Correct. The problem is, that allowed values do differ from AF to AF despite standardisation, which is limited to procedures mostly. So there are several data to find about the same fighter.

In both cases, it is the altitude at which the aircraft have been designed to be operated for orerational reasons and NO there aren’t “Several” datas about ours, there is ONE which if the Operational “Physical” or DESIGNED operational altitude (as given by the 1/2 squadron) and that imposed by AdA/ MN for safety reason which happens BTW to be lower at 55.000 ft.

When one have a margin of more than 20.000 ft with the Maximum available to the pilot, this fatasist notion of “Upper” limits as “explained” by Scorpion doesn’t make any sense, so you guys keep pating each other on the back saying “you are right”, first i KNOW you aren’t second the sources i posted aren’t from forum airfans either…

In SHORT Mirage III E Operational ceiling WAS 50.000 ft and its Maximum 75.000 ft. SEE Its flight manual.

aurcov = Of course, on a bigger fighter, with more thrust (EF, RAfale) the drag penalty (for the same payload) will be less the 0.4 M, but not by much.

I gots little to do with SIZE since the pylons and margin for safe separation are generaly the same, structural (FCS) limit with A2G loads for a Rafale are M 0.90 and typical cruise speed at 98% throttle setting will be M 0.83 with 3 X 2.000 l, 2 X Scalps and 4 X MICAs..

Drag is NOT the only limiting factor with external loads..

In FACT in the case of A2G ordonance it is often the WEAPON/Pylons assembly structural load limits which imposes a Mach.

It shows, however, how external loads affect the fighters.

Certainly but keep in mind that M 4.0 AAMs are designed for low drag and that as opposed to what some might think their longer body doesn’t necessary meand MORE drag than a shorter one (See Concorde fuselage for ex).

I said 6 missiles and 3 EFTs…which is probably more draggy than the load of the F 16 in the diagram…

Which EFT? The 2.000 l certailny it is not designed as a supersonic tank, it was just structuraly cleared for M 1.6 DASH.

BUT the 1.250 l have a drag value of <> 0.1 M according to the Mach given by Dassault Top brasses at the Paris A-S on Rafale’s supercruise abilities and diverse configurations and Mach.

I’d say that 6 AAMs including two wingtip mounted and 4 pylons on a Rafale doesn’t generate more drag than one 1.250 l EFT and this means a proper M 2.0 DASH capability considering the TWR.

LIMITS: M 0.90, M 1.6 with EMPTY EFTs.

M 2.0 DASH without EFT.

Typical MN M 1.2 supercruise configuration, EFT are cleared for M 1.6 and 9 g.

Once the (NEWLY acquiered by MN for the purpose of Budy-Budy refueling) 2.000 l are jetissoned (and the AM39 fired of course); M 1,3 supersruise, look at the MICA mounting…

=Scorpion82;1349163]Feel free to point to that post. The only thing I can remember was my quote of a RAF pilot who claimed “We can fly throughout the entire flight envelope with almost no degation in performance” (note this statement was made about the aircraft in QRA outfit including 8 AAMs and 2 EFTs).

The very FACT that you can post this sort of stuff speaks volume on how much commercials and exagerations you can swallow… 😀

I think is overoptimistic. Look at the F 16 diagram that LordAssap posted. It’s a 0.4 M penalty imposed by 6 x 500 lb. bombs, 1 jamming pod and 1 x 300 gal. EFT and their pylons! Now, do you think that 6 x AAMs will have so much less drag than the 6 x Mk 82? Yes, AAM are sleeker (6-7 inches, vs 10), but they are also longer ~ 3.6 m vs 2m. What about two extra CFT?

0.4 M drag penalty vs even 6 AAMs and 2 to 4 pylons???

If you guys can comprehend the FACT that these aircrafts are NOT limited to M 2.0 by thrust but Engine pressure recovery limits then you KNOW they can DASH M 2.0 with 4/6 low-drag AAMs.

And don’t come tell US that 6 AAMs are even half as draggy as 0.4 M penalty imposed by 6 x 500 lb. bombs, 1 jamming pod and 1 x 300 gal.

In short none of you actualy LOOK and observes these diagrams properly, nor do you READ what Nellis Flight- Test Centre says about it.

Drag polar gets lower passed the transonic region and it does even MORE so with sweep angles of 45 to 53* (Gripen to Typhoon.) which drag pick values are also LOWER for the very SAME reason than F-16.

