“Rafael makes sense for the IAF after Mirages,”
http://www.idrw.org/2008/11/05/france_clears_defence_firms_to_undertake_tot_with_india.html
RAFALE please! 🙂
It took them some time but GIE focus on its goalposts for YEARS looks like it could pay off after all.
Of course SAAB are doing real well but Rafale looks like the most developed at all levels at least once the roadmap have been carried over, it is taking time but systems andtechnologiesa are coming out regularly since DGA gottheir new plans together.
French industrials have been sustaining the effort for years and gets their acts together (generaly speaking naturaly…)
French R&D have been coming up with a few world’s first and budgeted these technologies into new generation systems.
Wait for Thales IR system which i expect to be a camera, mixing several bandwidth together in a single image.
No need for FLIR and possibility of use in much more adverse MTO conditions than the curent FILR technogy allows.
Target recognitions capabilties at long range totaly passive…
I like the detail of the speed probe laigned with the canards axis. Good photo…
I know it’s not the most recent picture but…
Among the things that makes Rafale Discret…
Some time ago i could go through some interesting people at Dassault-Aviation, before GIE and the security thing…
About this picture, the programe manager for Rafale, told me that it had been taken before all hot points had been treated the same way, the avionic bay vent behind the canopy doesn’t leak such a IR signature since it was taken care of.
over G
I never would have expected that the trolling and bashing would have plaged this thread…well anyway it was funny…About the topic, how is the performance of the Rafale compared with the M2000?, not always “new” means better in all aspects, the Rafale is using very advanced aerodynamics (perhaps the most advanced topology design), based mainly on the lift side, while the M2000 is based on the low drag side, any good diagram to compare the performance of both planes?
Questions? Answers! Ask the pilots of BOTH Mirages and Rafales…
BTW Over g, you got the point SPOT-ON about the aerodynamics of the aircrafts, only with Rafale, LIFT isn’t incompatible with low drag anymore…
arthuro
I totaly agree with your assesement on METEOR service entry with the french forces, people tend to underestimate MICA and forget that even with the AIM-120 C5 it’s not a clear cut vs a Rafale/MICA EM/IR.
AdA/MN have their priorities and Rafale is before all an OMNIROLE aircraft entering service with a SEAD specialised squadron.
It replaces the couple Jaguar AS-37 in the role and this is totaly overlooked.
So AASM and Damocles it is, and METEOR will wait untill DGA have the budget which BTW will have to go through some budget bleeding with redesign of “CdGII” and loads of other goodies including a 90kN rateable engine and new generation multispectrum IR/near-IR camera etc.
In short we’re not there yet but in the way to a new generation of systems and Rafale is probably the best platform for it.
:diablo:
c-seven
-Where’s the cursor in reality? What are the real strong point of this plane? we just don’t know. Too many spins commited previously, too many lies!-
Well actualy I DO. I keep saying it and i quantify my claims too.
Typhoon is designed like the Mirage 2000 for the upper right corner of its flight envelop this MEANS M 1.8/ M2.0, only 0.2 M below the Mirage upper limits with its 58* swept wing.
This feature is designed to compress the transonic region and lower the maximum drag coefficient around M 1.0 too, which in turn means a slightly lower drag polar in supersonic.
Drag polar being based on the overal wing surface (including fuselage area) AND sweep angle, there is MORE to it in real life…
It is there where Typhoon is truly at ease but it doesn’t mean it makes of it a better A2A platform, it only means that it is optimised for these performances at these altitudes.
Remembering its primary role as a high-speed/High-maneuvrability fighter, it was obvious for those who have the basis that design was always been dictated by requierments.
Maximum Gs sustainable at M 1.8/ M2.0.
This in turn implies; 53* sweep angle, High TWR, use of canard tip downwash for LOW high-supersonic drag (even early close-coupled canard ACA/EFA designs used this feature).
All of these design characteristics makes an aircraft optimised for high g turns above M 1.65 with a high energy recovery capability at all Mach values and LOW supersonic drag.
Below that a Rafale will always be equal-to superior because it have design features which makes for the better transcient maneuvrability at these speeds:
READ: It makes little difference to a Rafale pilot if its aircraft canot sustain the same turn value by 25* over a 180* turn if it can roll 90* more in one sec and point its nose at 90* in 4 sec less at the same entry speed.
That’s 5 sec gained in the transcient zone of the maneuvrability matrix, only then we talk about energy recovery and BTW this is the same equation which won YF-16 the contest vs YF-17 which had some unique flight characteristics the Falcon could only dream of; only transcient matters at the end of the day because it is what makes the time-to-advantage-position ratio…
This means roll rate, Pitch rate, control harmony and precision in all axis, Instantaneous turn rate, lower induced drag (Lift/Drag Coefficient), lower supersonic trim drag, High AoA characteristics, stall characteristics, AND (ZE enjoyable JAB to the-one-that-may-not-be-named) MMI.
Yes; a Rafale pilots will be able to fly with less efforts and more precilsey at higher g.
G-Onsets and Sustained turn rates are just 2 values among others and taken out of the matrix, individualy, have little value on their own, (expecialy when totaly missunderstood).
Even so it might not be able to sustain Typhon’s turn rate above M 1.6 by a few*/sec in some conditions, (then again it remains to be quantified and WE have no evidences of this AT ALL) Rafale will always be able to point its nose toward a Typhoon because it posseses a higher instantaneous turn rate and is also is designed for low supersonic drag coefficient:
THESE WERE MEANT TO COMPENSATE FOR THE CHOICE OF THE MODERATE 48* SEEP ANGLE…
= LEX-induced shockwaves controled to offer the minimum effect to the 48* wing from M 1.0 to a value picking from M <>1.65, Mid-fuselage mounted wings with high degree of wing-fuselage blending reducing wave drag, overal LOWER LIFT/DRAG coefficient EVEN in supersonic (Hysterisis effect remains in supersonic) lower Cl shift ratio above M 1.0, NO negative transonic pitch-up moment (Transonic induced drag due to the need to correct the moment), Dynamic instability and Damping levels being high at all Mach etc.
Obviously, these basic are “BOYSCOUT AERODYNAMICS” and doesn’t apply to Typhon (So we’ve been consistantly lead to believe) because Fonck, Gegene, Thunder have all pointed these out previously, being then duely targeted and kicked out with the help and insistance of the Typhon mafia from a few forums, (guilty of offense or not that is), you understand, credibility isn’t a question of sources or knowledge base anymore or is it?
-Scorpion and Defexpo: what are the real comparative strong points of the Eurofighter?-
LOL after all these splashes noises about Mr S posts you still ask for an opinion?
Fair enough, i’m NOT trying to demolish Scorpion’s credibility as i don’t realy care, i just don’t think he is qualified to give you the answer your question deserves, more to it he can be found to invent or exagerate reality just to make his points and this is realy pulling the nukin’ hell out of me.
Sorry for saying.
Another aspect where i think Rafale is superior to Typhoon. IR signature.
BTW: On the METEOR two-way datalink topic, wouldn’t AESA be bringing the capability the actual MICA data link is lacking?
Just a thought. 
typhoon1
-Care to explain why in a logical, calm response.-
No problem: OPIT would be a ble to tell you a lot more about engines but i’ll try my best..
Thrust vs Drag.
It’s all a question of balance of forces, at some point, the overal drag forces are higher than the thrust and engines, then inlets hits their own limits.
Yes 2 X 1.250 l supersonic makes only 0.1 M difference on Rafale and the aircraft is “Stocked” at M 1.3 anyway due to its overal drag and engines pressure limits (Spillage drag).
If you want higher military power limits you need higher engine airflow rates, these generation of engines curent limit <>M 1.3 military power and M 2.0 Full A-B is the maxi.
We’re talking about engines fited to a shock inlet of the type “Pitot” (No mobile shock ramp or “Souris”) with a diverter as are equiped F16, Typhoon and Rafale.
