Sens;1327805]To what variant of Rafale *** both claims are related? You did post that without that important detail.
I think it is CLEAR!
9.500 kg IS the C empty weight.
The French Ministere de la Defense figures are related to the C and D.
Respectively; 9.500 kg and 9.720 kg EMPTY.
The service-plate is related to a SINGLE seater, the D have <> 400 l LESS internal fuel.
For all to see, there are different claims in internal and external weights of fuel.
Obviously when one does one home work…
The service-plate is related to what Rafale ***?
SEE above reply…
When the weight difference in internal can be explained by different density, it is no longer so, when it does come to external fuel-load.
Why is that? does fuel density differes from internal to external tanks? I think not…
So it is up to our French “experts”, what is the internal fuel load and the external fuel load of the different Rafale variants! 😉
Internal C basic airframe as seen in the service plate.
From memory, the D displace 400 l for the second cockpit and the M internal fuel is the same as the C at 4.750 kg.
Pylons are stressed as indicated by this early Dassault payload document, the central pylon CAN acomodate a 3.000 l tank that of the M is restricted to the shorter 1.250 l due to the size of the front landing gear.
I hope this answers your questions.;)
glitter;1327810]It seems you have difficulties with french.
So do YOU a full stament from SNECMA in plain FRENCH or english isn’t enough apparently.
ECO was tested for two years at 90 kN boy!…:D
But since you’re the last person on that thread who hasn”t understood the problem.
The problem is your lack of honnesty and knowledge not his.
Range ? I spke of landing distance, price and noise .
I don’t have any data about the noise but I doubt that the dual engine Rafale is quieter than a single modern engine like the Gripen.
The GENIUS stament as usual…
Jackonicko 1) Typhoon has not been strengthened for A-G. This is an outright invention and in pressing this point you are, I’m sorry to say, lying.
PLEASE Mr Jack do NOT mystake ME for your mirrored image and i am NOT sorry to demonstrate this AGAIN: =
YOU are the LIAR here and on top of which an ignorant one…
T2 airframe have been strengthened:
–The Tranche 2 airframe has been strengthened to carry heavier air to surface weapons that the enhanced system will be able to support.-
New Typhoon Development Aircraft Makes First Flight
06 Nov 2007
(Feature Archive – BAE Systems-Typhoon Development Aircraft IPA6)
http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2007/autoGen_107105152745.html
-2) No-one is making up weights for Rafale, we are merely quoting the most recent figure issued by Dassault for the Swiss campaign.-
NO you are NOT simply “Quoting” as usual you SPIN, TWIST, INTERPRET and make UP figures which have little to do with the aircraft empty weight but empty EQUIPED.
They must have pushed the M88 ECO at 9t on a banch and follow the parameters and concluded it was fine…
Of course they DID and this from 24th January 2005 = first succesful TEST at 90 kN, but you guys dont REGISTER informations.
:cool:Too bad.
SWISSS QRA possible configuration.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/10/rafale-in-sweden.html
aviators are not children screaming for more fun
NO but they certainly KNOW what TWR means as well as growth potential.
they can understand that more range or more maintenance friendly engines are more relevant than an increase of power.
That’s YOUR PoV not that of GIE who have been pushing for a more powerful M 88, what do you think? DGA and SNECMA spent all this money for FUN?
And they perfecty understood that.
There are LOADS of thing you do not comprehend yourself….
Since the AdA and its pilots think the rafale is already very powerful they prefer being able to have even more combat persistance.
More power fort the SAME maintainance cost and SFC this is what the futur version of M 88 offers, you missed a bit again…
Performance is also about sustainability: you can design an aircraft with a Trust to weight ratio of three but which will be always short of fuel whan the fight begins.
Exageration and totaly fantasists examples to sustain your points are needed, i’d rather stick to reality.
Well the F35 should not offer the best handling characteristics in fact even worse than some of the teen, but it will be eventually able to dominate everything (exept the F22)…
SAME here, you got a lot to learn about it first lesson do not trust blindly any commercials…
So sheer power is oversimplistic to determine an aircraft performance knowing that all of them already offer exellent trust to weight ratios…
You are the one oversimplifying here, it you were right, F-22 wouldn’t be that powerful, but it is and you are wrong.
