BTW is the covered “hole” on the right airlift intake the gun? I think so but never saw a good quality of the exact gun location of Rafale.

Yes, it’s the gun…

I had no idea that Fonk had received a permanent ban, nor do I know why he received one (though, in general, I can guess). I’m not trying to discredit or insult him, and indeed I regret that he wasn’t able to reign in the insults and rudeness enough to be able to stay here and contribute to discussions. If you have dealings with him elsewhere, do pass on my regards.

He’ll like it ! 😀

For a moment let us accept that Rafale’s wing produces less drag and more lift for a given Angle of Attack than Typhoon’s (this is unprovable and unguessable without knowing details of the section, camber, surface, etc.).

Ok…

It is still possible that Typhoon’s more advanced FCS (it has to be more advanced to cope with the greater instability – NOT because it’s British!),

I don’t agree… You have no idea of the mouvement magnitude of each surface, in different conditions… etc. The fact that FCS have to cope with a ‘perhaps’ higher level of instability just prove it react strongly enough, quick enough, but this doesn’t prove that the surfaces’ movements are subtle enough to save energy… 😀

may allow the Typhoon to produce more lift at a lower Angle of Attack at the same airspeed by tailoring the leading and trailing edges, thereby reducing trim drag.

Ok. Maybe. I think I had told you something like that by PM. I’m not sure about the additional lift, but I agree with the reduced trim drag…

Similarly, you can’t extrapolate from Rafale when the boundary layer will separate on Typhoon – nor can we assume that Typhoon’s strakes impose a greater drag penalty than Rafale’s LERXes (to say nothing of the dirty air around the centreline pylon…..).

From a front view, LEX are in line with the wing. That’s my point, and this is the reason why I think that at small Alphas, it produce less drag than strakes. I still have absolutely nothing about the centerline pylon, and the Scalp has been flown and qualified on this pylon for Rafale M.

As to MMI and agility, I think you know enough from your sources and our previous PMs that these are areas where Typhoon enjoys an edge,

Hey Jack ! I just said you that you never lied to me ! Not that you were told the truth !!! Ha ha 😀 Let’s make it clear : i’ve been told some things wich make me understand what you reported me, or what you’ve been told.
Yes Typhoon’s MMI are more usual and at first view (or even second, third, forth…) user friendly.
Yes, Typhoon probably enjoys an edge on agility. And I’m not going to try to quantify it. Yes Singapore pilot loved the Typhoon’s performances and talked about it.
They also never talk about the Rafale.

just as we could both point to areas where Rafale enjoys equal or greater advantage.

Yes. And there are still some little stuffs I never told you about. 😉

32 nm is twice ASRAAM’s range, not three times.

I trust neither figure, incidentally.

ASRAAM is definitely superior to AIM-9X, and I believe is superior to IRIS T in key respects.

TMor

Your belief that Rafale’s wing produces less lift induced drag than Typhoon’s is unsustainable, and can only be a matter of faith.

Even if it produces less drag and more lift for a given Angle of Attack (again this is unprovable and unguessable without knowing details of the section, camber, surface, etc.) then there is still the likelihood (or possibility, if you prefer) that the more unstable aircraft, with the more advanced FCS, will be able to produce more lift at a lower Angle of Attack, thereby reducing trim drag.

Your assumptions about the effectiveness of the LERX in delaying separation of the boundary layer are fine, insofar as you limit yourself to looking at Rafale, you cannot ‘read across’ to make assumptions about Typhoon.

Without a big budget and good high and low speed wind tunnels, determining the lift produced by the two wings is unproductive guesswork.

And even if you could accurately determine lift, Typhoon’s thrust and control authority give it an edge in agility, as all of the evaluations so far have confirmed. Rafale does have some advantages over Typhoon, but neither MMI nor agility are among them.

As to Fonk, you mentioned his simplistic analysis and his absence. I wasn’t aware he wasn’t still visiting the board. I didn’t like him much I have to say, as I found him boorish, ignorant, stubborn and stupid, but I very much admired and liked his passion for aircraft, and he did occasionally reveal a nice sense of fun. Is he OK, do you know?

And, Jacko, I come back, as I said you, Fonk will never come back and post anything here. SO, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH HIM ????
If you don’t like him, that’s YOUR PROBLEM, not someone else’s !!! THERE IS NO NEED TO DISCREDIT HIM ANYMORE. My feeling is that you react as if you were still considering him as a threat, but HE has received his definite ban, not you ! So stop your insulting game wich is pointless ! You’re just putting useless insults in a debate wich was absolutely clean before you started writing his name ! 😮

Your belief that Rafale’s wing produces less lift induced drag than Typhoon’s is unsustainable, and can only be a matter of faith.

It could look as sustainable as your assertion that “a professional TP said that…” Ok ? That’s a pure matter of FAITH.

Even if it produces less drag and more lift for a given Angle of Attack (again this is unprovable and unguessable without knowing details of the section, camber, surface, etc.) then there is still the likelihood (or possibility, if you prefer) that the more unstable aircraft, with the more advanced FCS, will be able to produce more lift at a lower Angle of Attack, thereby reducing trim drag.