Engine compressors doesn’t have the capability to recycle supersonic airflow, thus this airflow have to be slowed-down to subsonic speeds before reaching the compressor blades.
To achive this designers uses shockwaves, the diverters creates a mild-shock which in turn created another one at the inlet leading edge.
These are called normal shock inlets, the limits are:
1) Inlet pressure recovery.
2) Engine pressure limit. (airflow rate*).
* = 65kg/sec for M88, 75/77kg/sec for EJ200.
Here is some extract of Edward’s work on the subject, the aircraft chosen are the F16 which is typical of Rafale/Typhoon inlet geometry and F15 for comparison on inlet’s pressure recovery characteristics.
As you can see the performances of the engine falls dramaticaly with higher Mach values.
The recovey factor polar and the Drag Coefficient polar converges and at the point where they are crossing you will find the absolute Mach limit, the airfrat will NOT go any faster.
To reach a higher Mach, you will need either a lower inlet pressure for x Mach value, obtainable by creating more shock.
This is achieved with multi-socks ramps or “Souris”.
In the case of Rafale/Typhoon the only solution is to increasee the airflow rate so that more air can be recycled.
While everyone was revving with M88-3, i was saying that it wasn’t Dassault prefered solution due to the amount of redesign (Inlets) involved and its increased weight (>75 kg/engine).
Idealy you want a lighter engine within the same volume and increased thrust in both military power and after-burner.
This is why both SNECMA and Eurojet have been conducting studies at diverse levels (MUCH MORE ADVANCED IN THE CASE OF SNECMA) with compressors designed for higher airflow rates.
ECO was launched in 2005 and have succesfuly achieved its goals as early as 2007, from the results, SNECMA pursued its studies in view of developing Pack CGP.
The rest of the engine also have to meet the new limits imposed by increased airflow rates, so in the case of M88 ECO, Low pressure compressor, High pressure compressor, combustion chamber, High pressure turbine are of a new generation.
This means 60% of the engine internals.
To increase overal thrust the best solutions are higher airflow rate AND Turbine Entry Temperature (TET):
SNECMA PHT High temperatures programes increased the internal hot parts limits from 1.850 K to 2.050 K for this purpose 2006.
This is roughly 50% of the margin from ATAR 9 K to M 53 P2.
ATAR 9 K TET = 930* K (1960).
M 53-5 TET = 1.250* K (Developement 1970).
M 53 P2 TET = 1.270* K (Developement 1979).
M 88 TET = 1.700* K (First tests 1983).
M 88 TET = 1.859* K (1987, service entry 1996).
PHT TET = 2.050* K (2002-2006).
M 88 Pack CGP TET = ??? (service entry 2011).
New High pressure Turbine design and materials were also studied from 2003 with THEO, for yet another generation of engine to enter service around > 2015.
From Eurojet:
-Focus will be on life cyle cost improvements and increased operational availability. This could also include thrust growth; the specification for the EJ200 required a growth potential of more than 15%. This can be achieved by a number of methods, including increased airflow and/or increased Turbine Entry Temperature (TET) and higher fan compression ratio, while remaining within current dimension and weight parameters. The engine core has actually been designed with an even greater growth in mind.-
eurojetEUROJET Turbo GmbH-Technology Enhancement.htm
A little info on MDPU, this one being thatofthe Mirage 2000 Mk2.
ANOTHER ONE WITH A TASTE FOR PUBLIC SELF-HUMILIATION…
Sens 
So much claims with such limited knowledge of the basics.
The thrust of an engine is of small intrest at supersonic and at height, because the mayor part did come from the inlet- and outlet-system at first.
Such thrust can not be linked to the static data at ground level.
For that reasons informed people do speak about mathematical thrust at best.
Informed people like those working at the DRYDEN centre or Eglin AFB fkight-Test Centre perhaps?
I think they know WAY more than you mate this is why i actualy dont bother with your informarions and get theirs instead, if you had bothered you would know that they often start with static figures then compute vs test conditions.
But of course this wasn’t an informative post just a free jab at the poster.
We’re done with guys like yourself who pretend to know about it, never get bothered about a single link/evidence and are counterdicted by the first good book on the subject.
T Mor LordAssap/GlobalPress = pas le meme gars vous etes tous paranos et ca nous fait VRAIMENT marrer…
:D@typhoon1
You obviously missed the bit on inlet spillage DRAG and engine pressure limit.
Scorpion82
-I was called by name, accused for saying things I never said and offended by Mr.-
Sorry SAY AGAIN? You want to compare ME with your bunch and make up that YOU are the victim here or edit your posts?
-that kind of behaviour.-
YOUR own “behavior” is totaly digusting to say the least, distortion, denial and total interprertations put forward as plain FACTS and truth plus repeated insults.
Not my cuppa.
-I don’t mind to reply to your posts anymore .-
You don’t have to you never did and you didn’t manage to make any single point that sticked, end of story Mr S.
-In the case you continue to call my name and accuse me for things I don’t even said or direct offenses at me, I’ll just report it to a mod.-
Yes i joked you were a “Newbbie”?
What an insult! Quiet franckly who would have missed a begginer’s tales with what you wrote?
Dont you think insulting people intelligence with gross desinformation is also an offense? NO?
SHOW US me calling you name the way your bunch insulted ME Mr S please and don’t bother saying you called me a TROLL and other names several times over too.
As for what you said alleged it is still writen in plain english, i have downloaded every single page of this topic so go on and edit, feel free to lie to a mod now…
I think that you REAL problem is that you do not have the knowledge base to reply to any technical points which proves your wrong.
I’m not writing to compete for a popularity context and do not expect to attract people admiration or respect for the little i know, but i am not about to get bullied by people who do not have what it takes to even comprehend what they are writing about.
Included yourself and Mr Jack whoever-he-is. 
A Test pilot told me once, “in this buziness if you don’t learn, you DIE“.
Your lot, not mine, you crashed your own ship in flame by pure lack of care about what you were writing, dont complain.
Quoting YOU:
-BTW these computers in T2 aircraft are new-
FALSE. BAe: New processors…
-Mach 1.5 supercruise with half internal fuel clean and the ability to demonstrate supercruise when a french duck wasn’t able to do it.-
FALSE. Theorical UPPER LIMIT.
-Don’t blame me for your incapability.
SEE BELOW:
-Question from Signatory was:
“Has it been established on what stations METEOR will be available on Rafale? “
-My answer was:
“Rear fuselage stations and centre wing stations, mwaning a total of 4 missiles.”
Total Missile load is 8.
-If someone is to stupid to get it, it’s not my fault. I’m sure Signatory understood it as it was said.-
INSULT.
-To cut it short, FU! Consider you ignored now troll.-
INSULTS.
-Based on the fact that Rafales rollrate has been reported with 290°/sec, while for Eurofighter nothing has been disclosed except >200°/sec? Lol-
PROVEN WITH BAe Mike Turner’s comments.DATE:09/09/98
SOURCE:Flight Daily News
Typhoon is the ultimate, says test pilot
Geoff Thomas
-There are instant and sustained turn rates! And me is the newbie-
INSTANTANEOUS IT IS.
-So does tell Typhoon pilots that the aircraft makes the tightest 180° turn at 200 kts or that its g-onset is 15 g/sec. Yet this doesn’t tell about every other aircraft.-
Typhoon Maximum Structural Load IS 15 g (1.4 at design stage then strengthenend with T2s).
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…-thinking.html
-These are apex strakes mr. smartass aimed to improve low speed manoeuvrability.-
INSULT. + SEE my post on Aerodynamics.
-The guarantee isn’t there because the AoA sensors are not accurate enough at that speed.-
Spin recovery known to be acceptable for close coupled delta canard (not necessarily so for a long coupled canard configuration):
http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html
Q: AREN’T YOU TAKING THE MICKEY?
About S-C from SNECMA with LOVE…
WOW!!! Switzerland uber alles!
@arthuro Damned! Keep at it your posts are REALY interesting thanx!
