“Rafale:
– emergency G-override (?)
– Automatic reconfiguration after taking battle damage
Something else…? All people feel free to complement this list”

emergency G-override (?) : as Kovy said, 11g max

Something else : + in case dangerous situation at low altitude, the pilot can engage the terrain following autopilot. This should be automated in standard F3.

symetrical all moveable foreplanes

Are you sure this feature is still used ? This : “Pitch control is provided by symmetric operation of foreplanes and wing flaperons, while roll control is primarily achieved through differential operation of wing flaperons.” is quoted from eurofighter.com…

that of the Rafale includes LEX to increase lift

Actually, LEXs have two function : increase lift at high AoA, but they also modify the mach line, making the shock wave produce later (farther) on the wing, and compensating the 42° sweep angle which alone would have been less efficient than the 53° of the Typhoon’s wings (supersonic aircraft use high sweep angle, generally around 60°). This fact clearly seems to point that the Typhoon sweep angle is a compromise.

Question here: Can the control surfaces of the Rafale brake the aircraft and how is it achieved (which rudder/surface deflections).

That’s it : control surface are positionned by FCS computer wich calculate optimal position of each surface to produce max deceleration. The flaperons on each wing (two by wing, pardon me for my lack of aeronautic vocabulary) are set in opposite position symetrically in regard of the other wing.

o I understand it right that the LEX to influence the airflow in a positive manner during high AoA?

As far as i understood Fonk, LEX do not play a role here. Actually, when you watch a front photo of an air intake, between the intake and the airframe are some curves which deflect the airflows. On of them bring it to the engine (cooling)(under letter A), while another (letter B on the Fonk’s pictures on page 2 at the bottom) bring the airflow over the rest of the airframe (above the wing, and to the fin). This don’t look as an evidence at first sight, but look on other pictures with other angles.
But ! Such technics may be used on Typhoon (less efficiently ?) when you have a close wath on some picture (example picture look just between the foreplane and the intake : the shape seems to run backward at the junction of the intake with the fuselage…).

That’s all for now.

Ok, so now comes the verdict :

And the winner iiiiiiss : the R….
I’m sorry. 😮

typhoon replacing 9 specialised aircrafts??? there ares planes sweeping the soil???

THink about it :
-F16
-F104
-Jaguar
-Tornado GR
-Tornado ADV
-MiG29
-F18
-F4
-Yep…

Rafale will replace :
-m2000C
-m2kN k1
-m2kN k2
-mIV
-mIV P
-mF1 C
-mF1 CR
-mF1 …
-Jags…
-…

Just tricks…

the eurofighter was designed as an air superiority jet, not a striker or others roles in mind first

After all, F15 is good at near all !

beleive me, if the captor was a title winner, all the yanks and others would put back an old mecha antenna on their products!

In order to avoid being too ridiculous, let’s recommand to admit that CAPTOR is the last designed mech radar, and that it is the most sophisticated of its over well known category. Then let’s admit that RBE2 is a brandnew radar and still to be upgraded with time. I should got something nearest from truth.

Scorpion

I hate to see me being pushed into a corner like “Eurofighter fan club”.

I’m sorry for having attracted you here. I’ve to recognize that you’re quite honest.

All you read about Eurofighter is only right if it does not destroy your view of the superior Rafale.[…]But you only speak about aerodynamics and history, what about avionics…?

You’re right. Actually, nobody could really defend Typhoon on aerodynamics (without trying to put that all the theories were wrong, which I doubt). This came to a point that someone told us (french) that to make Rafale better than Typhoon, Dassault would have defied the laws of physics…
And then, pro-Typhoon tryed to deal with avionics… But speaking about it is far more difficult to my mind. It seems to me that both aircraft are equivalent in this domain.
Whatever some journalist saying that typhoon’s MMI, radar, data fusion are better than Rafale’s (using the pretended customers point of view), this point is quite unclear… End of debate ?

What’s funny is that Fonk knew the Typhoon’s sweep angle. He wrote it correctly in an old post (in the thread “Typhoon vs Rafale in BVR”)…

The 53° sweep angle appears to be between the good agility in low speed and the good mach line.
But the Rafale combine both, with no compromise.

Ok Fonk…

Then, why is Typhoon so impressive ??? Why, with its old aerodynamics, is it able to be such a good aircraft…

Please forget the Rafale for a while, and show us the advantages of the Typhoon !

No it’s not, if its instantaneous turn rate is lower than that of Rafale unless it is its structural G limits which arehigher which everyone compraing the Max external load would doubt rightfully.

In fact, the Max G limit of Rafale is 11g (several source), and the published limit of Typhoon is 13g. What do you think about thoose figures ? (not to say that your point is bad)

What you’re talking about in fact it turning point, the speed at which the aircraft will pull more Gs that it can structurally or aerodynamically sustain.

What interests me is the speed at wich the aircraft will get its max turn rate… The 360kts figure as cornering speed I gave was quoted from Rebourg.

In both case Rafale wins by design, and i doubt very much that the 350 Kts is the real figure, more like 450 Kts at 50,000 ft which is also a factor.

At 350 Kts and 15,000 Fts Rafale pull 9 Gs and still accelerates.

Interesting… Where does it come from ?

What was the loadout (fuel, weapons) of both plane ?

ooooh, Kovy… It’s clear that both were in clean configuration, meaning that the Typhoon was bringing 4 amraams + 2 asraam, while the Rafale was just bringing its 2 micas !!! :p :p :p

I got THE proof that makes Rafale definitely better than Typhoon !!!

The thread is not dead !!!
Have a look, i got a discussion with a spanish guy about eurofighter against F16. When i asked him if the EF2000 was able to sustain 9g… look at what he answered me :

I’m here at Moron AB Spain and have been around the Euro Fighter. I can tell you that it is about 10 years behind the F-15 or F-16 and couldn’t hold its’ own against either in a fight. Recently, Spains first EF crashed near Madrid and they have now received their first 4 EF’s in Getafe Madrid. We will see 3 squadrons here at Moron in the future. All of the infrastructure for the EF program is nearing completion. I can only tell you I wouldn’t try to pull 9 G’s in the EF speaking from the mechanical side of the house. From my operational side, the F-15-F-16 against the EF would be a short boring fight for American pilots.

I’m sorry, this was a bad joke… I found it there : http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_printview-t-145-start-60.html
near the bottom of the page (search for LeeRichardson).

Wasn’t very funny ?… 😮