You forgot spaceship enterprise…

The usual low level flying is that all you got?

Please get yourself INFORMED before replying.

So in a real combat situation (NOT AN AIRSHOW ONE, THAT IS) in order to change direction when already turning on the other pulling say 7g, does it need to unload first?

I guess it does.

I gues you dont know your Yaw from you Pitch and Roll axis.

Try the airclub nearest to your home they got basic aerodynamics books for you.

The quick answer is no, as the FCS will not allow the aircraft to find itself in such condition. AFAIK, the EF has never been tested beyond 30o AoA.
The real answer is, all the above are purely airshow stands, and of negligible real life use.

The REAL answer is the resulting capability in retaining a high level of control in combat situations but you wouldn’t know about it considering you cant make the distinction between A and B and you try to talk about Z.

Just try someone your size boy, you’re waisting forum space. Bye.;)

The performance achieved was with aircraft which nver weighted 9.75 t. But to be honest think what you want ignorant chap.

because performances didn’t change at all! curious isn’t it?

[/QUOTE]

Yeah we all know they never do at least in British forums where you write.

As for other being ignorant it seems to me that only digging into Flight International archives get you all over the place.

Please spare us the jokes and wait until Rafale pilots report their VWR confrontations with Typhoon for a laugh!

First mea-culpa, 290*/sec it is, beeing too confrontational doesn’t serve me that well.
Several Forum legends goes down in smoke.

1 = Rafale is more suited as a naval design as one can READ in the topic “Will the Eurofighter flop-14” because of “thousand of hours” of work.

Quote:

-Dassault spent thousands of hours on Rafale’s carrier compatability, and as a result the aircraft is inherently superior as a carrier aircraft than Typhoon.-

Correction:

This is only due to AdA requierements for STOL performances, Dassault researches on canard long moment harm and close-coupled and the advantages enjoyed by the close-coupled canard formula over the long moment harm at lower speed and higher AoA.

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/1997/07/09/10543/raring-to-go.html

2 = Rafale team didn’t spend as much time on the MMI as that of the Typhoon commitee…

“Will the Eurofighter flop-14”.

Quote:

-And the EF partners spent an inordinate amount of time on the aircraft’s MMI, using a cockpit design committee whose members had direct operating experience of virtually every modern fighter, and who thrashed out the best compromise.-

“virtually every modern fighter”???

Well OBVIOUSLY NOT THE FRENCH, as Typhoon cockpit is not even improving on that of theMirage 2000 5F.

Let’s NOT forget that MMI involves ergonomics:

Concurent aircraft:

–

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/1996/10/16/9557/ef2000-aimed-at-mach-2.html

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/1999/06/23/53125/combat-ready.html

-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/2003/11/18/173965/forward-roles.html

Multithreading it IS!!!

MDPU (Modular Data Processing Unit)

The core system is based on a Modular Data Processing Unit (MDPU) comprising:
– mission software
– display software
– mapping software
– network software
– flight-management software
– critical flight software.
The MDPU is connected to the 1553 and 3910 databuses.
All the major systems on the Rafale are connected to the MDPU via interface units. These databuses are complemented by a point-to-point video network, linking the aircraft’s systems with the display and recording systems.

Human-machine interface

-A high level of integration of all systems reduces pilot workload and, in turn, the number of control screens.-

-Particular emphasis is placed on real-time and quick access to control instruments enabling direct access to most information and controls.
The layout is now centred on the most important function in modern combat aircraft: the tactical situation.-
Source: Thales

RESULT:

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?storyid=326752CD-1143-EC82-2EFB230750159FD9

Another forum legend DOWN:

Chris Yeo gives Rafale B01 empty weight at 10.000kg = PREVIOUS to “modification to the undercariage” designed to increase MTOW.

Rafale B official weight is 10.196 kg today.

Source: Echeance 2006 du programme Rafale pour les forces armees. PDF MinDef

Rafale empty weight didn’t increase with higher MTOW as we were repeatedly told and suggested.

Reasons behind the high degree of commonality and easy navalisation of Rafale:

Aerodynamics.

QUOTE:

-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.

Concurent aircraft:

Results of long-moment harm solution.

