heck we agree 🙂 normally i’m butting heads here

Stop trying to tell me what I’m saying and concentrate on what you said…

Where does it say they are test aircraft? did you notice that over 150 aircraft would have been delivered by the time the Australian ones were delivered in 2010, they would be production.;)

The 14 ordered by Australia will be production and will be in service as trainers.

Game set and match I think.

Goodnight

you’re starting to crack me up, you have a great sense of humor, you cant be spinning and trolling, you’d try to make more sense
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-signs-off-on-purchase-of-14-f-35-joint-strike-fighters/story-e6frg8yo-1225803790418
Senator Faulkner said the government had approved acquisition of the first 14 Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) Joint Strike Fighters and infrastructure and support required for initial training and testing.

its ok with me if you just want to deny that the aoa is greater on the f-22 f-35 fa-18. it seems links showing this arent enough
Toan is quite willing to accept this and posted it on f-16.net
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6094.html
arthuro, i’m happy to look at your links if you have any

Where does it say test aircraft? I think your making it all up as you go along..

ah my little spinning friend
as i said for someone who say they are aussie, you know very little,
unless you want to say the first 2 lrip planes are going to replace the f-111 squadron
give it up sunshine, accept that you were wrong

now i see you are still carrying on about codes, isnt the the uk gov good enough for you ?
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=11566
An MoD spokesman said: “The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is progressing well and the UK currently has the JSF data needed at this stage of the programme, and is confident that in future we will continue to receive the data needed to ensure that our requirements for operational sovereignty will be met.”
“This remains the basis of the agreements reached with the US in 2006.”
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/02/4438113
“The U.S. government has guaranteed operational sovereignty. It [code] is being overplayed.”

“The U.S. government has guaranteed operational sovereignty. It [code] is being overplayed.”
just to post a quote that cookie would have seen
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=11566
An MoD spokesman said: “The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is progressing well and the UK currently has the JSF data needed at this stage of the programme, and is confident that in future we will continue to receive the data needed to ensure that our requirements for operational sovereignty will be met.”
“This remains the basis of the agreements reached with the US in 2006.”

LOL your source is google news
as an aussie you would know the industry professional gf0012-aust on a couple forums
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-68778.aspx
DSTO are currently involved with JSF development for australian e-reqs (funnier when you factor in all the hype that the US won’t provide “source code” and yet we (and the danes and the norwegians) are happily developing national specific “systems” with the full blessing of the US

when I say “it’s not aerodynamic ones”, I mean that the software is programmed to maintain the aircraft between given limits, depending on what you want and need.

for example, 9G isn’t the structural limit for an airframe, but a software one. It’s programmed like that because, usually, the pilot has problems going beyond anyway, so the aircraft will not exceed it.

The demo rafale, for instance, had it shifted to 11G’s. It’s a short demo and a light aircraft (just the fuel needed for the demo onboard and the pilot “in good shape”), so they probably considered it safe enough to pull a bit more. They made no modifications, other than inside the programming to achieve that. For the AoA is the same story: it’s a choice to keep things like that. Why pull more than 30° AoA? if you can do so, you’ll be way too slow for fighting anyway and on landing you’d destroy your engine nozzles. At “normal” flying speeds, a rafale does just fine. One way to see how well the lift is generated is to look at the stall speed of an aircraft.

the rafale M does its approach at 120kts, which would mean that by applying standard 1.3 factor we’d get a stall speed of 92kts (the rafale A got down to 82kts)

you can see here:

http://www.avions-militaires.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=3859

the brief detail of the areas explored through all test flights of the Rafale A, flight by flight

yes, there is a safety margin in the FCS for max aoa and the higher the aoa the more speed you wash off
as both rafale and s/hornets are carrier, i havent looked at the sh but i’d say both would have very good low speed stall and handling