dark light

TMor

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 691 through 705 (of 1,365 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Rafale News VII #2440346
    TMor
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Rafale News VII #2440364
    TMor
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Rafale News VII #2440413
    TMor
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Rafale News VII #2440537
    TMor
    Participant

    OK, thanks. 7,000 hours with an 8 g service limit.

    This is not exactly what i said.

    in reply to: Rafale News VII #2440541
    TMor
    Participant

    And they would pull 10.5g on air show ?

    in reply to: Rafale News VII #2440571
    TMor
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Rafale News VII #2440690
    TMor
    Participant

    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…

    in reply to: Rafale News VII #2440714
    TMor
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Rafale News VII #2440750
    TMor
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Rafale News VII #2441339
    TMor
    Participant

    Benco also dealt with the british Typhoons.

    in reply to: Rafale news VI #2441650
    TMor
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Rafale news VI #2441663
    TMor
    Participant

    The RBE-2 AESA has demonstrated a range of 180km versus a fighter sized target (no information about the RCS). Source : DSI.

    in reply to: Rafale news VI #2441679
    TMor
    Participant

    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. šŸ™‚

    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.

    in reply to: Rafale news VI #2441713
    TMor
    Participant

    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” ? šŸ™‚

    in reply to: Rafale news VI #2441908
    TMor
    Participant

    And you’re wrong. šŸ˜€

Viewing 15 posts - 691 through 705 (of 1,365 total)