DATE:07/05/02
SOURCE:Flight International
Eurofighter FCS software to counteract Mach pitch-up
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2002/05/07/147262/eurofighter-fcs-software-to-counteract-mach-pitch-up.html

-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.-

Sounds like the old Mirage III transonic pitch moment only reversed.

-Le recul du point d’application de la portance en transsonique impose un recul du manche (un braquage à cabrer des élevons, en fait) important (impressionnant !) lors de l’accélération.
En supersonique, on a donc un neutre du manche beaucoup plus en arrière, une traînée des élevons plus importante, mais surtout vers M 1.5 une possibilité de manœuvre largement diminuée parce qu’on arrive à la butée à cabrer du manche vers un truc dans le style 3 ou 4 g….”- http://garmy.org/news/index.php?page=10&limit=10

According to this Mirage III pilot; the transonic zone in this aircraft translates by a shift backward of the Cl during the acceleration.

In supersonic the neutral position of the elevons is important, and around M 1.5 maneuvring is widely reduced because of the pitch down moment:

This was limiting the aircraft to 3 or 4 g, while the more modern Typhoon’s transonic pitch-up picksbetween M 0.98 and M 0.95 at ~4g.
Source:Transonic Pitch-Up mitigation for the EF2000 PDF.

Same old thing for the Typhoon then:

-at 30,000ft (9,150m) and a speed of M1.8, Typhoon requires a 4° upward flaperon deflection to maintain level flight.-
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2000/05/23/66017/ej200-thrust-vectoring-backed.html

So here we go, a “Superior” design with the SAME problems than a 50 years old design but different symptoms due to the presence of canard surfaces and instability.

Typhoon so called “higher” level of instability reverses to a high level of stability in supersonic.

The “FIX” is obvious:

-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.-
http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html

So we know what this 98+30 Typhoon LEX modification was for now; atempting to RECOVER a degree of hysterisis.

Rafale posses BOTH close-coupled canard and LEX.

-canards INCREASES the damping-in-pitch of the configuration while REDUCING the oscillatory stability.
Source:Transonic Pitch-Up mitigation for the EF2000 PDF.

Otherwise said; close-coupled canards provides higher level of DAMPING and lower DYNAMIC stability, meaning a Gripen or Rafale will still be trimmed positively in supersonic and doesn’t suffer from such a dramatic pitch-up transition in transonic.

Adding close-coupled Canards to the Mirage III actualy had some very positive effects on low-speed handling:

Low speed and High AoA…

-The canard produces two additional vortices which combine with the vortices of the delta wing. This gives and extension of controlled airflow up to higher AoA and an unshielded fin and rudder.-

-The vortex lift starts ealier which results in reduced drag at a given lift.-

-At a given AoA. the canard configuration gives more lift and less drag than the canardless delta configuration.-

-The improved YAW stability permits higher AoA, and therefore lift and drag are approximatively doubled with the canards.-

-Overal maneuvrability at low speed is much improved. Minimum speed in 1g flight is down from 150kt to less than 107kt KAS.-

-The canards are about two-third the size of those on the IAI Kfir.-

-Up till now we had a forward and aft c.g limitation on the Mirage III. From test we know that the aft c.g limit was too optimistic and the wind-tunnel proved that the canard would move the neutral point forward by about 1-5 per cent.-

High AoA…

-Approaching AoA limits in a standard Mirage III, a minor buffeting is felt. Beyhond this limit, the buffeting increases slowly without being a real warning. With the canard fitted, no buffeting at all is felt, and the pilot has no natural warning.-

NOTE:

For those wondering what the dogtooth are for on the leading edge of the IAI KFIR, they results on turbulent airflow separation and creates this buffeting, giving the pilot the warning he needs when approaching AoA limits.

On a Rafale the leading edge slats have the same effect while energising the airflow above the wing at higher AoA.

-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

Another serious source:

-The aerodynamic advantages derived from the close coupled canard configuration, foremost its good vortex flow stability up to high angles of attack (AOA), that can be translated into a very high instantaneous turn rate,-

Delta canard’s inherent good aerodynamics are:

· Stable detached leading edge vortex flow, high maximum lift coefficient.
· Positive trim lift on all lifting surfaces.
· Floating canard offers stable aircraft if EFCS fails.
· Good field performance (take off and landing), enhanced by special aerodynamic breaking mode.