That of F-16 is a comparatively dragier 40*, that’s <> 0.2 M difference to a Rafale in supercruise, with two AAMs less among which two are wingtip mounted in BOTH cases.

It’s all very well to debate on the A + B = X stuff, if you dont comprehend B from A + B you’re way off X when it comes to a result.:cool:

=Scorpion82;1348753]LOL
Your so called history means pretty much nothing for me. Posting proper sources is one thing, being able to interpret what these sources or the people you try to discuss with tell correctly an entire different thing.;)

LOL! We figured this one long ago since all what you don’t know (a LOT) is rooted there including STANDARDS, DEFINTIONS, PROGRAMMES REQUIEREMENTS etc.

It’s not what YOU mean it to be.

It is what it IS, NOT what you ignorant fantasist keep making up.

I don’t need copycat anyone.

You are.

Way above my level of ignorance & arrogance…

Sure thing my dear Scorpion. When someone posts his own minister and top squadron official information i LEARN from it i dont TRY to pretend i know better as you do.

Proof positive that YOU invent what you write to your convenience.

The JSF programme was started in August 1995 that is nothing I invented, but a fact.
I just quote you on that:

JSF was rooted WAY before this but as always you prefer to blank out the goodies.

ASTOVL was the name of the USMC/RN supersonic capable Harrier II replacement with initial studies running by DARPA between 1983 and 1987.

Copy/paste and usual mediocre comprehension of the impact on F-35 (see below)…

The result of the studies was that an aircraft of that type wouldn’t satisfy the needs of the customers with the technologies being available.

As i was saying you still don’t grab it.

STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) followed between 1987 and 1994 with LM being involved.
It was thought that this could attract the USAF and USN as well.

Blah-di-blah. :D:D:D

Would you GENIUS explain us how all this could have no impact on the original USMC requirements, let alone the RN whose Sea Harriers were used for AA as well.

SEA harrier havent ANYTHING to do with Harrier II but the USMC Harrier II+ might, there is a good reason why, if you’re smart enough you’ll figure why.:D:D:D

AGAIN i never claimed NO impact since supersonic DASH and internal weapon were part of USAF requierements but it is certainly NOT designed as a LWF.

BTW RN never specified SH replacement as requierement, you’re still INVENTING stuff here.:cool:

Funny, the F-15 and F-22 both have even larger crossections! Yet, the former can reach a top speed of MACH 2.5 and the latter can Super Cruise at MACH 1.7 for extent periods. :diablo:

Cross section isn’t the MAIN factor for supersonic DRAG.

This is and is called CRITICAL Mach…

SO, resulting from all the ABOVE mentioned basics:

A typical Drag Polar From Nellis AFB Flight Test Centre and from another source for F-16 below (where it shows the definition of the word “Clean” in the case of aircrafts with wingtip mounted AAMs)…

WHY would Rafale wingtip mounted AAMs not being LOW/0 drag (because of their potision) when that of other aircraft are?

A good illustration of HOW the shockwave actualy propagates at different RATES over the airframe, the root of the word “supercruise” are there, an aircraft in ONLY fully supersonic when ALL its airframe is OUT of its transonic zone…

F-35 wing is optimised for high subsonic speeds:

Supercritical profile with a <> 0.011% drag penalty over a laminary for the SAME thickness ratio.

Sweep angle of <> 33* (vs 48*).

Delta wingplans have a markedly lower supersonic drag….

And THIS is why:

From the Critical Mach point to Max Drag polar point to end of supersonic zone point, this is what happens over a wing surface.

Note that the Mach values given are ONLY fully variables; valid for a given Thickness ratio, sweep angle and wing profile…

Something ELSE, F-35 elevators are actualy LIFTING surfaces at 0 G which is of course NOT the case for the instable delta canards, meaning in MOST cases they will have a LOWER induced Cd (from lift).

This FACT means: To compute the effect of drag resulting by LIFT one should take into account the LARGE elevator surfaces of F-35.

Weither the canards are of course FULLY part of DRAG control (FCS) sequencies in the entire flight envelop involving 0* (floating) AoAs simply because they only counter pitch-up moments in subsonic and can also be used to reduce TRIM drag in supersonic.

God knows i’m trying to be and stay educational in my posts…

Completely incorrect, it doesn’t say that anywhere.

Appart for inacurate interpretations of BAe staments from no-official sources it doesn’t SAY anywhere either that Raven FIRST flight was fully autonomous and that it became fully autonomous even before 2005.

