No.
But since we have to repeat it again and again :
-that’s not a problem, when pilots are sure they want 9G, they get it.
The G-Onset, if too high, is a shock. It can be very hard, and dangerous to the neck. It can literally knock the pilot out.
It is ALSO software limited on Rafale, since on a two-seater, someone is not taking the decision to pull on the stick.
Who knows. Maybe they came to the conclusion (due structural testing) that just 8 g could ensure the intended airframe life cycle of 7000 h? Exceeding that limit from time to time might be acceptable, but not on a regulare base.
The 8g limit was decided by doctors (for human health), a 10 years moratorium. It’s not a decision for technical reasons. But of course, it increases the airframe life.
6,000 hours… I thought it was the Marine.
Extract from Fox Three n°9 :
French MoD initial design specifications for the
Rafale are 5,000 flying hours/3,000 landings with
a severe usage spectrum, but studies have shown
that the expected economical life (that is without any
major structure component replacement) is 7,000
hours and 5,300 landings.
OK, thanks. 7,000 hours with an 8 g service limit.
This is not exactly what i said.
And they would pull 10.5g on air show ?
What do you have as the airframe life limit?
Dassault :
While the AdA plans on 7,000 flight hours and 3500 landings, the airframe broke under 185 percent of the nominal efforts, after 10,000 flight hours.
Rafale is still designed for 9G, the 8G limit was decided quite arbitrary by the doctors. At the same time, M2000 pilots were often maneuvering at 9G, and they didn’t understood the decision.
This is why the 8G limit is very often overtaken.
Ok, according to “my” source (a former CEV guy), the service limit is 8g. It is a soft limit, and it’s very often overtaken. Above 8G, there is no limit but the hard 11G limit.
Why wasn’t it more impressive ? Surely because it was executed at high speed, i don’t know.
For example, the square dance at 450kts/ 9g… Well, we all know it can sustain it, and it’s not the tightest turn IMO (with a corner speed at 360kts…).
The reclined seat is said to help the pilot sustain 2 additional Gs…
Claimed by the commentator, and confirmed by a Rafale pilot.
Service limit ? When it’s a matter of life or death, there’s no service limit. If the aircraft can give you 11G, the pilot will ask for it. The anti-G suit was intended to protect and help the pilot sustaining 11G (90hPa positive pressure breathing), but it was too uncomfortable and finally it was dropped though it was developed in the sacrifice of Voice input.
And it was a very pretty display that was nice to watch. Very smooth. But it could have been flown in an M2K – or perhaps almost even in a Jag!
Sure. With 10 to 10.5G turns.
Benco also dealt with the british Typhoons.
I was correct. The only source for the truth is you. Every comment favorable to Rafale is denied.
Let Arthuro report was he was told, “deal with it”. You should know “Benco” went MUCH further.
The RBE-2 AESA has demonstrated a range of 180km versus a fighter sized target (no information about the RCS). Source : DSI.
Arthuro : Jacko is doing as usual.
What you heard doesn’t fit his opinion, so he’s trying to discredit you or the pilot.
The fact is that, Arthuro, the pilot didn’t tell you all the story. You got the “soft” version. š
This is why i asked Jacko if he had talked to “Benco”. But what “Benco” may have told him can’t be the truth…
Art : whatch your PMs.
I watched it from a privileged position with a US TP, who expressed some admiration and also some surprise. He thought that this was a display you could have seen from an F-16 or a Mirage 2000 in the late 70s, and was clearly surprised about how much of the routine needed to be flown in burner…
Well… The guy think whatever he wants after all… We may conclude that even this kind of guy is blind.
Jacko, did you talk to the Rafale pilot “Benco” ? š
And you’re wrong. š