· Battle damage tolerance good, “overlapping” control surfaces.
· Potential for future adaptations, like steep approach, fuselage aiming.
· Low buffeting levels made even better with leading edge flaps.

Spin recovery known to be acceptable for close coupled delta canard (not necessarily so for a long coupled canard configuration):

· Proven spin recovery capability for complete cg and AOR range.
· Nor risk of being trapped in a superstall, control authority exists.
http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html

So here you go:

· Positive trim lift on all lifting surfaces.

Think: The hysterisis effect doesn’t vanish at supersonic speed, so positive trim lift remains.

DAMPING defines the ability of an aircraft to naturaly counter parasite moments such as unwanted pitch-up at transonic speed.

Similarly, low speed characteristics are way better, which make them naturaly more suited to carrier operation.

There is NO risk of SUPERSTALL, 3-axis control remains throughout the whole flight envelop…

-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.-

SAAB designers agrees on that point, so does NASA Technical Memorandum 11394:
Eugene L TU Aug 1996.

-Increasing mid-canard deflection increases overall pitching moment for all computed angles of attack. Significant nonlinearities due to the canard-wing interaction are also noted in the pitching moment curves.-

In landing configuration, the Rafale canards are automaticaly pitched-up at 30*…

-For long-coupled canard configurations, the effects on aerodynamic performance is usualy limited to the lift of the canard itself and the total pitching moment. However, the close-coupled canard has significant influence on wing performance as well.-
NASA Technical Memorandum 11394:
Eugene L TU Aug 1996.

Canard lift is only available when used in pitch control (UP).

UNDERSTAND: We’ve been told these gezzers are boyscouts who doesn’t know their buzz…

Approach speed is also naturaly lower…

-On return to Coningsby our landing speed was around 140kt ground speed.

Fuel load for our mission totalled 5,000kg (11,000lb), including an external drop tank on the aircraft’s centreline stores station, and our take-off weight was around 12.5t.-

DATE:24/04/07
SOURCE:Flight International
Eurofighter Typhoon special: Storm force training
By Craig Hoyle
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/24/213442/eurofighter-typhoon-special-storm-force-training.html

-With 1,410kg of fuel remaining (aircraft weight 15,900kg), the minimum speed was 120kt at 18º alpha. As noted before, the ideal approach incidence is 16º alpha and, above this incidence, the control column must be deflected aft of neutral.-

-The test configuration included three 2,000litre (530USgal) fuel tanks, two SCALP cruise missiles weighing 1,300kg (2,860lb) each and four Mica fire-and-forget air-to-air missiles.-

READ: 3400 kg and 20kt advantage to the close coupled canard although during Rafale flight-test, due to gust wing aproach speed was 132kt, it is normaly 120kt for a lighter aircraft.

-Short landing : at 120 knots the aerodynamic braking is not that efficient and Dassault test pilots advice to immediately put the main gear on the runway in order to brake quickly. The aircraft stops in less than 500m.-

-In Rafale the angle of attack is 16° but it can fly easily at 30°. Deck landings in the past were very stressful for the pilot. Now [in the Rafale] they are easy.-
Former Dassault Chief test pilot Yves Kerherve.
DATE:02/09/96
SOURCE:Flight Daily News
Yves sings the praises of Rafale
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1996/09/02/2445/yves-sings-the-praises-of-rafale.html

-Dassault chief test pilot Yves Kerhervé says that the Rafale’s wing design enables a “very low” carrier approach speed of 120-128kt (220-235km/h). “The aircraft is perfectly stable, whatever its configuration, with very precise control. The 16 degree approach angle is a long way from the critical 28.5 degree point, providing much better visibility and a far higher margin of safety compared to the Super Etendard and Crusader,” he says. He adds that the Rafale will provide novice pilots with “far less demanding” carrier take-offs and landings – again increasing safety.-
DATE:09/07/97
SOURCE:Flight International
Raring to go
The next millennium will herald a new age for French maritime power
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1997/07/09/10543/raring-to-go.html

-The 16 degree approach angle is a long way from the critical 28.5 degree point.-

He is talking about visibility not the AoA as he already said previously it can be easly flown at 30* AoA.

