Thumbs UP to everyone!!! 😀

Scorpion82;1349440]My point stands and that is what it was all about from MY side. But sure I don’t know what I’m talking about:rolleyes: (Rhetorical I know your answer…)

Yes Scorpion they STAND out as pure FANTASY and utter SPIN.

I doubt I will find anything on pratrical (I warned you my friend :p)
And as said I meant kinetic, was an error besides me… The contents of my statements remains the same, but that is obviously the least you care about.

No you didn’t you insisted it meant kinetic energy and was used commonly i still have this page saved care to see your own MANURE posted again?

Was that the question? No as usual not, but you are twisting around things not related to the topic. Your usual escape… I know why;)

No question here your diatrtibes on how bad they would perform at 50.000ft.

One of the few things I agree with you. Nonetheless it is usually comprehendable (at least for 99% of the people, surprisingly not for you).

We all agree you have NO clue what you’re talking about. 😀

I had my a$$ in quite a couple of real aircraft like F-16, Tornado, B-1B etc. As said you know a sh!t about me.:rolleyes:

I meant flying them BOY…😎

Why should I care if you are p!ssed or not? Do you care about that? NO you don’t so don’t expect others to treat you different than you treat them.

Am certainly NOT pissed by a guy who makes a total goof of himself in public and keep thinking no one notices, you amuse me to say the least. 😀

Nice and you pretended to know it is 9.1t when it was in fact not.

I posts what datas were available at the time YES and also provided them from official sources.

And surprisingly people like me believed those newer figures more rather than sticking with the wishful thinking which was your case. Funny you still try to find an excuse instead of admitting that you were wrong.

Newer figures weren’t available at the time, you were just agreeing with the Typhoon mafia claiming “superiority” by TWR.

LMAO. Who is “we“? They (Dassault/AdA) informed me as much as you.

Me and other French posters of course, naturaly Dassault and those who have to learn on their trade as for myself AND Dassault you have NO idea.

Aerodynamics yes, never dealt with that beyond some basics (I don’t have to to do my work or fly virtually).

Basics?

No mate you aren’t even at this BASIC level, you have NO clue what BASIC means since you haven’t learnt them.

And History and Procedures, and Flight mechanics and Structural design and Navigation, and Meteorology, FROM WHICH THE WORD CEILING is coming from. 😀

If you had known this, you would KNOW why WE employ CEILING as a mean to indicate an altitude, a plafond in French; and naturaly you would KNOW that since France was the quasy inventor of MOST basic international procedures including world’s FIRST flight licences, the translation in English today are sometimes a little sensless to people like YOU…:diablo:

Yawn.

As i say you’re IMUNE to knowledge and it SHOWS. 😀

You must be a superguy to load an AIM-9 and check functionality:rolleyes: Tell me with how much services has you worked and exercised?

We l it made ME a little less IGNORANT; “Super”, no i make no such claim but just this little more AWARE.

Reach for your painkiller now.:cool:

=Scorpion82;1349405]1.) Optimised doesn’t mean it can’t operate at higher altitudes. The Tornado is optimised for low level close to ground, but that doesn’t mean it can’t operate above 500 ft. Simple logic, you don’t grasp it!

YES DOES actualy. More precislely that it is a totral SLOUCH at anything above 40.000 ft.

2.) No it’s not practical for regulare missions i.e. flying patrols, escorts, fighter sweeps.

Search for the words: Pratrical and Cinematics in the handbook and you’ll have an idea. 😀

3.) Try to operate subsonic and manoeuver sufficiently there good luck Mr. Supersmart.

LOL! As you knew anything about it!

Look boy, i posted Mirage 2000 acceleration times from subsonic to M 1.98 or so as for the rest of its flight envelop as it was DESIGNED for this i don’t SEE where it would have a problem out-turning a F-16 or F-35 at 55.000 ft. 😀

I’d rather stick to lower alts in normal operations as the average performance is better there, who cares about achieve absolute max. speed at 55k ft if you are a sitting duck when operating subsonic there.

You’d rather stick behind your keyboard INVENTING stuff rather than learn them.

Oh excuse me to use common language to make people understand what it is all about. Your f*ckin word nitpicking is nothing else than a ridiculous bad excuse for your lack of true arguments.

Common language is NOT aerospacial language and is your way to INTERRET reality, everything remotly technical is “f*ckin word nitpicking”…

Operational altitude IS NOT max. altitude. Simple point.

Sure; it is writen on the box, you’re quiet a GENIUS here… 😎

BTW get yourself a dictionary and translate the word ceiling.

The dictionary doesn’t always apply to the way people speak in this buziness and there is a good old historic reason for this, but since the closest you ever came to get your ignorant @ss in the front seat of an aircrafft is Micropsoft Sim you couldn’t possibly know.

I was told it was considered or even tested, so for what do you think such a consideration has been for pitch up manoeuvers?:diablo: I meanwhile know that the canards are moving sysmetrical only, hence no roll. So what…?

AND IGNORANT ENOUGH NOT TO FIGURE SOMEONE WAS TAKING THE P!SS BIG TIME.

I well remember your hard battle pretending Rafale C’s empty weight is just 9.1t, while I said newer sources suggest at least 9.4t. Janes even said 9.85 t (but of course when it doesn’t suite your mind its crap, but if it suites your mind you take it for gospel, doesn’t matter if it is the very same source…).

It was at some point since the empty weights were given as developement progressed and avionic baies have enough room for more than the difference, when the C rolled out, it was weighted below 9.000 kg.