Stealth, EW, missiles, situation awarness are much more decisive factors now…
Stealth? Come on then tell US that spuercruise is NOT part of the stealth conceipt for a laugh. looks like you do not comprehend it either.
Therefore power is a MUST have.
The time were aircraft manufacturer were racing behind machs is over.
LOL…
Better let the missile do the job than making some painful compromise about the aircraft design.
OK tell US how you manage to escape an AAM at its max range with less poWer => less turning/maneuvring capabilties?
W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R.
😀
Please DONT bother US with MORE forum legends and totaly ineducated and desinformative posts:
This Swiss PDF doesn’t have ANY “Contractuel” WEIGHT or in other words, ANY official weight, thus it doesn’t have to be accurate, is ALL PUBLIC (Not the official datas given to the customers) and not representative of the GIE offical datas either.
Equiped means additional (NON part integral of the airframe) equipements and depends on configurations:
Tanks (empty) : 210 kg (1.250l).
Pylons : 80 kg.
Ejectors : 30 kg.
SHAFF : (?)
FLARES : (?)
Eventualy, ALL of the above could be considered as part of what this Swiss PDF qualifies of “equiped” gear although i would tend personaly dismiss the tanks (210 kg) which are more commonly regarded as payload if i didn’t know better…
To compute a MTOW one would actualy USE the common configuration and empty tanks are part of it, as they are not jettisoned during peace time missions, even so in wartime i didnt ear of a situation where a NATO jet had to jettison since Korea or so.
On Rafale they are cleared for 9 g (empty in the case of the 2.000l) and M 1.6 for this reason.
Here are the OFFICIAL standards and weights from French Defense Minister:
Same source.
In the case of the Swiss configuration “Police du Ciel” it still would account for 380 kg of pylons and perhaps up to > 50 kg of SHAFF and FLARES cartidges.
9.500 kg (Rafale C).
220 kg heavier (Rafale D).
OR 220 kg heavier (Empty tank).
380 kg (Pylons + Ejectors).
50 kg (SHAFF/FLARES).
10150 kg.
A difference of 70 kg compared to the “Swiss” PDF.
If the SAF uses a single 1.250 l tank, the central pylon should make-up for the difference (80 kg).
The Ministere de la Defense insists on the “Less than 10 tons” issue as for the EMPTY weight of the Rafale AIR which as everyone KNOWS never seen the F1 standard PLUS; this PDF was issued AFTER the service entry of the AdA Rafales F2s…
Now, it is common knowledge (according to Messieurs Sens and Jackjoniko) that the French gouv specialists are a bunch of undeducated and incompetent geezers who doesn’t know when to update their datas and obviously they got the C empty weight horribly WRONG by 720 kg.
Q: Who are these two funnies taking for THAT stupid?
REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY IS FOR DUMMIES….
LOL! These two are REALY desperate, so much so they cant even figure when they look ridiculous…
You set your own trap, did you. Empty equipped weight does mean a fighter ready for take-off, except payload.
You CLEARLY have NO idea what ou are talking about do you?
Are pylons, shaff and flare part of the payload?
If you had been serving anywhere NEAR an aircraft you would know how to compute a TOW and apparently neither you nor Jack have a single clue for all the good reasons, inventing yourself a life history for forum buddies doesn’t give you experience and even less credibility (and IT SHOWS).
Sens;1327468 Whe you are correct about that, there is no difference between a F2 or F3 at all. It is just a change of software and nothing more, isn’t it? After the software change all F2 will become F3 over night, will they?
Precisely and the empty weight for the F2 version is known for a while, 2003 to be precise, figures given by the gouvernement links are those of the F2/F3, in 2006 Rafale C F2 empty weight was and is STILL 9.500 kg.
Jumping on this PDF datas to try to make your case is just laughable (as is most of what you write) expecialy because it is CLEAR for anyone but you that the Swiss have a particular configuration without weapons and the weight given is that of a two seater equiped and NOT a single seater.
You and Jack the hack keep trying to feed your usual fanboys legends on Typhoon being “Superior” give us a break boys you cant even hack it technicaly let alone vs official datas.