-Vitesse d’approche : 120 noeuds
Source: Rafale M
Flottille 12 F
Présentation
Ministere de la Defense.
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/decouverte/equipements/aeronefs/rafale_m

So what does this mean for Rafale at the end of the day?

It was designed for high control authority from very low speeds at up to Mach around 1.6/1.8.

AdA requierements for STOL suited carrier Ops.

Rafale approach speed is 20kt LOWER than that of Typhoon and its landing distance WAY shorter without break chute.

It is the aircraft which demonstrated the highest AoA under full 3-axis control without TVC.

Its payload capabilties (fractional) and low speed handling are superior to all competitors.

Its INSTANTANEOUS turn rate is the highest of all aircrafts of its generation (and we dont talk TVC-nose-pointing but actual TURN RATE).

All of which without compromising on structural design it was actualy tested at 185% of its design limit before failure.

All of the Rafale models are builts to the SAME structural standard before modification for the M.

All aiframes are built to 1.9 (1.85) load factor.

A serie Rafale CAN pull up to 11g in case of emergency.

Rafale airframe is now mature and doesn’t requiers any structural modifications so we can expect the actual weights to stay at their levels.

Comparatively, concurent aircrafts have to be structuraly strengthened and get heavier to allow for a still lower level of multi-role capabilties (Multirole T2s, Gripen).

-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/1999/06/16/52589/agile-thinking.html

According to structural tests on Rafale this is 1000h service life lower and -0.45 load factor.

REASON?

Search for VERY HIGH TWR, VERY HIGH Sustained turn rate at M 1.6/40.000 ft Optimisation for upper regions of the flight envelop.

So everyone can LAUGH now:

Rafale design was SPOT-ON from day ONE, no need for structural strengthening and weight increase, aerodynamic patch-ups or anything of the sort.

I am curious to SEE disclosed the empty weight of the full multi-role T2 Typhoon now… :diablo:

Which document says only these aircraft feature interferometry? BTW the F-22 does not even have ECM!

Are you doing it in purpose or are you realy blind?

F-22 active systems uses interferometry and therefore are useable as ECMS.

Enough of your usual twist and spin exercise please!

The technologies mentioned are not all related to MMI and where just an example that there are also technologies/capabilities in the Typhoon which can’t be found on the Rafale. It’s the same the other way round.

Sorry WRONG again, they ARE and tell me WHAT Typhoon posseses that Rafale doesn’t please a laser designation pod?

Just like AGP 1 and 8 are different graphic buses, data transfert and computing power are directly related to DATA FUSION as well as the ease and transfert/volume SPEED at which these datas are processed and then presented to the pilot = MMI.

Source data?

Of your Eyesight specialist? You tell US. 😀

Based on the fact that Rafales rollrate has been reported with 290°/sec, while for Eurofighter nothing has been disclosed except >200°/sec? Lol

Based on a Danish pilot REPORT saying it WAS 200* and IMPRECISE enough to make him miss his F-16.

Bliblablub what is the sustained and max g of the Rafale at ~mach 1.6 at 40k ft+?

[/QUOTE]

Mister Scorpion: When one canot READ the difference between Simultaneous and Sustained one get himself a good aerodynamic book and LEARN.

As for the figures you’re expecting us to give to you, they should have been given by Dassault if they had been made available to public, all you got is that of the underpowered and STEALTHIER Rafale C01 with early M-88-E1 and more discreet air intakes.

Now: Rafale was optimised for speeds of M 0.9 to M 1.6 Typhoon for higher Machs; at M 0.9 to 1.5 i’d have a Rafale ANY time because 90% of all engagements takes place at these speeds and their corner speed is IDENTICAL.

The difference IS a Rafale cant DEPART and doesn’t NEED its FCS to take over control to the pilot to prevent a superstall at lower speeds.

Apparently you’re not up to comprehend the conceipt of transcient maneuvrability as defind by DRYDEN and the USAF either, just a hint, before pulling Gs aircrafts have to bank, to bank they have to initiate and terminate a roll moment with precision IF possible at all. :diablo:

My tip: TRY Dryden and SAAB aerodynamicists they know what they’re talking about.

Scorpion82

True, but does it mean the avionics are less good integrated or less good interacting with each other? NO! The modular architecture mainly provides the advantage of being easier to upgrade and it might save some cost in terms of operating costs.

