-22 famous M 1.72 supercruise is totaly pointless too.

Especially, as it pertains to Air Combat.

Expecialy to achieve Air Supermacy we understand.

(with the possible exception of the Raptor)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH i thought you would come to it.

So F-22 kinetic energy advantages doesn’t apply to other aircraft.

SCOOP! US Physics are nationalistic and aren’t shared by other objects.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCH!!!

BTW for your info F-22 wing IS a crancked DELTA generating VORTEX lift like EVERY dselta wing, I thing Signatory had a good point there… = DRAG.

Enuff said.

=Scorpion82;1349491]No arguments, but endless offenses:rolleyes:

YOU fault, you keep yourself IGNORANT dont blame anyone but YOU.

You claim to have tons of stuff about it. Do you want to tell me you never heared kinetic energy in relation to military aviation, especially BVR combat…?

Because you keep inventing it instead of taking the REAL stuff onboard mate….:diablo:

They will perform better below there when it comes to manoeuvrability… That’s what I said, still say and will say.

Best maneuvrability for ANY aircraft is SEA level; simple question of physics.

If you don’t know about the fact that your minimum speed limit goes up and your thrust decreases with altitude (with the result of reduced performance in many areas) I can just give back to you what you advise me to do with ANY post:”Learn the basics”!

Actualy if you dont know about the difference between turbojets and turbofans you keep thinking F-35 will be as good as a Mirage 2000 at 55.000ft yes.:dev2:

Again we? Thunder, Sampaix, Fonk, GlobalPress, Lordassap… :diablo:

AGAIN last ressort personal attacks instead of study time.

I flew no of them, have you flown any combat aircraft? I doubt so.

SO what? As i said even a glider pilots needs to know TONS more that you do only to fly solo in it.

A post before you were p!ssed, suddenly you are not…:rolleyes:

Boy i dont have to give YOU the satisfaction of upseting myself at your level of ignorance i amuse myself of it. 😀

I posted data which were available at the same time from public available sources. Dassault even insisted 10t class at that very time. Maybe you should not just work with sources from 1980.

No you didn’t mate….

They were, maybe not in the very same way YOUR personal “standard” requires it.

My standards are industrial and aerospocials you keep mustaking ME for yourself.

And no I wasn’t “just” agreeing I brought that data up myself and given the experience with weight going up during development I had not such a hard time to believe them. Unlike a certain biased fanboy called Fonk at that time.

Keep your familiarities for yourself Scorpion we didn’t do Warrant Officer school together and it shows.

Surprisingly other french posters didn’t come up with everything like that, instead they found that I was a relative objective user unlike a certain self proclaimed super god.

Well actualy TMor did and he duely EXPLAINED the SAME than i just did.

Aircraft weight increased with developement time.

Tiring, the ever same bla bla bla.

This precisely WHY you still dont comprehend a tenth of what you post.

Yeah yeah french above all of them like Lordassap above all other forum users… Care to explain why the aviation language is english not french?

And Economic and all sort of things; doesn’t change HISTORY.

Little more aware? You claim other know nothing and you are way above them. Sounds not like “a little more aware”, but more like “I’m the expert you are the whatever”.

Other? NO, YOU, there are a few very ADVANCED posters here but obviously since thay don’t write in your personal language but in real aerospacial terms you fall asleep.:dev2:

Reach for reality now:cool:

Thats you’re out of most of other poster’s league by choice. 😉

Example: YOUR QUOTE:

You claim to have tons of stuff about it. Do you want to tell me you never heared kinetic energy in relation to military aviation, especially BVR combat…?

The Doc i already posted replying to your stupidities…

The source. 😀