So you offended me of not being in the know and the usual bla bla and that Dassault know their stuff and that you have accurate first hand data (supposedly Dassault material).

This is still true, they know their stuff you don’t even know your basics.

Now a bit later we all no empty weight is 9.5 t so I was right you was wrong. But you just silently acknowledged it, because the mighty Sampaix is never wrong:rolleyes::p:D

And you’re lucky there we managed to dig the official sources to INFORM you because of course you still wont bother today.

Wow a flying license and loading weapons on a Mirage III (LOL) makes you an way above all expert in terms of military aviation and other related matters:rolleyes:

Precisley!

WAY more knowledgeable than you on these subjects by nature; to sumerise you would blow your b@alls trying to invent yourself a “better” way to box-test a par of AIM-9 loaded under a Mirage or get yourself stupidly killed very publicly applying your punny notions of aerodynamics and flight procedures. 😀

What I see is a crap load of nonsense besides you:diablo:

Whith the layer of this material you have pouring off your eyes you CANT see, this is WHY you DONT learn, boy…

Why do you only include graphics that support your assertions, but discard the ones where LM/USAF claim 400 percent A2A superiority over legacy aircraft? While the percentage may be debatable, I’d think that they’d know what the capabilities/requirements for the aircraft are. One of those was flight performance at least as good as F-16/F-18, combined with VLO and 5th Gen avionics.

SORRY, commercial bollock!ng designed to support a programme = not my cuppa.

You take it as godsend i analyse it, different approach.

And BTW this was writen by WHOM exactly?

According to AdA, 400% ratio also applies to Rafale vs Mirage 2000 which is no slouch in BOTH A2A and A2G.

=pfcem;1348879]I see you STILL fail to understand the basic concept of a KPP THRESHOLD…

SAY YOU. Perhaps to hide the FACT that you don’t KNOW what DESAIGNED MACH LIMIT, supersonic DASH and M 1.5 means?

Quite simply, if the F-35 did/does not MEET OR EXCEED an OPERATIONAL top speed of Mach 1.6 it would not have been selected or be accepted.

M 1.6 is NOT the KPP THRESHOLD as you imply but the DESIGNED Mach Limit.

Here on earth is was…

Legoland forum? 😀

No, the USAF is THE primary customer.

The USAF ONLY came second into the programme which was initiated more than TWO years previously by USMC and RAF/RN.

Expected to aquire the greatest number of aircraft & who’s requirements were the PRIMARY driving force behind the JSF with USN & USMC varients adapting the USAF design to their requirements.

FALSE: AGAIN; ONLY ADDING SUPERSONIC DASH ANDINTERNAL WEAPON BAIES.

Numbers doesn’t MEAN they wrote the specs in the first place and they didn’t, they just added Mid-Supersonic DASH and internal weapon baies to the already existing ones which included Operational ceilling similar to that of Harrier II+.

The USAF had a requirement to replace it’s F-16’s, the USN had a requirement to replace the F/A-18’s AND the USN/UK had a requirement to replace their Harriers. Three separate programs which it was decided in order to same developement costs were combined into a single program which became the JSF. You are FALSELY applying the PRE-JSF USN/UK Harrier replacement requirements to the F-35.

Blah-di-Blah the usual half-story of the whole thing.:dev2:

And this is NOT “FALSELY applying” it is programe and specification evolutions, primary role and specs didn’t CHANGE…

BUT if you want to play such childish games, the Typhoon’s origins can be traced back to a Jaguar replacement so by your convaluted thinking the Typhoon is LIMITED to Jaguar-like characteristics. 🙂

No “childish” games here simply my knowledge of the WHOLE of F-35 Politico-industrial history vs your cut-down internet version…:D

Replacing the F-16, F/A-18, AV-8 & A-10 (& if the incompetent DOD leadership has its way the F-15 as well)…and that is JUST in the US! How much more multi-role can you get?

The BAe Hawk 200?

LOL! In the strike role boy!!!

This doesn’t MEAN a LWF replacement, can YOU tell the difference between the TWO?

No, F-16/F/A-18 ‘like’ aero performance.

Which is the most imprecise way to fool newbies like yourself into thinking it was designed like one, obviously they perhaps need your $ to pay for the US part of the programme, not mine.

And you skiped the STRIKE role part of the F-16/F/A-18 ‘like’ aero performance, it’s in A2G confiruration that the F-35 is optimised not A2A as were the LWF designed and Optimised.

HERE> OPTIMISED FOR AIR-TO-GROUND LETHALITY.

Doesn’t look like LWF requiered specs to me.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/AFAORG-DATS.jpg

As for what specs means, ask the guy responsible for those of LWF and FX (F-16 and F-15)…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC6bF4f2iiU

Stop making a damned fool of yourself, it is quiet obvious that you are lacking SO MUCH elements on the programme that you hardly can comprehend its role and the meaning of the word OPTIMISED in the first place.

Aircraft performances are resulting from Requiered Specs and deisng features, not requiered numbers or the FACT that the original role of the aircraft they replaces have changed…

Please dont bother me any longer with Wilkipedia’s stories, i got enough of Jane’s yearbooks at my disposal and TONS of docs on the subject including the programme requierement of the time (go dig them on the internet for a laugh)….

Meaning i can tell who knows about it and who does not, you DONT.

Latest Rafale’s warpaint. (Literaly). 😎

The French won’t order more than 286.

So far so good. 😀