First Fully autonomous flight = Corax Dec 2005.

WHERE does it SAY ANYTHING about being FULLY autonomous on Raven’s slide please???

Take a hike Rob L!!!.:D

=Scorpion82;1348727]So what…?
I’m not argueing in the face of offical documentations, I’m sticking with fatcs!

SAME; that’s because you DON’t KNOW about FACTS.

And YES you are continuously arguing against official documentation and atempting to rewrite international aviation standards even so they are writend by (for ex) the USAF Flight Test Centre.

If you don’t KNOW, it’s because you are an upper arrogant chap with an unprecedented level of ignorance who tries to rewrite history.

Boy i’m the one bringing proper source, having an history of proper aerospacial education in the field and not arguing about what i don’t KNOW. 😎

I do inform myself, but in the face of ridiculos claims besides you, I simply ask where this crap comes from and it’s obvious it is created in your fantasy land.

No you DON’t if it was the case you would’nt NEED to invent 80% of what you write and pretend that (for ex) the Operational altitude of the Mirage 2000-5F as given by A/Da Defense minister and the French top AdA squadron is not what they say. :p

Yes I indeed know too little about your weired fantasies to understand them.

Scorpion you’re drifting dangerously toward copycating someone WAY above your level. Give it a rest.:(

Hmm I fail to see where USMC and RN are mentioned in that passage:rolleyes:

SURE. You failed to INFORM YOURSELF PROPERLY AS USUAL.

Back to square 1.

The JSF programme was initiated IN 1995 following a couple of studies and requirement definitions of all three services (USAF/USN/USMC).

Proof positive that YOU invent what you write to your convenience.

The F-35 is derived from the F-22 suited to the requirements of all three services. If you are incapable to see the similarities between the F-22 and F-35 designs, despite the differences it’s your problem not mine.

:D:D:D

You are inventing the wheel again! The F-35 was designed as a multirole fighter with strong emphasis placed on AG, but AA was also part of the requirements that’s a simple fact you try to deny for whatever reason.

:D:D:D

JAST transitioned into the JSF programme in 1996, but that was not the original plan, said Durham, addressing the American Helicopter Society in Arlington, Virginia on 19 November.

JAST was supposed to be launched as early as 1994, but that idea was cancelled in the last hours of the 1993 “bottom-up review”, Durham said. Instead, JAST was reclassified as a three-year, technology maturation project.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/21/319194/jsf-architects-debate-course-for-new-vertical-lift-technology.html

But a fellow early architect of the JSF programme – retired US Marine Corps Lt Gen Michael Hough – rose in the question and answer period to question Durham’s strategy.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/21/319194/jsf-architects-debate-course-for-new-vertical-lift-technology.html

There, I suppose the early architect of the JSF programme is NOT an USMC Officer and doesn’t manage to bring any evidence that JAST was the original planned JSF STVOL version which BTW was already a COMMON programme with the UKs.

ENUFF SAID.:D:D:D

=wrightwing;1348693]Has the EF demonstrated M2 with a combat load?

In A2A configuration YES.

NONE of them would go ABOVE the FCS limited limit of M 0.90 with A2G ordonances for aerodynamic and structural reasons, UNLESS one doesn’t care about airframe service life and on Typhoon it is already a full 1.000h lower than in Gripen and Rafale’s case.

All the stats I’ve seen say that it’s capable of M2 clean, not with 6 AAMs and EFTs.

Definition of CLEAN again?

The Rafale and Gripen(and Flanker, etc…) are going to have the same performance limitations of clean vs. combat load.

NO they DON’t. Every single of them carrying wingtip AAMs will be aerodynamicly “CLEAN” with at least TWO of them.

Just as the F-16…

The F-35 and F-22 are going to be able to reach their top speed with combat loads, and have no turning limitations due to external stores.

A2A like A2G yes but F-35 will still be limited to M 1.6 Mach at which a Rafale can fly with ALL external tanks attached (empty in the case of the 2.000 l) and 4 X AAMs. M 1.6 becoming the DASH speed then.

And AGAIN, there is NO evidences that ANY of these European aircraft couldn’t fly at M 2.0 with their standard AAMs loads expecialy NOT their aerodynamic limits.

They have the thrust to fly at least 0.2 M higher with multi-shock inlets and their aerodynamics are also designed for this sort of Mach.

What equipment it is below the abdomen of this Rafale M ?

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7897/2002091219mf1.jpg

Pod RECO-NG?