Definitly a Dasault market to loose if they dont get their act right this time…
😎 typhoon1
And you say removing this load will give no extra speed?
Aerodynamic; Speed vs thrust limit isn’t a problem of weight but DRAG at at some point thrust does not equal drag anymore, simple and it make sense for every pilot/aircraft designer too.
Weight is only meet with LIFT which in turn creates induced drag but you are talking DRAG vs THRUST for acceleration and SPEED.
Same with the Rafale, In the right conditions it can SC at 1.2, remove the stores and it can only get an extra 0.1 mach?
0.1 M is the gain/loss due to the supersonic tanks and this still make sense and it’s 1.3/1.2 M.
I think we are grossly simplifying things here.
NO, you’re grossly underinformed, sorry, the AAMs and their pylons hardly add to the drag coefficient, to the point where the wingtip AAMs are not taken into account for drag Cf computation.
They are LOW drag as are their pylons due mainly to their aerodynamics and small cross sections.
The Typhoon has a better T/W ratio than the rafale so its performance is better.But that doesn’t mean rafale is underpowered :
Of course it isn’t but what performances are you talking about exactly???
-Eurofighter’s roll rate is “-in excess of 200° per second,” says Turner, and this feature will also be demonstrated.-
DATE:09/09/98
SOURCE:Flight Daily News
Typhoon is the ultimate, says test pilot
Geoff Thomas
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1998/09/09/42356/typhoon-is-the-ultimate-says-test-pilot.html
Rafale rolls rate is 90* SUPERIOR = Performance.
According to Scorpion, this means 260/270, you see in the UK and Germany they dont DO 10 digit but a least 60s…
Seriously it is below 205*/Sec or it would say SO and BTW since FCS have been “updated” they certainly didnt miss the opportunity to claim any improvements. Please post.
-“This proves,” he says, “that you don’t need vectored thrust to make an aircraft as agile as Eurofighter.”-
DATE:09/09/98
SOURCE:Flight Daily News
Typhoon is the ultimate, says test pilot
Geoff Thomas
The usual Eurofighter gliterry stuff.
arthuro
-PS : I always acknowledged typhoon superiority in many other aeras like better accelerations, better supersonic performance (speed and agility) and more radar range.-
Based on WHICH evidences?
What i have ALWAYS been saying is:
There is MORE to turning performances than TWR, LIFT is what makes an aircraft turn first thing and with delta wings, even more so delta-canards there is a lot MORE to be said about it.
Superior Cl makes for a SUPERIOR INSTANTANEOUS turn rates as proven by the Mirage 2000 vs F16 experiences, regardless of TWR.
To SUSTAIN a turn one needs not only THRUST but also LIFT and lower Drag Cf, Rafale aerodynamics offers this to its pilots.
Source: USAF Flight Test Center Edward AFB Handbook.
There is NO point trying to argue otherwise; this is truely and well documented, to compute a SUSTAINED turn rate you NEED a LIFT Coeficient value but also a DRAG coeficient.
A Close-coupled canard have SUPERIOR lift/drag ratio than a long moment harm during the whole of the turning phase and this at any speed/Mach/AoA.
NOT denying Typhon forte’s i am just remembering those who forgot or doesn’t know what the aerodynamic and physics laws are about and Typhoon like every other aircraft answers to these laws.
Typhoon aerodynimcs are optimised for high-g turns at M 1.8/ M2.0, Rafale for M 1.6/ M 1.8 (48* vs 53* sweep angle delta).
It owes its performances to a very high TWR and engine optimisation for this sort of speed/altitude, but it doesn’t make its aerodynamics better suited to turning performances quiet the opposite.
This is ALSO well documented:
NO hysterisis effect = NO DYNAMIC instability = NO movement forward of the Neutral point = 4* Up elevons at M 1.8 and a lift/drag coeficient down the gutter.
From 0 kts to M 1.5 i would rather be flying a Rafale than a Typhoon based on aerodynamics optimisation only because BTW there have never beed an A2A engagement taking place at M 2.0.
It all happens between M 0.9 and M 1.6 (Vaste majority), if you need to point your nose AWAY from the threat FAST you’re better of a lower Mach than 1.8/2.0 where your turning radius is the size of Scotland (or almost) even at 9 g.
Typical F16 drag coefficient for example…
Source: USAF Flight Test Center Edward AFB Handbook.
According to Greeks Mirage 2000 mk2 pilots in a 1 vs 1, the Mirage will WIN 9 time out of 10 by virtue of their INSTANTANEOUS turn rates, after this the Falcon would command the fight thanks to as superior TWR.
Problem is; Mirage have a much lower TWR than Falcon compared to Rafale vs a Typhoon and there is NO evidence whatsoever that a Rafale in A2A configuration wouldn’t cope with Typhoon sustained turn rate at its best (Optimised) flight regine and altitude.
What is certain though is that Typhoon wouldn’t be able to cope with a Rafale instantaneopus turn performances or nose pointing capacities because they requiers qualities its design doesnt have.
So feel FREE to keep saying tha tyou admit Typhoon better supersonic qualities, because all you know is that it only have sligthly higher kinematiq thanks to its TWR and this only in a small part of its flight envelope.
Something else, the NASA maneuvrability matrix DEFINES these topic as part of the transcient sector of their proposed classification framework.
Engine pooling plays a large part in it as does turn rate and pitch-up capacities, Rafale scores HIGHER than Typhoon in at least TWO sectors:
Roll rate and precision of roll. (Ducumented)
Pitch-up at ANY speed. (Dont give me G onset please!).
As for the engine it spools up on 3 Sec from iddle to full After-Burner.
Large Cl (LIFT)*
Air Density.
High Load Factor *(Structural)
LOW Wingload.*
* = Rafale is better.
About sustained turn rate from another source.
“typhoon1
My quote: First of all, i was a larger aircraft even so it weight was 9500kg like that of the actual C/D, M.
I’m sure you corrected me, C is 9.500 kg the others are heavier… Sorry.
typhoon1 -It kinda defeats the point of a military weapon, when it has to do a job when it counts and does not complete the task. But obviously its not a huge factor in the grand scheme of things really.-
Give it a REST, Rafale supercruises and we know it, the propagandist who came with this legend havent got any proper sources to give us, we DO.
Scorpion82
-I thought finishing this sensless discussion-
LET’S.
Sensless discussion = INTERPRETING FALSLY comments and technical points one doesn’t fully comprehend (or refuse to).
-what has been reported from the Singapore evaluation was that the Rafale couldn’t do it under the conditions there.-
SURE! Reported by WHOM (AGAIN)?
Conditions: Hot and Humid is that not FUNNY?
ANY Encyclopedia would define Singapore as “An island with LOW hills”, not something similar to Switzerland or better, Mexico.
Thus even if the temperature was 45* at sea level, at 15000 ft you would find an absolute ZERO and any droplet of water would be frozen, END A OF WET CONDITIONS.
ANY engine would reach 100% thrust capacity at this altitude.
For your info in standard MTO conditions ISO 0 is 10000ft and this is 24*c at sea level.
The reason WHY your lot can swallow such gross stupidities and stick to them is your lack of basic aeronautic knowledge i’m sorry to say.
ANY BIA would have been wondering HOW on hearth (even in HOT conditions) an engine could fail to recover a normal pressure above an altitude of 10.000ft over this sort of locations.
If it have been 35000 ft ground level above the high hills of Mexico i would have thought otherwise but we’re talking S’pore.
What have been “reported” by Dassault staff when some of them eared this stupid story was a LOUD laugh for a starter for all the good reasons then due correctives you didn’t bother with.
Rafale = M 1.3 +4 X MICAs = M 1.2 + 1 X 1.250l 4 X MICAs.
Typhoon wasn’t kicked out of the competition before the final for NO reasons, it was imply INFERIOR, and inventing some “superiority” suits the BAe commercials quiet well.
We know better and we’ll stick to proper sources not those who keep inventing and distorting reality thanks.
