What I said is that Rafale has similar T/W ratio to F22 and it has. LOL, I mean are you illiterate?
And BTW, I’m not so sure F22 has better range than Rafale, even on internal fuel only.
Anyway, stick 9+ tons of fuel on Rafale and it will fly farther than F22, but will fly like a brick. However, stick 50 or so tons of fuel on F22 to match B1’s range and it can’t get off the ground, so B1 is more maneuverable in this case, isn’t it?? 😀
LOL jackjack, stop parotting PR without a clue of what you’re talking about.

no, you actually said equal T/W ratio
this isnt the case, apple for apple comparison, you were wrong and are now just waffling

You still don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about, do you??
Kid, go to Wikipedia and read what the AOI is…

i thought “sustained aoi/aoa” would have told you enough, do you really want me to put links for your limited comprehension about flow separation from the wing or what the really good words are for stalling it ?
(is english your second language ? it would explain a lot)

now what was your favorite planes sustained aoi again, was it under or just over 30 deg ?
do you still remember the f-22 is sustained 60+ ?

So what does it matter?
B1 is more maneuverable than F22 with the same flight distance load of fuel. 😀
What’s your point?

ah my little spinner of posts, you said the rafale had better t2w, this is simply wrong under similar fit outs

It doesn’t matter how you rate my opinion, but what matters is that you don’t know what you’re talking about, again…
Try skewing F22’s wings to an incidence angle of 70° and your design supervisor will send you to asylum for observations. 😀

Most posters have basic courtesy to shut it, or educate themselves when in dilemma, but not our Jackjack.
He goes in, all guns blazing no matter what. 😀

I mean Jackjack, it’s funny to read your assertions on this forum and I must say your ignorance is becoming almost legendary.
I can’t tell when JSF will reach IOC, but I can tell that you and pfcem are fighting daily for the dumbest post of the day. 😀

sorry, its a sustained 60+ not 70, 70 is the f-18harv, my mistake , i should have written a list so i dont confuse them
now the fa-18 is 55+ degrees same as the f-35, isnt it ? my memory isnt that good with numbers
whats your favorite plane again, is it under 30 or just over ?

no, reread my posts and my references to “stealth plane” and “stealthy plane”
as your link shows, they do not claim it as a “stealth plane”
i have not changed my opinions on your posts

i havent seen any fighter aesa that didnt claim LPI for it and i’m at a loss to think of a significant advantage of non-aesa

rafale’s roll rate was given in a post right above your previous one:

Rafale: 270°/s

you gave F-22: 200°/s

that would mean, that the rafale actually outclasses the F-22 in that area (and the F-16 does the same, btw)

ok, in amongst the numbers i missed that
i must repeat ..it was the prototype that was 200, as it was what i found when i googled and i posted it as an interesting read that gave a clue to the final f-22

it will be interesting to compare the f-35/22 manoeverability, i havent done it yet
i havent seen anyone creditable say the phoon isnt 4.5, though i would like aesa included in the 4.5 definition, as its suppose to mean 4 gen platform with 5th gen systems afaik
fwiw i dont give LM a gods right to set definitions, here is a LM link claiming 5gen for both f22/35
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/capabilities/air_power/5th-gen/index.html
if they originally claimed planes had to have SC for 5th gen, it does muddy the water

i guess you missed my edit as you were posting
ok, i’ll bite give a link where eads calls typhoon a ‘stealth plane’
i personally would give them more credit than that sillyness that you claim

http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080128-004.pdf
this is an interesting read about prototypes in 91
the f-22 was 200 deg/sec, probably similar in final plane