To summerise there is NO increase in airframes empty weight from the F2s to the F3s and you cant even start to explain why a Rafale would take on 500 kg with software upgrade.
All systems, including Link 16 were fitted to the F2s and BTW the 9.500 kg figure from the Defense minister was published at the event of the SERVICE entry of the F2 at St Dizier, you’ve been foxed3 by pure ignorance again mate!!!
To summerise you two are trying to msake a case on figures you can’t either explain proplerly nor comprehend.
End of YOUR ERA. Jack, you’re HISTORY.
At Jackoniko, the day you’re capable of arguing otherwise than in dismissing eminently more knowledgeable than yourself, you’ll get out of anonymity because so far you’re aint doing too good as a journo, no surprise there, you’re just about good enough for slashing off, the REAL aeronautical stuff is WAY out of your reach.
We all know this by now.
Le Rafale au salon du Bourget (crédits : DGA/COMM)
La Délégation générale pour l’armement (DGA) a prononcé le 1er juillet 2008 la qualification de la version totalement polyvalente de l’avion Rafale, dénommée standard « F3 ». Les premiers avions produits au standard F3 seront livrés aux forces à partir de début 2009. Les avions déjà en service seront mis à hauteur du nouveau standard.
Le Rafale au standard F2, actuellement en service dans l’armée de l’air et la marine, permet déjà d’assurer les missions de défense aérienne (avec le missile d’interception MICA) et d’attaque au sol (avec le missile de croisière longue portée SCALP-EG et l’armement AASM pour le tir de précision). Le standard F3 apporte les capacités d’attaque anti-navire (avec le missile AM39) et de reconnaissance aérienne (avec la nacelle RECO NG), ainsi que de dissuasion nucléaire (avec le missile ASMPA).
Le Rafale est un avion omnirôle, opérationnel par tous temps, de jour comme de nuit, conçu pour assurer toutes les missions actuellement accomplies par différents types d’avions de combat à réaction. Existant en versions monoplace et biplace, il est en service dans la marine depuis 2004 et l’armée de l’air depuis 2006. Le Rafale constituera à terme l’unique avion de la composante aérienne de combat. 120 Rafale ont été commandés à ce jour et 58 ont été livrés (35 à l’armée de l’air et 23 à la marine).
Le premier déploiement opérationnel du Rafale a été effectué à partir du porte-avions Charles de Gaulle en 2004 dans le cadre de l’opération Héraclès (participation française à l’opération Enduring Freedom). Depuis janvier 2005 le Rafale participe à la permanence opérationnelle au-dessus du territoire français. Des Rafale effectuent périodiquement depuis mars 2007 des missions d’appui au sol des troupes engagées en Afghanistan.
La réalisation du Rafale est notamment assurée par les sociétés des groupes Dassault, Thales, MBDA et Safran.
We all know Typhoon airframe have to be strengthened to be capable of (limited) A2G capabilties; in short we can see why they insist into trying to make up Rafale have to put on weight as well, await bad news from the Typhoon community soon…
And ho i forgot, All the goodies hanged from it which are not payload doesn’t weight either…
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/base/breves/2006/juin_06/26_06_06_le_rafale_prend_la_permanence_operationnelle
QRA configurations of AdA.
For the Swiss, 4 pylons, SHAFF and FLARES would make up for the difference in weight in the D version, END of debat…
Poids à vide : inférieure à 10 tonnes
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/au_coeur_de_la_defense/aeronefs/chasse_bombardement_reconnaissance/rafale
And we suppose THIS is obviously a Marine Nationale link and THIS is obviously a Rafale F1 standard and Obviously AdA website knows LESS than these two Typhoonphoonists who knows better than ex-AdA servicemen or even ACTIVE personal how weights are computed or the components weights???
When I remember well, I was blamed about misinformation from fanboys of the Rafale.
Despite that, the Rafale is still an excellent fighter.
In the Swiss evaluation the Rafale C is quoted with 10.220 kg empty equipped.
Yes and that that would be for the B not the C.
Before you get your nose rubed into gouvernement figures (official) take the arrogance away from your posts expecialy when you got it all wrong.