And you can try to pass upper inlets for FACTUAL performances all you want in an atempt to find Typhoon “superior” in some area, it’s supercruise speed is no higher than M 1.3 today.
As for Rafale it is “given” at M 1.6 by SNECMA with 10 kN “IF” any M 88 was capable of it.
NOW, MORE FACTS.
MAY 2000.
-Industry sources say the MoD is studying various options for adapting thrust to generate potential savings by reducing spares and maintenance needs. “They are examining this as a means of saving money in the short term,” says a source close to the MoD.-
-Any change to the thrust rating could be achieved through software changes and would be easily deactivated if required, for example during conflict. A decision to derate the 20,000lb-thrust (89kN) EJ200 would probably raise concerns, however, over the quality of Eurofighter training available to RAF pilots.-
DATE:16/05/00
SOURCE:Flight International
UK seeks Eurofighter savings
Andrew Doyle/MUNICH
RESULT:
-one sided or outdated sources.- (?).
Your sources Mr S are dated from 1997 to 2000.
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
-In May 2000, MoD was “studying various options for adapting thrust to generate potential savings by reducing spares and maintenance needs”.-
In 2008 R-R gives EJ-200 for 89 kN.
As EJ200 higher thrust with a reasonable life-span and TBO…
-“An initial increase of 10 to 15 percent was already considered in the design of the present version of the EJ200. But at the moment none of the nations is running its engines at the maximum possible thrust level.-
http://www.flugrevue.de/index.php?id=2526
-It would also be possible to operate the engines at the maximum thrust level throughout the entire engine life. On new engines this would result in higher thrust but it would also lead to greater wear and tear and at the same time the thrust level would steadily decline up to a certain point.-
http://www.flugrevue.de/index.php?id=2526
-The engineers have also examined what measures would be needed to achieve a 30 percent increase in thrust. This would entail further modifications without throwing the basic engine architecture into question.-
http://www.flugrevue.de/index.php?id=2526
-“To reduce the development risk, we would therefore aim for evolutionary steps rather than any revolutionary stages,” Price confirms.-
http://www.flugrevue.de/index.php?id=2526
-Such an improvement will require a new Low Pressure Compressor (raising the pressure ratio to around 4.6) and an upgraded fan (increasing flow by around 10%). This would result in the dry thrust increasing to some 72kN (or 16,200lbf ) with a reheated output of around 103kN (or 23,100lbf).-
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
-Near-term development of the Eurojet EJ200 engine for the Eurofighter is targeted at improving the engine’s life-cycle costs rather than increasing thrust.-
-Potential changes include a low-pressure compressor enhancement, improved diagnostics and prognostics, variable area reheat colander and a thrust-vectoring nozzle (TVN), says Allen.-
-Interest is centred on two-dimensional TVNs to improve aerodynamics, particularly during cruise as trim drag can be eliminated and the nozzle shape can be changed to improve the flow around the rear of the aircraft.-
-DATE:07/05/02
SOURCE:Flight International
EJ200 work to focus on cost cuts
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2002/05/07/147271/ej200-work-to-focus-on-cost-cuts.html
-“At the moment we are discussing what the next version of the EJ200 might look like. The customers’ attention is focused more on reducing the life cycle costs. We want to make the engine as efficient as possible.”- Matt Price, technical director of Eurojet
http://www.flugrevue.de/index.php?id=2526
1) An initial increase of 10 to 15 percent was already considered in the design of the present version of the EJ200.-
2) But at the moment none of the nations is running its engines at the maximum possible thrust level.-
= FACTS.
I wish you an EJ200 upgrade before 2012 because Rafale is much more likely to supercruise at M 1.5 WAY before Typhoon does it, the 15% aren’t going to be used by ANY customer any time soon, and EJ200 curent rating IS 89 kN NO 90 kN.
Nicolas10
-I don’t know what “upper limit” means in that case, nor if it is an airframe upper limit (the article doesn’t souns like it),-
“Upper limits”
1) Inlet pressure recovery.
2) Engine pressure limit. (airflow rate).
It all IS a question of how much airflow the inlet and/or engine compressor CAN recycle:
65kg/sec for M88, 75/77kg/sec for EJ200.
The airframe inlets are designed with a small margin to accomodate more powerful engines for future upgrades but his is limited by design, this article CLEARLY indicates inlet limits.
The actual average pressure limit of modern engines of the EJ-200/M88 generation is <> M 1.3 in military power and M 2.0 if A-B.
This is WHY both Rafale and Typhoon get to this Mach in near-clean configuration with low-drag AAMs and pylons.
Futur upgrades for BOTH involves increased airflow rate…
For your INFO, at M 1.5 shock inlets of Typhoon or Rafale would experience a loss such that engine Max thrust would be only >92% compared to 98% at M 1.3, and we’re talking full A-B.
This is 55 kN DRY and 73.6 kN FULL A-B for the EJ200, a 15% thrust increase wouldn’t do for M 1.5.
Even if the drag coefficient in supersonic fit tends to lower slightly from M 1.0 to <> M 2.0, drag Cf will still be HIGH at M 1.2/ 1.3 and inlet pressure recovery falls FASTER than the supersonic drag coefficient.
Then, inlet spillage DRAG occurs when the engine compressor reaches its own recovery limits at <> M 1.3.
These are TWO adverse condition vs one limited positive factor (slight fall of supersonic drag Cf).
If you dont understand the amplitude of the aerodynamic forces playing in this area at these speeds, just remember that this was enough to flame-out the second engine of DA6/XCE.16-10 when the pilot selected IDDLE on the other one at M 0.7 and 40000 ft, imagine M 1.3…
From M 1.3 to keep accelerating and reach M 1.5 Typhoon like Rafale have to be in A-B, in military power, thrust will simply NOT be high enough to sustain the speed vs the aircraft and inlet spillage drag.
Gains per technology cycles are generaly about <> 0.2 M for engines limits so you can expect M88-pack CGP to increase the engine Max Mach in both military power and A-B by this sort of margin, for this purpose it have an increased LP compressor airflow rate…
-So at best it’s M 1.3 with AtoA load vs Rafale’s M 1.2 with 4 mica and 1 tank.-
NO. At best it’s Rafale and Typhoon M 1.3 without tanks.
Quote:
Climb to 40k ft in 90 sec with 4 x ASRAAM + 4 x AMRAAM + 2 x 1000 l tanks (according RAF Typhoon pilot)
Climb to 40 k ft in 120 sec with 4 x MICA + 1 x 1250 l (According MN Rafale pilot).
-Is it climb from 0kph on the airfield?-
Answer: Typhoon = Time to 35,000ft / mach 1.5 from runway alert 2 minutes 30 seconds.
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/
Brakes off to 35,000ft / M1.5 < 2.5 minutes
http://www.Eurofighter.com Typhoon – General Information.htm
Simple.
Whatever the configuration it’s 60 sec MORE for 5000 ft LESS, to be compared with the datas given by the 12F pilots with a 30 sec margin to accelerate to M 1.5 in full A-B.
I doubt VERY much that these aircraft will T-O with TWO external tanks and achieve this, most likely ONE 1000 l supersonic tank onthe centerline pylon.
In 1984, at 57.500ft a Mirage 20000C (M 53-5, the P2 didn’t make it to AdA squadrons before 1985) would need 120 sec to accelerate from M 0.9 to M 1.89.
Dassault provided these figures while competing vs Lockheed Martin F-16, these were given in typical A2A configuration.
BTW everyone keep comparing the M with Typhoon, i’d like to see a Typhoon with a 696 kg ballast taking off from sea-level.
This Scorpion post was a ZOOM-CLIMB performance, nothing else and WE do have similar reports at squadron level about Rafale too, only 45000 ft after a ground level 7 nm run.
ABOUT PACK CGP TECHNOLOGIES:
-Les modifications prévues porteront sur le compresseur haute pression et la turbine haute pression.-
Actualités
Signature entre la Délégation Générale pour l’Armement et Snecma sur la notification du marché M88 « Pack CGP » Snecma-Pack.htm_PDF
glitter
“Good basics, no doubt about that, but don’t know how to put them together”.