Stop. Written this way, it looks like if you imply that unstability produce lift. Give details. Don’t imply that BAe’s FCS is better. Funny thing : when you talk about unstability, there none of the terms “camber”, “section” or “surface”… You just put it into “simple physics” by explaining the long moment arm trick !

Jacko, by PM, I said you that you never have lied to me. Then, I never said you all what I’ve learned from various sources AS I AM NOT ABLE OR ALLOWED to sustain a debate about these things. I think I don’t have to push arguments here that someone in the know told me, ok ? If I can’t give the name of my source, then, I shut up, because it would make me write things that no one could believe. I hope i succeeded in writing this paragraph in an understandable way, without looking agressive.

Your assumptions about the effectiveness of the LERX in delaying separation of the boundary layer are fine, insofar as you limit yourself to looking at Rafale, you cannot ‘read across’ to make assumptions about Typhoon.

Then ? Typhoon use something else in the place of LEX… this is called “strakes”, and not aligned with the wing, fact wich may make me think that it produce a small penalty in drag. I forgot, strakes, and lex also increasing stability in yaw…

Without a big budget and good high and low speed wind tunnels, determining the lift produced by the two wings is unproductive guesswork.

And I’VE NEVER MEANT THE CONTRARY ! I agree with you ! :rolleyes:

And even if you could accurately determine lift, Typhoon’s thrust and control authority give it an edge in agility, as all of the evaluations so far have confirmed.

Maybe, and not making the Typhoon a better aircraft all in all. 😀

Rafale does have some advantages over Typhoon, but neither MMI nor agility are among them.

Yep, this kind of information you got from “sources” is hard to prove isn’t it ? 😉

JACK, I’m not interested in flame wars. I’m not nationalist, I’m not a Rafale absolute superiority believer. I’d like to discuss in a proper way. Forget Fonk, everybody knows you hate him.

LOL Nic … 😀 😀 😀

Jack, you write things as if British built materials were obviously better… 😀
This is why Nic answer this way. 😀

And Mica has AT LEAST a 32Nm range. This is the smallest published figure.
You can find 80km+ now, wich was the planned range from early development.

80km+ (~50N.m) :confused:

Hi Jack,

Because of the longer*moment arm Typhoon has compared to Rafale its canards are able to hold a greater*destabilizing force ‘in check’. Simple physics. The unstable aircraft needs to have sufficient control power to arrest the rapid build up of pitch rate that the basic configuration is capable of generating.

What if the Rafale’s canard move faster and more ?

Both aircraft have their advantages and disadvantages, but they are optimised for slightly different roles.

No. From the begining, Dassault and Onera has worked on all tasks, and high Alpha maneuvering was studied as well. Of course, Rafale is also built and designed for a-g ( and recco, and nuke, and anti-ship…,etc).

This is why Dassault chose a close coupled delta canard configuration this gives a short moment arm to work with which must mean that the range of CG variation must be quite small, and this will limit agility in all but the basic AA configurations, but will have advantages in the A-G role.

I don’t agree. Ok, maybe Fonk’s analysis were wrong and too simplistic, but this one is the same kind 😉 . Aerodynamics are a very difficult science, and actually, no one can predict the validity of a design that simply. Without a strong experience, and good prototypes and good previous planes, and plane designer won’t be able to do his job. Ok, BAe tried this way (instability), and ok, Dassault may have tried something else, then, watch the aircraft flying, this is the only way to make up your mind.

Before Fonk leaps in with yet more accusations that Typhoon’s configuration and sweep means that its wing produces less lift than Rafale’s and that Typhoon is thus less agile, I’d point out that: “agility is defined as the ability to quickly change your ‘vector’* (ie direction and velocity combined). So you need to define agility as the product of lift, thrust and control power.”

Let’s forget about Fonk ok ? :rolleyes: I’m not going to write anything about him since is no more here to defend himself.
I’m ok with your definition of agility. Thus, you’ve also seen my previous answer.

Lift alone is unimportant.

Except if you want to stick in your hard turn.

And in any case, an unstable aircraft will be able to use canards, leading edge and trailing edge surfaces to trim the aircraft to give the same lift at a given speed, without increasing angle of attack or angle of incidence.

However, the ability to pull the nose off axis has its own applications and relevance in BFM, so pointing the nose, whether or not you change the vector, can be useful. Isn’t that exactly why we got quite so excited by the MiG-29 and Su-27 15-20 years ago?

Are you talking about the Su wich had a hard time against our Mirage 2k ? 😀
Then, a Rafale demonstrating its ability to perform a 100° AoA with a negative speed of 40kts… to me, it seems that this aircraft to point its nose off axis.

I have not even tried (because i don’t think so) that the Rafale is a better dogfighter. 😉

16Nm is still less than a 80km+ Mica IR. Point. :diablo: 😉

Archibaald is right Nic !!!
LOL… That’s enough with this “Timor” advertisement !!!! 😀

Netherlands, Korea, Singapore…. Brazil. 😮

Brazilian Air Force will integrate Rafale Program in 2010 with a first 12 plane batch. The old Mirage 2000C are under a complete revision and, when Brazil receives its first Rafale, will form a Second Air Defense Group at Manaus.

Cheers

Peperez

Hi Peperez,

There’s a kind of tradition according to wich you should have given us a link… 😀
Without this condition, your assertion is a pure joke (not even funny !!! :p )