The Rafale C is officialy quoted at 9.5 tons.:dev2:
Above this it is either the M or the two seater, looks like YOU are the fanboy here mate…
And Rafale is WAY better than Typhoon by DESIGN.:cool:
Caractéristiques du F1 (Rafale M).
Envergure : 10,90 mètres
Surface alaire : 46 m²
Longueur : 15,27 mètres
Hauteur : 5,34 mètres
Masses :
à vide : 10 196 kg
maximale : 24 000 kg
Vitesse maximale : Mach 2 (1 290 noeuds)
Vitesse d’approche : 120 noeuds
Temps de patrouille : supérieure à 3 heures
Plafond : 50 000 pieds
Distance franchissable : 1 000 nautiques
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/decouverte/equipements/aeronefs/rafale_m
Rafale (Air).
Envergure : 10,90 m (avec missiles)
Longueur : 15,30 m
Hauteur : 5,34 m
Poids à vide : inférieure à 10 tonnes
Poids maxi au décollage : 24,5 tonnes
Motorisation : 2 SNECMA M88-2 de 7,5 tonnes de poussée chacun avec PC 5 tonnes en sec.
Domaine de vol : de 0 Ã 750 noeuds ou Mach 1,8
Carburant interne : 6 000 litres
Charges externes : supérieur à 8 tonnes
Points d’emport : 14 (13 sur la version navale) dont 5 points humides pour les réservoirs ou charges lourdes 2000 Kg.
Facteurs de charge :
Р+ 9G/-3,6G en configuration supersoniques avec r̩servoirs de 1 250 litres vides
Рair-air (missiles ou r̩servoirs supersoniques de 1250 litres vides)
Р+ 5,5G/-3G avec charges lourdes (bombes, Apache ou r̩servoirs de 2 000 litres).
This PDF indicates an average NOT a specific Empty weight by type.
Also for those who knows what this means, the configuration is given in A2A in this Swiss PDF, so are the figures.
Now you tell US how a Rafale C weights on the same than a M please…
Thanks for cuting the BS.
The British had the multi-role capability of the Typhoon in mind and were pushing it in the direction of the F-15E.
It looks like you dont comprehend the words, Max Structural Load of 1.4 vs Industry standards 1.5 and Rafale 1.9.
could be the bi place, landing take off distance aren’t right, even the climbing rate isn’t right,
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/aircraft-characteristics.html?L=1
True that, NOTHING is simple about Rafale and the GIE it takes a LOT of home work to figure things out…
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/10/rafale-in-sweden.html
Interesting article from F-I.
Got to bug out! Enjoy!!! (More picks)…
When you boys are finished making fools of yourself let us know…
-greg If my calculations are correct and the assumption that M88-3 would come from increasing LP compressor diameter, then bypass ration of th M88-3 should be about : 0,65.
This figure might prove too high for supercruising.-
If my previous example was wrong because i got the engine wrong in the first place, (F110 GE132 instead of F119 PW100), i still can show you examples of a few engines with this sort of bypass ratio which does SC:
ALL F-16 engines, with Bp ratio ranging from 0.36 (F100 PW229), to 0.87 (F110 GE400).
Although technicaly, M 1.1 i just 0.05M below the end limit of the F-16 transonic region it still is above M 1.0 and more to it at the pick of its drag polar or close to it.
For YOUR information, SC doesn’t depends on engine performances as such but rather on wing sweep angle, which, for a given wing profile and Tichness ratio gives you a CRITICAL Mach, defines your transonic region and drag polar.
All your engine have to do is to produce enough thrust to beat the Drag, the higher the thrust, the higher the Mach.
Since ALL engines functions in SUBSONIC anyway you bet that the difference will only be performances at altitude rather than thrust at whatever Mach value.
This in turn means that focusing on Bypass Ratio to determine weither an engine will SC or not is simply inacurate and unscientific, all it would give you is anestimate of the optimum ceilling at best.