Aerospace engineer are trained to do just that, put points and particulars together, i’ll take his remarks as a compliment expecialy because i write in English a language which wasn’t the one i learnt the “basics” from and AM not an Aerospace engineer.
I dont even have time to go through my physics and have to do it on the beat when i need to validate some datas…
Now why dont you show him my ho-so-offensive points on the comparison between the close-coupled and long moment harm page 20/21?
BTW i didn’t wait for others to have professional opinions, even in other forums, the difference is more about full blown physics and obviously higher levels of knowlkedge.
Basics are the same for everyone and trying to deny them is simply denying reality, expecialy when the subject studied is SPECIFICALY that of canard delta and their respective positions.
The NASA memorendum is clear as are all other sources:
The design of Rafale/Gripen offers a LOT of avantages over that of Typhoon, in particular in terms if DYNAMIC instability, DAMPING, instantaneous turn rates and low-speed characteristic.
This WAS the first choise of Eurofighter untill they hit the problem related to their interaction with the inlets.
Typhoon design IS optimised for low supersonic DRAG (we all know this) its canards ARE designed for underwing downwash.
Now that we KNOW that Typhoon long moment harm owes little to a choise due to its “superiority” over the close-coupled, but is in FACT a response to the ecces of DRAG caused by the interaction between the INLETS and the original close-coupled canard design, we can tell what Typhon problems results from.
THEY ARE LISTED SPECIFICALY IN THE RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE MANY TESTS CONDUCTED BY DIFFERENT AERODYNAMICISTS.
As for subject and sources…
From EAP-to-Typhoon design changes and requierements:
-The original cranked delta planform, seen on the EAP, was replaced by a simpler plain delta when supersonic agility requirements were relaxed. Foreplane size, determined by the degree of pitch instability needed to provide the agility required, was reduced.-
DATE:16/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/16/52567/coming-together.html
On Typhoon canard position:
-As a foreplane located close to the wing produced too much supersonic drag when combined with a chin inlet, designers selected a long-coupled delta/canard configuration.-
DATE:16/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Coming together
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/16/52567/coming-together.html
On Typhoon supersonic instability:
-However,at 30,000ft (9,150m) and a speed of M1.8,Typhoon requires a 4° upward flaperon deflection to maintain level flight.
DATE:23/05/00
SOURCE:Flight International
EJ200 thrust vectoring backed
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2000/05/23/66017/ej200-thrust-vectoring-backed.html
On Typhoon structural load factor:
-The ability of carefree handling to control g limits precisely has allowed designers to reduce the ultimate load factor to 1.4, from the normal 1.5, resulting in a lighter aircraft. The airframe is designed for a 6,000h life.-
DATE:16/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Agile thinking
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…-thinking.html
On Typhoon supersonic DRAG:
-Under the same conditions, but in a sustained turn, where the pitch element of the control surface deflection was 6° up, this could be reduced to 2° combined with a 4° nozzle-up component. In this configuration lift coefficient would be increased by 14%, translating into a 9% improvement in turn rate. Take-off distance could be cut by at least 25%.
DATE:23/05/00
SOURCE:Flight International
EJ200 thrust vectoring backed
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2000/05/23/66017/ej200-thrust-vectoring-backed.html
On Typhoon Transonmic pitch-up issues:
-Eurofighter’s flight control system (FCS) software has been modified to counter transonic pitch-up automatically and reduce pilot workload.-
-BAE Systems Eurofighter head Ross Bradley says FCS software to be delivered at the end of this year will include the ability to maintain the aircraft’s attitude as it passes through M1. The load will also include an automated low- speed recovery capability. The latter will allow the aircraft to take over control if the speed becomes too low, perhaps during dogfighting.-DATE:07/05/02
SOURCE:Flight International
Eurofighter FCS software to counteract Mach pitch-up
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…-pitch-up.html
On Typhoon Transonmic pitch-up issues: (2)
-“After making a cautious approach to a few low-speed recovery corner points, I’ve gained confidence in the system so rapidly that I was able to enter the extreme low-speed recovery set-up with 70 degrees nose-up attitude and power idle without any hesitation”,-
http://www.eads.net/1024/de/pressdb/archiv/2004/de_20041104_low_speed.html
On Close-coupled canards effects on turn rate:
-The canard configured Mirage III presents a great improvement in low-speed maneuvring and INSTANTANEOUS turn rate.-
DATE:14/12/85
SOURCE:Flight International
Canard Mirage on test (Archive)
By Test Pilot Walter Spychiger
No link (Archive PDF, type title on F-I search engine).
On Close-coupled canard formula qualities:
-The close coupled delta canard configuration’s primary feature, its stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack, meaning high maximum lift coefficient, had lately been realized by the Americans, instead using large strakes as forward wing root extensions together with conventional tail arrangement, as found on the F-16 and F-17/18.-
-Spin recovery known to be acceptable for close coupled delta canard (not necessarily so for a long coupled canard configuration):-
http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html
On Close-coupled canard formula spin-resistant qualities:
-Rebourg said that to date, they have not been able to depart the aircraft into a spin».
DAVID M. NORTH/ISTRES, FRANCE quoting Philippe Rebourg, «deputy chief test pilot for military aircraft at Dassault.-
On Close-coupled canard formula overal qualities:
-Close coupled canard, by definition, have a more significant effect on the canard-wing aerodynamic interaction and, consequently, the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft.-
Source: NASA Technical Memorandum 11394:
“Numerical Study of Steady and Unsteady Canard-Wing-Body Aerodynamics”
Eugene L TU Aug 1996.
On Typhoon “Commitee designed MMI:
-Tests revealed, however, that the pitch-integration rate was slower than expected, and the aircraft undergoes “roll ratcheting” during rapid roll manoeuvres. The cause is a pilot’s hand-and-arm inertia effect on the stick during rapid rolls and will be cured through adjustments to the FCS.-
DATE:16/10/96
SOURCE:Flight International
EF2000 aimed at Mach 2
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…at-mach-2.html
On Rafale MMI:
-The ergonomy has been particularly worked out by engineers and the pilot has a very carefully designed interface-.
-Both the throttle and stick are mounted unusually high on the side of the cockpit, just below the canopy sills, with an adjustable wrist rest in the case of the stick. This arrangement releases more space on the side panels for switches and helps alleviate the problem of blood pooling in the pilot’s arms at high g.-
DATE:23/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Combat ready
Flight International puts the Rafale BO1 two-seat prototype to the test in its heavy configuration
Chris Yeo/ISTRES FLIGHT TEST CENTRE
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…bat-ready.html
On Rafale MMI: (2)
-With so much information at its disposal, the aircraft requires a powerful processor to combine the inputs into a simple pilot display. Rafale’s modular data processing unit (MPDU) consists of up to 18 line-replaceable modules, each of which has 50 times the processing power of the Mirage 2000-5’s XRI computer. The MPDU integrates data from the FSO, datalink, Thales RBE2 electronically scanning radar and MBDA/Thales Spectra electronic warfare system, displaying each threat or ally as a single icon on the pilot’s eye-level display.-
DATE:18/11/03
SOURCE:Flight International
Forward Roles
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…ard-roles.html
On Rafale MMI: (3)
Air chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy was impressed with the Rafale F2 performance and the intuitive cockpit layout, and greatly impressed with the sensor fusion.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/index.cfm…FB230750159FD9
On Rafale design origins:
Design origin
-The Rafale M was conceived in 1986, after the plan to develop a carrier version of the variable Dassault Mirage G was abandoned, and the French navy opted not to buy McDonnell Douglas F-18s as an interim replacement for its ageing Vought F-8 Crusaders in service on the carriers Foch and Clemenceau.-
-In 1988, the navy requirement was merged with the French air force need for a multi-role fighter, itself the result of the decision to go ahead with a national solution instead of becoming a partner with Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK in the Eurofighter EF2000 (then the European Fighter Aircraft) programme.-
-The design for both air force and navy Rafales is derived from the original air-force requirement for an 8.5t aircraft.-
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…ing-to-go.html
So now there is NO excuses for all the LIES we have been told by we know who about ALL these point which are now proven to be pure propaganda and earsay conveniently turning some Typhoon defects into strong points…
Rafale Design Origin, Instability, long moment harm, maneuvrability, drag, MMI etc.
arthuro
-HAF pilots have been very impressed by the rafale. I must find that article where HAF pilots are quoted and praise rafale cokpit datafusion and EW.-
Yes please do and the rest like Rafale superior flight envelop and ease at which it outperforms the viper at EVERY level.