So according to YOU, a 4th generation core avionic system offers the same advantages as that of the F-22/F-35 etc. Good going.

Don’t know if its ECM uses interferometry or not, has it been explicitely stated anywhere that there is no interferometry? Or is it just that you haven’t heared/read about it so you assume it’s not present?

If it was the case, the rest of the world would know and YES you keep ignoring other posters documents, only F-22/F-35/Mirage 2000 Mk2/9 and Rafale are equiped with interferometric ECMS.

The other way round where are TRD, DVI in the Rafale for example? Are all checklists in an complete electronic format availabe? Is there a helmet with display including FLIR/NVE imagery etc.?

More TWIST and SPIN? We all KNOW that there is NOTHING to validate claims of better MMI or anything else in Typhoon advantage but pure earsays and “I’ve been told” stories actualy counterdicted by some SENIOR RAF officers and BAe test-pilots in very officials ways.

BTW I know that DVI and a helmet has been tested for the Rafale, but where rejected on cost grounds. Yet you can also find technologies/capabilities on operational Typhoons, which you can’t find on the Rafale. As said both aircraft have their stronger and weaker points.

It doesnt make of Typhoon core system architecture that of a 5th generation fighter. This IS a technology GAP, happy or NOT. Period.
__________________
The pure imagination of some people, makes them look like living in another dimension in a state of reality denial beam-in-the-eye!!!

The combination of Eurofighter Tranch1 Block5 + Lightening III pod has already had such capability right now. As for Rafale, it seems that it won’t get such capability formally until 2009 or 2010.

AdA have this capability by the bucket, this is NO valid argument, integration of AASM and other weapon WAS AdA priotity, NOT Damocles.

Rafale was already cleared for LGBs as early as 2002.

Well the range/payload issue is indeed true and I never said the opposite, though my chosen words were maybe a bit unlucky.

I’m sorry to say; like much of what is writen about Typhoon or Rafale these days…

Technology wise the Typhoon T2 is not inferior to the F3 standard Rafale at all. There are strong and weak points for both aircraft.

Sorry, does Typhoon posseses a 5th generation core system architecture comparible to that of F-22 or F-35?

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fileadmin/user_upload/redacteur/Defence/2000/Mirage_2000-9_special_issue.pdf

As far as the rest of the world knows the answer is NO.

It doesn’t fare much better than the latest model of 5F and certainly less than the 2000 Mk2/9 or Rafale and its ECMs doesnt use interferometry.

This IS a technology gap like it or not.

Nicolas10 “Well, saying the FOV was 60° surely isn’t the reason they asked that poster to be banned”

Ca et le reste…

As usual the ones who insisted for the ban are those who doesn’t like to be counterdicted and are proven wrong with time, but this is a known patern, isn’t it mate?

Scorpion82

“You just don’t get the point”

There is NO point to make or get, and BTW, did YOU write this?

Scorpion82″The weapons apart I can’t see any advantages for the F3 Rafale”.

I’m curious to see a Typhoon carrying two Scalp or Storm shadow with a 1000nm+ range any tranche, any time.

Capabilties; expressed in terms of fraction (Fuel, playload) are nowhere near to be equal for any tranche of Typhon and that’s design for you; Scorpion82.

It is certainly not a question of weapon…

Something else all external tanks including the 2000l are cleared for M 1.6.

H K
“Conformal Fuel Tanks (testing partially completed)”.

They were fully tested and developed as well as ready for production for export customers, please read GIE own documentation of the time…

“Higher thrust engine (testing partially completed – M-88 ECO)”

See DGA/SNECMA stament, ECO was fully tested years ago and the programme is now well completed, some are simply missing a few years of information here.

BTW for those VERY informed frenchies who were bashing up anotherone to get him banned in another forum, pretending they knew better about the OSF Camera, its PoV is actual 60*.

Thats makes this now banned guy R.I.G.H.T.

Please DO your homework…

The problem is that the Tranche 2 has limited abilities versus a Rafale F3.
Not necessarily: The problem is that the Tranche 2 has limited abilities versus a Rafale F3.
Not necessarily

Sorry mate, Typhoon whatever tranche A2G capabilties are WAY lower by design, payload, range, etc.

Please, skip the funny little atempts to prove otherwise you just CANT.