Examples:
F100 PW100 BpR =0.71
F100 PW220 BpR =0.60
F100 PW229 BpR = 0.36
F110 GE100 BpR = 0.87
F110 GE400 BpR = 0.87
F110 GE129 BpR = 0.76
F110 GE132 BpR = 0.68
F119 PW100 BpR = 0.45
F135 —– BpR = 0.32
F404 RM12- BpR = 0.31
M88-2 —- BpR = 0.30
EJ-200 — BpR = 0.40
-greg-about : 0,65.
This figure might prove too high for supercruising.-
As you can see for yourself the difference between F-16 engines couldn’t be told while flying the aircraft while F-35 sould be SC faster than Typhoon or F-22 when in reality it doesn’t SC…
Interest yourself on the subject of inlet pressure recovery, engine airflow rates and supersonic drag.
-glitter Because an engine tested in 2007 use 2002 technologies and not those from 2006 or 2005.-
Because you DONT read and because this article is about M 88-3 and was published in 2002 for a programme dating from 1999.
2002 technologie is MATURE (applied) technology another aspect of the industry you are not aware of.
Zero pour la copie…
-glitter Because 16 M88 ECO have been bought and that ECO can evolve to a 9t version, you understand that all post 2011 Rafale will use the 9t M88 ?-
DATE:15/01/97
SOURCE:Flight International
M88-2 delivered
French engine manufacturer Snecma has delivered the first series-production M88-2 engine destined to power the multi-role Dassault Rafale. The company says that it has orders for a further four engines during 1997, which will be supplied as part of the current 42-engine orderbook. Testing of the M88 continues, with the 22 test engines clocking up a total of 12,666h of running time, 4,424 of which were in flight.
So what should we understand from the FACT that orders for the M 88 were coming by less than 16 for the year 1997?
The 16 engines Pack CGPs are for the year 2011 and definitly YES ALL Pack CGPs engines will be rateable at 90kN,there isn’t a single M-88 to the original standard today.
AGAIN, it will depends on the customer choice as to wether they want to use this setting or not.
And from now i wont even bother with you, you’re a total waste of forum space just good enough doing mediocre twist and spin not to mention tackling posters without making an effort to comprehend what you write about.
Go play ornage and lemon with those who think such a forum is a school playground.
Please.
arthuro There is more than enough of this joke !
Realy? Is that all you got? Perhaps the MODS apreciate proper information no?
And BTW Boy, WE are two different (EDUCATED)D posters…
GlobalPress as if Snecma was a banana republic assembling spares from others as most british defence compagnies does!
That’s GLITTER’s speciality he’s got a grudge against Dassault (not to mention the rest of the country but it is less showing) and he keep thinking no one noticed he knows too little about the subject to make an impression.
I mean look at his posts , reality DENIAL, twist, spin, refusal to aknowledge evidences, all he got left is trying to attack the integrity of the other posters, he has had good teachers, ignore the troll, i’m posting for those who want proper information not to entertain this bunch…
Oh yeah, I forget that Fonk is a specialist of aerodynamic, mechanical structure and now engines.
Sorry SAY again? What a technical counter argument. CASE closed you lostthe plot long ago.
If my calculations are correct and the assumption that M88-3 would come from increasing LP compressor diameter, then bypass ration of th M88-3 should be about : 0,65.
This figure might prove too high for supercruising.
Wake up mate, you’re talking about an engine which have been terminated 5 years ago; i wouldn’t try calculating too much if i were you you might hurt yourself…
@glitter
Showing your true colours, ignorance and low IQ helping you manage to forget the subject and tackle the posters which BTW are TWO different persons.
-glitter I’m worried about your habbit of admitting information favorable to the Rafale that you do not have-.
YOU CERTAINLY MEANT YOU DO NOT BOTHER TO HAVE…
Médias & événements
Archives
-Snecma Moteurs réalise avec succès les premiers essais d’un démonstrateur technologique destiné à accroître les performances du moteur M88.-
Courcouronnes, le 17 Janvier 2005
http://www.snecma.com/spip.php?article193&var_recherche=Courcouronnes%2C%20le%2017%20Janvier%202005%20
-At the fall of 2004, SNECMA kicked off tests of a technology demonstrator designed to reduce M88’s total cost of ownership and lay groundwork for future enhencements.- 2007 Farnborough PDF
-Cette campagne d’essais a permis de caractériser les performances stabilisées du moteur avec un réglage du moteur en version 7,5 tonnes de poussée ainsi qu’en version 9 tonnes de poussée au plein gaz avec post combustion. Les essais de performance et d’endurance du démonstrateur seront poursuivis au début de cette année-
Courcouronnes, le 17 Janvier 2005
http://www.snecma.com/spip.php?article193&var_recherche=Courcouronnes%2C%20le%2017%20Janvier%202005%20
As usual you take your lack of awarnes and knowledge for everyone’s standard, SNECMA announced the ECO first run at 90kN setting in January 05.