-this guy is ruining this thread…-
Am I? I think you insistance into trying to have people banned is suspect to say the least.
[QUOTE]Mach 1.4-1.5 has been “verbaly” stated and reported for some time now and the eurofighter website just recently stats mach 1.5 as possible supercruise speed. What has been consistently said is that this is a max figure, not necessarily sustained for longer periods and definitely not in an operational configuration! QUOTE]
POINT IS: Upper LIMIT for airframe IS (Whatever engine you could fit to it right now) M 1.5.
EJ Pressure recovery LIMIT Dry = M 1.3
Max Mach in BOTH Military power and FULL A-B are deternimed by airframe aerodynamics and engine/inlets pressure recovery characteristics, NOT by verbal whatever simulated records.
And BTW Rafale with 4 AAM supercruises at M 1.3, M 1.2 with 4 AAMs and 1 X 1.250 l tank. source Dassault-Aviation programme menager at the last Paris Air show.
TMor
Rafale A could fly at Mach 2.0 with the AB only on the GE (stated on the Dassault site, i don’t have the link). This means that the M88-2 is ok with those speeds in supercruise.
I’m afraid NOT TMor, it only mean Rafale A didn’t need 2 X 75 kN to reach M 2.0.
The M 88 was certainly NOT providing more than 50 kN MINUS the percentasge of pressure loss associated to the excess Mach and altitude.
I wouldn’t dare saying M 88 pressure recovery is much higher than that of EJ200, rather the opposite since it is designed with lower limits and have alower frontal thrust.
typhoon1
-its just that when it had to do it, it couldn’t re. Singapore.-
SAY WHO? As a matter of FACT this was duely counterdicted by official Dassault Program managers at the last Paris Air Show.
Please cut it unless you got an official stament saying so it is only pure propaganda by the usual offender.
-Key publishing’s magazines that looked pretty “official”.-
You forgot to mention the fact that the magazine didn’t name the author, nothing “official” there…
-Did the GE engine have full digital control vs (I assume it to be) M88?-
Both engines had fully functional FADEC.
-Did the Rafale A have higher TWR and performance e.g sustained turn due to the extra thrust and more cleaner profile?-
Rafale A aerodynamics were totaly different even so it looks like the SAME aircraft, it was from the previous generation of design phylosophy like the EFA/ACA/ACF.
First of all, i was a larger aircraft even so it weight was 9500kg like that of the actual C/D, M.
Its wing were positioned at the upper limit of the inlets, and its surface was a crancked delta.
Improvements in design from this one to the serie aircraft are numerous but to quote only a few:
Wing repositioned lower so that a LEX could replace the crancked wing plan.
The advantages are obvious:
LEX increases LIFT at high AoA but also, those of the serie Rafale, they are designed to reduce supersonic wave drag at around M 1.65, where the 48* delta would needs it compared to the previous wingplan.
It works very much the same way as diverters on a pitot intake creating a mild-shock at the LEX-wing junction.
This changes the way shockwave pressures are distributed over the wing from M 1.674 and helps reduce wave drag.
Then the small matter of the canards:
Their surface was increased by 30*, since their axis are rooted BEHIND the inlets they do not suffer from zone pressure drag as was the case for EFA.
More to the point, their root and tip vortices realy works well with the whole main wing vortex as they are situated both sides of it.
This drawing is obviously NOT scaled…
With the crancked planforn there was no such a large gain due to the distance between the canard root vortex and the crancked vortex.
On the serie aircraft, the canard vortex energises BOTH that of the LEX and both root and tip vortex energises that of the main wing.
Here you can SEE for yourself the wing MAIN cornet vortex, the other, weaker vortices are NOT visible (LEX Root, Canard Root and tip) but from the canard surface root and tip, they hit the upper wing well passed the leading edge and energises BOTH the LEX and main wing vortices.
A cracked delta got a problem at supersonic speed, the two part of the wing have a Cl shift of different amplitude, which creates lateral instabilities.
With a straight delta the problem is solved.
Serie Rafale make full use of Compressive and Expensive shockwaves, particularly in the canard/intake area.
This is meant to keep the hysterisis effect due to canard-wing surfaces to the highest level possible, thus retain the resulting DYNAMIC instability.
This means that as opposed to Typhoon a Rafale still retains a neutral trim drag in supersonic, no need for elevons compensation due to pitch-down moment.
In short, the characteristics of the A were improved on:
High Max AoA was quasy doubled from 45*to passed 100*.
HIGH INSTANTANEOUS TURN RATE was increased.
HIGH SUSTAINED TURN RATE was increased.
Acceleration at all speed was inproved.
Trim drag, wave drag, induced drag were reduced.
All of which with a wing surface reduced from 47m2 to 45.70m2 and the same empty 9500 kg weight for the C.
greg
-a. it is improved for low speed handling. Obviously for carrier operations.-
NO need for bashing-up only corrective will do:
NO this is NOT the case, it was only an AdA requierement for STOL, MN joined after decision not to pursue F-18s, i have DUELY posted the F-I article link wit hthe article extract.
-b. its engine needs some more power. Or should I say a lot of it.-
Its TWR is only marginaly lower than that of Typhoon while its structural LOAD factor is superior by 0.35.
ALSO; its IR signature is WAY lower due to M88 superior cooling and dual canal/condis IR supressor system.
-But current generation a2a missiles need a lot of airspeed from operating or evading aircraft.-
AAM G load should be 3 X time the aircraft Max g to score a kill actualy.
NOT necessarly a question of speed although you need to be within the flight envelop of the aircraft where you can plull Max Gs.
Rafale CAN pull 11 g if needed, that’s enough to loose an AIM-120
-Air combat is transforming from fighter vs fighter, into a fighter vs missile scheme.-
So they thougth before Vietnam and NO one trruely belive in the magic bullet, reason why fighters still have guns.
-And this does not favor aircraft like the rafale, f-18, f-35.-
Realy and why is that? Rafale is fully M 2.0 capable and accelerates as FAST as Typhoon in similar configuration and range.
-Ok I understand that the AdlA quoted that the M88-2 is adequate.-
So does MN but you obviously ommited to read the 12F pilots comments.
-But I really dont believe a real pilot wouldn’t be happy with the most powerfull engines he can get.-
This is not a contest for the most powerful engine, maintainance, operation costs, SFC are also important.
As for M88 it is now capable of 90kn with the event of pack CGP, qualification and first serie engines deliveries are schedulked for 2011.
Jackonicko
Rank 5 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,308I expect highly selective quotation (only those ‘facts’ that support his nationalistic and xenophobic prejudice) – often from unreliable, one sided or outdated sources. These sources are not judged by their credibility, but by the extent to which they support his dodgy claims. I expect ignorant and boorish dismissal of any intelligent points that dare to question his ridiculously overblown idea of Rafale’s ‘superiority’ and I expect a lot of shouting over those who have better manners and greater expertise than he has, usually with lots of schoolboy insults and rudeness. I expect reams and reams of regurgitated (and often incomplete) aerodynamic diahorrea, and I expect this to be presented in what one distinguished TP described as “aerodynamically illiterate pidgin English.”
What I didn’t expect was for Scorpion and TMor to dignify his utterly valueless, clueless and misunderstood nonsense with any form of reply. Didn’t you learn anything when he called himself Fonk?
Jackonicko
Rank 5 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,308On reflection, maybe you’re very wise. Anyone attacked by Fonk/LardAssup/Globalpenss has their credibility enhanced dramatically. If you’ve annoyed him, then plainly you’re on the right track.
Jackonicko
Rank 5 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,308“The ridiculous one does not keep silent”?
WHAT SAY YOU JACK? I have a say, the biger the threat, the louder the barking, MAKE ME if you dare.
Sorry TMor, are you aligning yourself with this idiot? I thought you more intelligent than that.
WOW! I’m flatered by so much attention from Mr errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr what his name again? “Withold”?
1,308 post and still not capable of coping with reality.
-credibility enhanced dramatically-
Infortunatly it is NOT your case and i DO not attack people as YOU DO only respond to offensive comments, i leave propaganda and desinformation for your bunch, in other words, i provide people with every opportunity to validate or invalidate the content of my post YOU on the other hand never bother because there is nothing to validate in yours.
Example? We have at least TWO official sources saying Rafale supercruises 12F pilots and SNECMA; you got ZILTH saying it doesn’t.
After having been called a TROLL by Mr S (Twice)…
“xenophobic”
PLEASE QUOTE ME being xenophobic.
Higly selective Mr Jack, is RELEVANT to the subject expecialy because the rest of the technical part are WAY above you educational levels and treats other topics too.
-unreliable- (?)
NASA/DRYDEN Memorendums. -unreliable-
USAF Edward AFB Flight-Test Center -unreliable-
SAAB -unreliable-
EADS -unreliable-
Eurofighter -unreliable-
BAe Systems -unreliable-
Thales -unreliable-
Dassault-aviation -unreliable-
Swiss Defense Technology Procurement Agency Test pilot Walter Spychier -unreliable-
Flight Internatiuonal -unreliable-
one sided or outdated sources.-
NASA/DRYDEN Memorendums. -one sided or outdated.-
USAF Edward AFB Flight-Test Center -one sided or outdated.-
EADS -one sided or outdated.-
SAAB -one sided or outdated.-
EADS -one sided or outdated.-
Eurofighter -one sided or outdated.-
BAe Systems -one sided or outdated.-
Thales -one sided or outdated.-
Dassault-aviation -one sided or outdated.-
Swiss Defense Technology Procurement Agency Test pilot Walter Spychier -one sided or outdated.-
Flighyt International -one sided or outdated.-
ME:
nationalistic
xenophobic
dodgy
ignorant
boorish
schoolboy insults and rudeness
illiterate pidgin English
idiot
WOW!:
“These sources are not judged by their credibility, but by the extent to which they support his dodgy claims.”
Realy?
So EADS techs saying to F-I that Typhoon close-coupled canards DIDN’T work with Chin-mounted intakes, that Typhoon requiers 4* elevation in elevon pitch-up in supersonic, that its percentage of instability is 8%; these ARE MY dodgy claims are they?
Surely NASA/DRYDEN, SAAB, Dassault, EADS, BAe, Thales are all BIASED anti-Eurofighter and conspired together to prove the long-moment harm canard formula inferior did they?
Ho also, the long-moment harm was chosen for its superior aerodynamic characteristics (accoding to YOU and TPs) no?
A BUMP of 6* AoA and 4g pith-up moment between M 0.95 and M 0.975 is a sign of high level of DAMPING is it?
Risks of DEPARTURE below 50 kts EAS is a sign of good low speed flight characteristics is it?
Let US guess, this is of course only due to inacurate air data sensors isn’t it?
“Still some minor transonic pitch-up”…
= FCS doesn’t solve everything.
= A better design would.
NEXT; they reposition the canards where the strakes are and name the new design Raphon.
HO NO, i forgot the intakes are in the WAY…
Pitty history proves YOU wrong AGAIN (And again) (And again) (And again) (And again) (And again) (And again).
“I expect ignorant and boorish dismissal of any intelligent points that dare to question his ridiculously overblown idea of Rafale’s ‘superiority’.
Bring’ em up! (The intelligent points) PLEASE.
SUPERIOR low-speed handling, Max AoA, Maximum Gs, Stall characteristics, STOL characteristics, transonic chracteristics, structural load factor, empty weight to payload factor, INSTANTANEOUS turn rate, nose pointing capabilities, all reported by several reliable and intelligent sources.
BTW How about the high-frequency vibration in the inlet, did MoD ALSO get it all wrong?
Ho, the small matter of missed landing distance target…
“and I expect a lot of shouting over those who have better manners and greater expertise than he has, usually with lots of schoolboy insults and rudeness.”
LOL! Mr Jack YOU are the one behaving like an ineducated, maneerless caveman right now, not having the intelligence to figure that one out before posting this shows a lack of rack or whatever you’re lacking by the bucket too, no surprise there.
And BTW if you ear me shouting, see a shrink, i believe you might be suffering from an accute Jeanne d’Arc Syndrome, i do my home work mostly at night after work and my neighbours have to sleep you know.
One might be versed in “proper” english, one can also lack aeronautical education, you realy were thinking of yourself on that one…
Go ahead, question, question, we’re all impatiently waiting the evidences proving what you are alleging.
For the time being, like the rest of them boyz, you can’t argue and only can try to dismiss sources by association with the poster, who in turn you try to dismiss as an ignorant, but we got served with of course MORE unvalidated fanboydreamlands Typhoon vs Saturn V figures, this must be a psychopathic THING….
Too bad you do not have the requiered knowledge base to debate otherwise, so please go and ask your TPs to participate, new, educated PoVs will always be welcome and certainly VERY intereting to read.
“I expect reams and reams of regurgitated (and often incomplete) aerodynamic diahorrea, and I expect this to be presented in what one distinguished TP described as “aerodynamically illiterate pidgin English.”
Well is that NOT pidgin’ funny?
Instead of pretending to KNOW about it to the point of noticing how incomplete these points are, it would be VERY pidgin’ useful to the rest of us for YOU to complete the “often incomplete aerodynamic diahorrea”.
If it wasn’t for a now very pidgin’ apearent intellectual constipation you would be able to complete, but he, no one is perfect and educated to the point a pidgin’ ability…
Yet ANOTHER distinguised TP who-should-not-be-pidgin’-named you understand pidgin’ English? I DONT.
“What I didn’t expect was for Scorpion and TMor to dignify his utterly valueless, clueless and misunderstood nonsense with any form of reply. Didn’t you learn anything when he called himself Fonk?”
Realy? Well here we go, the usual desinformative post by the Typhon guru who knows better than the most eminents aerodynamicist on the planet. TADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
I think they learned alright???
Tons of meaningless copy/paste stories with little to say about what would make a difference to the debate.
As for TMor HE KNOWS what i mean, he is much more aware than what he lets see but choses to have a few jabs at me instead of telling it as it is, i’m not his little nefew.
You realy have the right profile for educating weak, influenceable forum boyz with no knowledge of the subject, (you know, the kind who can believe that Rafale is so stable its canard surfaces are actualy lifting surfaces).
Oh yes i forgot your latest pupil, the one who thought of (e) as generator of low Cl; in clear english, low airflow velocities and high pressures over a wing’s upper surface MIGHT be generating LIFT, Nobel price for self-dismissal…
Your level of debate and educational posting too; reason why you are still only working as a second-ranked sister-edition writer i believe.
Please TRY to apply for the Editor’s post at AFM now…
SO, good luck “proving” what you are actualy saying otherwise than by your usual dismissive “Proper” english, “i’ve been told” stories and personal attacks and insults.
THE ONE 2008 AFM post for the Guinees book of records:
nationalistic
xenophobic
dodgy
ignorant
boorish
schoolboy insults and rudeness
illiterate pidgin English
The last one:
idiot, Comes as an extra.
Even Fonck wouldn’t manage the score and the “guilty” posts are still here to make my point…
Let me guess Mr Jack, you thought of all of these bird names while shaving before logging-on, since this is exactly what most of your posts sounds like.