SNECMA, ONERA and French Universities (CNRS, CEA) have been labouring hard for several DECADES R&D programmes such as PHT and CENTOR have allowed a significant increased in airflow rate and temperature tolerences, = 2050 K.
CENTOR = Concepts d’ENgins de Transfert Orbital Réutilisables.
http://www.onera.fr/dprs/centor/index.php
Re-entry vehicle materials =
L’aérothermodynamique (cf. aéroassistance).
Les matériaux haute température (protections thermiques pour l’aéroassistance).
All these newly developed technologies of course are now integrated into ECO and the result is a 90 kN M88 retaining the SAME size and WEIGHT as the E4.
That’s TEN years after M88-3 was tested bench-tested at 90 kN and reached 95kN at the end of the program.
If you had cared reading the programmes goals:
-Ce programme a pour but de démontrer un gain en coût d’exploitation et en disponibilité opérationnelle du moteur M88-2 induits par de nouvelles innovations technologiques et d’étudier la faisabilité d’un développement en poussée du moteur avec un haut niveau de performance (consommation, masse).-
Courcouronnes, le 17 Janvier 2005
Consommation, masse => SAME engine DIAMETER, lighter combustion chamber.
-greg To my understanding so far, an increment in M88’s thrust, will come by increasing the engine’s (compressor’s only??) diameter.-
-The M88-3 thrust increase comes from a new, increased-flow, low-pressure compressor now being developed, on which tests began in Snecma’s Villaroche plant, near Paris, on 17 February.-
DATE:03/05/95
SOURCE:Flight International
Future thrust
-greg…..or forgot the problem all together.-
Or forgot to read about it for the past 13 years are the words you’re looking for…
-Technology for the compressor comes from the French CENTOR programme, which incorporates research from the Onera research agency, French universities, and Snecma itself. “The aim is to widen the range of operability,” says Masson, “so that the engine is more efficient in intermediate and low-power regimes.”-
DATE:03/05/95
SOURCE:Flight International
Future thrust
-greg If that was the case, it would meant improved efficiency in low speeds, but even further degradation on SS and SC ability. Which MIGHT (I repeat …might) explain why AdlA didnt care less, about the M88-3!!-
LOL! Did you understood a single word what you wrote?
AdA had NOTHING to say in the matter and supercruise was NEVER an AdA requierement either.
Furthermore supersonic speed and supercruise ability doesn’t have much to do with bypass ratio, performances at altitude does when pressure ratio remains low, F-110 have a HIGHER bypass ratio than F135 and yet F-35 doesn’t supercruise, F-22 DOES.
Dassault had and repeatedly expressed their discontent about having (1) to resize the inlets and (2) about 166kg extra behind the CG.
Also SPEED have little to do with this, power settings have…
-The three stages of the development compressor now in test each feature integrally bladed discs and compressor-discs, known as “blisks”. These are lighter than the current units (in which the blades are inserted individually into each disc), while the three dimensional blade design, contributes to the significantly improved performance, namely a higher pressure ratio (4.3 versus 3.8 on the M88-2) and extra airflow (72kg/s versus 65kg/s).-
DATE:03/05/95
SOURCE:Flight International
Future thrust
-“We don’t know at this stage if we will be using blisks throughout the low-pressure compressor”, says Massot. “Although we’ve done a lot of mechanical tests, we have only just begun aerodynamic testing”. Much depends on finding the right solution to the blade vibration, which can affect LP compressor blisks in which the blades are relatively long, and there is no natural damping through the movement of the blades in the root. “The trick is to compromise between mechanical strength and aerodynamic performance”, says Massot.-
DATE:03/05/95
SOURCE:Flight International
Future thrust
-The M88-3 will also feature a new nozzle developed under the DRAC programme, which aims to reduce exhaust signature. Massot declines to describe the system, saying only that it will be “very efficient in reheat, with a shorter reheat pipe, and will have a considerably reduced infrared signature”. Rig tests of the new nozzle are now under way. “It will be ready at the same time as the rest of the engine…at the end of 1996”, says Massot.-
DATE:03/05/95
SOURCE:Flight International
Future thrust
FROM Standard M88-2 to M88-2E4.