– utterly valueless.
– clueless.
– misunderstood (By the educated that is).
-nonsense. (Your own words, dear!).
The ho-too-predictable low-level sourceless desinformation with NO (or LITTLE substance), unproven sources, unnameable TPs, counterdictory & historicaly counterdicted assesments.
SO, let’s get REAL just to SEE what you are realy made of shall we?
You’re more than welcome to bring your “superior” knowledge to the debate at the level where i actualy managed to lift it, and prove your points by due technical demonstrations.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCH!
Don’t worry, we dont expect you to even try.
You simply aren’t this sort of “professional” writer, you’re WAY too WEAK on the subject of aeronautics, being self-intoxicated by your own propagandist and desinformative vision of a “reality” populated by an army of ghost TPs.
WAY better at rethorics on how bad other are informed and how much better yourself and your “sources” are.
It must be very frustrating for you to see some proper journalists articles demolish your years-long atempt at building legends in a respectable forum such as AFM.
Realy you are worth your weight of laughing gas, but as a professional writer you can’t even beggin to cut the mustard even with a machette and a hammer, expecialy NOT writing about aeronautics, this requiers a little too much work…
You see Mr Jack, as opposed to you I take my homework seriously, time now is 6.19 am and this is going to hit you between the ears (with the sound of emptiness) pretty soon!
BONK!
WHOT SAY YOU JACK? LOL!!!
arthuro
I don’t even bother to read all of your threads because it is so tiring to hear you shouting and insulting everyone, and besides the structure of your posts make it very hard to read. No need to “get tired” here friend, if you were realy bothered you would READ the associated articles because they are here to download and I provide with the sources.
Reality IS;
Perhaps you DONT give a damned after all, but still take care of this Jeanne d’Arc syndrome, ask Jack, he sure can give you a tip or two.
Wishing to correct a small inacuracy from me:
“And only a number LIMITED to 31 out of 99 upgraded systems processors.”
Should read; 31 out of 99 systems upgraded for cause of obsolescence, new procesors, new software.
NO 5th GENERATION CORE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE.
Quotes;
-With its computer system the avionics core architecture is indeed 5th generation and in that way a generation ahead of the Typhoon’s computer architecture, agreed. Yes you read it right.-
4th Generation Core System Architecture vs 5th Generation, we can READ but it TOOK YOU A lot of time.
-The large number of computers is used to achieve the specific processing power needed by several systems to perform their tasks.-
5th Gen Core System works WAY better simply because processing power is managed a LOT more effisciently.
4th Generation (same architecture than a Mirage 2000 5F) doesnt achieve the same level of computing power management by DESIGN, regardless of the number of processors.
-While I’m honest enough and have no problem to admit the Rafale’s advantage here, you clearly fail to argue about the avionics networking, integration and automatation.-
SELF FLATERING DOESN’T MAKE UP FOR REALITY DENIAL.
The failure is on YOUR side, trying to pass one for the equivalent of the other clearly doesn’t work since computing power isn’t enough in itself and that of Rafale CAN be upgraded to standards “Concurent aircraft” CANOT.
The technology GAP is OBVIOUS.
-The T1s dated computers have a very limited growth potential in the end and that’s the reason why they are replaced by much newer and faster computers with T2.-
LOOKS LIKE YOU CANT READ EVEN BAe SYSTEMS STAMENTS:
NO QUESTION ABOUT T1 “COMPUTERS” UPGRADE BUT PROCESSORS, THE COMPUTERS THEMSELF REMAINS THE SAME 4TH GENERATION.
CHANGING COMPUTER PROCESSORS DOESN’T MAKE UP FOR THE OLDER TECHNOLOGY OF THE CORE ARCHITECTURE.
Upgrading a Pentium II Chip to the most powerful one doesn’t make a PC the equivalent of a Pentium III.
END of story.
We can leave fanboy’s dreamland for those who believe that “Concurent aircraft” “COMPUTERS” HAVE BEEN “UPGRADED WHEN CLEARLY IT ISN’T THE CASE.
OR THAT the Eurofighters official website SAYS “Concurent aircraft” CAN supercruise at M 1.5 when in FACT they only indicate an aerodynamic UPPER LIMIT…
-Initial comments indicated that, with a typical air to air combat load the aircraft was capable of cruising at M1.2 at altitude (11000m/36000ft) without reheat and for extended periods.-
-Later information appeared to suggest this figure had increased to M1.3.-
-However even more recently EADS have stated a maximum upper limit of M1.5 is possible although the configuration of the aircraft is not stated for this scenario (an essential factor in determining how useful such a facility is).-
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/flight-sys.html
DID YOU MEAN THIS STAMENT Mr S?
IS THIS WHAT YOU CALL EUROFIGHTER “OFFICIAL” WEBSITE?
-maximum upper limit of M1.5-
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT “UPPER LIMIT” MEANS?
If NO (which i believe IS the case) let me enlight you; Aircraft Aerodynamic limit & NOT WITH EJ200 ACTUAL POWER SETTING WITH A PRESSURE RECOVERY LIMIT OF M 1.3!
-For times when a quick sprint is required the Typhoon can employ reheat with an upper (design) limit of Mach 2.0.-
-upper (design) limit of Mach 2.0-
NOW PLEASE, LEARN A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THESE AIRCRAFT, ENGINES, AERODYNAMICS, SYSTEMS. ENGINES etc…
Fanboy dreamland:
T2 Upgraded computers.
NOPE, only the processors were upgraded.
FULL INTERNAL FUEL, 2 x 1000 l DROP TANKS + 4 x ASRAAM + 4 x AMRAAM reaching 40k ft in 90 sec.
Called ZOOM-CLIMB, this performances requiers the aircraft to be near-supersonic before pulling up a RAfale CAN do exactly the same in similar configuration (Endurence/weapon load) and circumstances.
Rafale’s performances are inferior…
Rafale Ms pilots give the known performance “from the deck” = from 0-140 kt; the two aircrafts climb rates are similar from 0 kt/0 ft, Rafale C perfs shouldbe slightly higher due to a lower empty weight (696 kg).
“Concurent aircraft” CAN Supercruise at M 1.5.
NOPE: This is an simulated AERODYNAMIC UPPER LIMIT for the airfame itself, as for the engine its upper pressure recovery limit IS M 1.3 today.
Once at altitude Rafale M can stay up for TWO hours supercruising at M 1.2 with 4 AAMs and 1 X 1.250 l.
“Concurent aircraft” datas are often given in OPTIMUM configuration, at minimum operational weight, in NORMAL Operational comfiguration, the performances are lower.
-Time to 35,000ft / mach 1.5 from runway alert 2 minutes 30 seconds-
16t A2A configuration (15.929 kg):
A2A_Load.jpg
Performance Specifications
Max Level Speed Mach 2.0 @ 11,000m
Time to 35,000ft / mach 1.5 from runway alert 2 minutes 30 seconds.
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
Obviously these pilots which names ARE disclosed are lying, and the usual “I’ve been told” stories are NOT.
SAME here for supercruising performanes disclosed by BOTH pilots, SNECMA and representatives of Dassault at the Paris Air Show.
We ALL know that Rafale is fully capable of supercruising but, he, the guy who knows all about it tells us that “from informed sources” It couldn’t do it in Singapore.
I think they are hurting themself laughing at both Dassault-Aviation and MN/AdA squadrons…
for years these guys are poluting the internet with thier teens opinion about aeronautics, its alway the same when you brings them proofs and facts and official datas, they trys to drags you down to thier level, and beat you with experience, the way of spin, don’t waste you time with those punks!
regards Sampaix
Yes this is what it is and the way it goes unfortunatly, but we dont have to take it anymore, FACTS are showing with time and the wheel is turning like the wind, what goes UP must go down some day… Regards to you my friend!
Hardcore Truthfinder Club. Headbangers Zone. Beware your haircut.
Sign In