New:
—-Three-dimensional high-pressure (HP) compressor.
—-Turbine blades.
—-Blisks (one-piece blades and discs).
—-Improved thermal coatings on the HP turbine.
—-Advanced cooling channels for the combustion chamber.
FROM Standard M88-2E4 to M88-3.
Diameter 700mm 27.56-in
Length 3.5 m 12-ft
Max Weight 897 kg 1,978-lb
Thrust 75.5 kN 17,000-lb
Diameter 790mm 31.1-in
Length 3.6 m 12-ft
Max Weight 985 kg 2,172-lb
Thrust 89.9 kN 20,250-lb
New:
—-LP compressor.
—-Variable stator vane stage.
FROM M88-3 ot M88 ECO.
—-HP corps.
—-Combustion chamber.
-ECO a permis également de tester et de valider la faisabilité de l’augmentation de poussée du moteur M88
à 9 tonnes.-
ECO = TESTED and VALIDATED at 90 kN rating.
greg/glitter = In Brief: There are more than TEN good years of well documented efforts from SNECMA, ONERA and French Universities into increasing the M88 thrust while retaininng its original weight and sise and you two geniuses are coming up with datas from 1995 and tea saloon gossips…
For your Info: They actualy managed to reach 90 kN with ECO for the SAME SFC and a slightly reduced weight, plus lower IR signature…
M88-2 Stage 4:
-The changes include the introduction of three-dimensional high-pressure (HP) compressor and turbine blades, blisks (one-piece blades and discs) improved thermal coatings on the HP turbine, and advanced cooling channels for the combustion chamber. The Stage 4 development will be ready in early 2001 and the modifications will be retrofitted to the M88-2. It will power the 48 Rafales ordered in the Government’s multi-year procurement plan.-
DATE:09/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Snecma M88
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/09/51979/snecma-m88.html
Improved thermal coatings + Advanced cooling channels = ONERA researches.
As for M88-3, it is ALSO very well documented.
-A further development, the M88-3, rated at 9.5t thrust, still awaits funding, but has been benchtested on a privately funded demonstrator. “We are proposing the M88-3 to the French government for the future standard of the Rafale in the early 2000s and to prospective export customers”, says Massot.-
DATE:09/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Snecma M88
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/09/51979/snecma-m88.html
-The M88-3 features a new LP compressor with higher mass flow (from 65kg/s in the -2 to 73.4kg/s). A new variable stator vane stage has been introduced, permitting the engine to operate at optimum conditions through a much wider range, reducing part-power-specific fuel consumption and providing more operational flexibility to suit the Rafale’s multimission role. The development comes out of Snecma’s CENTOR LP compressor research programme and from other exploratory developments carried out by Snecma in recent years. Orders for the M88-2 stand at 42 engines, plus modules and spares, with a further order for 96 units (for the 48 Rafales) expected at the Paris air show.-
DATE:09/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Snecma M88
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/09/51979/snecma-m88.html
Because 16 M88 ECO have been bought and that ECO can evolve to a 9t version, you understand that all post 2011 Rafale will use the 9t M88 ?
What EVERYONE else can READ when they wishes is the future M88 will be perfectly ratable at 90kN and it will be up to the client to use this setting or NOT.
Answer from GlobalPress/Fonk/Thunder
“French aircrafts are invincible”
What is hard to beat is your level of ignorance and insistance into writing about what you do not read about, do not understand and do not know either.
Again this is a military forum and a topic about Rafale and its systems, engines , if you dont bother reading about it at least you could have the courtesy to stop implying that everyone else is as leasy as yourself, or totaly uninterested.
Sign In
