Fonk, what about this

A text about Typhoon very instructive

Reports suggest that the F-22 was proposed to the UK, a historical fact which would explain the peculiar fixation on comparing the EFA to the F-22 in much of the marketing literature. The comparison is curious in the sense that the EFA is conceptually an evolution in the teen series fighter paradigm, whereas the F-22 combines sustained supercruising engines and Very Low Observables (stealth), thus representing a completely new paradigm.

Lol 😮

The combined delta canard configuration and 538 ft^2 wing size confer very low wing loading on 50% internal fuel, and are optimised for transonic manoeuvre and supersonic dash performance.

“Optimised for transonic manoeuvre”

The Typhoon is unlikely to match the supersonic high G envelope of F-16XL/E due to a lower wing sweep angle, but will have a useful advantage over most teen/teenski series types optimised for transonic turning. In transonic manoeuvre, the automatic full span leading edge slats are used to adjust the wing camber and therefore reduce the lift induced drag at high G characteristic of classical deltas in this regime. Fuselage vortex generators on either side of the cockpit are employed to promote vortex formation at high AoA and low speeds, and thus increase lift.
The paired inlet is optimised for high AoA performance, using forebody flow to promote air ingestion, as well as a boundary layer splitter above the inlet. The combination of vortex lift and inlet geometry used by the Typhoon exploits the same ideas used in the F-16A/C/XL/E.
The loosely coupled canard is intended to provide high control authority at high angles of attack, by placing the surfaces ahead of the main vortices, but also to provide lower trim drag in supersonic flight.

the Typhoon is without doubt optimised for […] supersonic BVR interception and close in combat at transonic speeds.

About the EJ200 :

The 0.4:1 bypass ratio is characteristic of modern fighter engines, and is optimised for transonic performance

Then comes something pro-Typhoon won’t like to read, because a little in contradiction with usual comments :

An experienced F/A-18 pilot who flew the Typhoon simulator commented to the author that the aircraft’s manoeuvre/handling performance did not appear to be a dramatic improvement over the F/A-18, and rudder authority at high AoA did not match the F/A-18. It is however possible that further refinement of the flight control software could have yielded handling improvements since the mid nineties.

But that was a simulator… :rolleyes:

About RCS :

The assertion that the aircraft has a “stealth” capability is curious by any measure, since there is no evidence of planform alignment, panel edge alignment, blending or faceting. […]Unless the Europeans have invented new laws of radar scattering, the aircraft is at best a conventional fighter with reduced forward sector RCS, comparable to evolved F/A-18, F-16 variants, the Rafale or the B-1B.

😉

In comparing the Typhoon against the only other fighter in its weight class, the F/A-18A/C, the benefits of using later generation technology show very clearly. The Typhoon outperforms the F/A-18A/C in BVR weapon system capability as well as aerodynamic performance. While much better than the F/A-18A/C in operating radius and agility, its optimal operating radius is not in the class of the F-15 and Su-27/30.

The notion that the aircraft is “almost as good as an F-22” is not supportable, indeed upgrading the F-15 with engines and a radar/IRS&T/AAM package of the same generation as that of the Typhoon would equalise almost all advantages held by the Typhoon over older F-15C/E variants.

???

The strength of the Typhoon is its very modern and comprehensive avionic package, especially that in the RAF variant, and its excellent agility when operated around its optimum combat radius of about 300 NMI (a figure to be found in older Eurofighter literature, which has since disappeared with the export drive to compete against the bigger F-15 and F-22).

:diablo: :diablo: :diablo:

In terms of where to position the Typhoon in the current menagerie of fighter aircraft, it can be best described as an F/A-18C sized fighter with BVR systems and agility performance better than older F-15 models, similar to growth F-15 models with same generation systems and engines, but inferior to the F-15 in useful operating radius. The Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft, despite various assertions to this effect, nor is it a genuine supercruiser like the F-22. Its design incorporates none of the features seen in very low observable types, nor does the EJ200 incorporate the unique design features of the F119 and F120 powerplants.

I’d like to read such a report about Rafale. But as you see, Fonk, the Typhoon is also optimised for transonic manoeuvre.
I might have not understood all the quotes, but i did all i was able to do.

My godness, Glitter and Kovy will never forgive me, but i’m trying to defend the Typhoon…

The Typhoon crew did not seem to be intimidated and with two rapid counters ended up on the F-15 tail, comfortably gunning the trailing one, who was in full afterburner, wings rocking and wondering what had happened.

😮 In this case, the F15’s pilots could even understand how Typhoons could get in their tail ! ! ! More impressive than Rafale…

where the typhoon could get supercruise in singapore, the consortium last news released the typhoon empty was actually 11.7t, while the performances datas was all done in 1997 when the plane was 9.7t!

But i thought the Typhoon demonstrated its supercruise capability later… Up to mach 1.3, with 4 amrams and 2 sidewinder.
The Rafale can “supercruise” with 4 micas (and a tank ?) but how fast ? I believe Dassault is cheating, because i think the Rafale just reached mach 1, but actually, supercruise is when the speed exceed mach 1.3. Between 0.9 and 1.3, it’s just called transonic.

pilotTHX, i believe that the Euro consortium has really opened the Typhoon flight envelop since 97…
Contrary to M88 wich is an economic engine, EJ200 is really a powerful an engine.

Fonk and Jackonicko, calm down !

Fonk, i know you’re fully able to critisize the Typhoon’s airframe, but lots of people here, including me, do not understand the fundamentals. And what you write doesn’t prove anything to us… We’re still waiting to see the two aircraft fighting each other in exercise. What i was expecting from you was both the comments about the airframe and what is implied as fly caracteristics (if possible in direct comparison with the Rafale).

Jackonicko :

The stable Mirage III,

True

the stable (though FBW FCS-equipped) 2000 and 4000

FALSE… The M2000 was designed unstable. Re-inform yourself. Your sources may be wrong.

And they’ve managed to defy the laws of physics and make a marginally unstable close coupled canard configuration more agile than Typhoon’s?

I don’t understand you. Dassault have not defied laws of physics. Unstability was already well known on M2000 (so on 4000). Delta / canard was also several times tested (mirage III,4000, at least…).
I don’t know what is “Breathtaking”. What may look “Breathtaking” is the fact that the europeans have developped the Typhoon. The only source for the original study was the research made by MBB. But the delta/canard and unstability/FCS concept was all new for the 4 nations.
Am I wrong ?

A mistake from my friend. I was sure that Iraq had bought M2k, but it seems that i was wrong too.

Hey ! Guys !!! Currently, the best trainer jet in the world is….
Eurofighter Typhoon !!! 😉

In simulated combat against F-15, the X-31 wasn’t that impressive. More would have been expected. That’s all I’ve heard.

Hello, being French, and from the France’s west coast, i can tell you that it is a very usual pratice for Mirage F1, as well as for Alphajets and Mirage 2000… That’s why i love moving to the beach ! :p Because there, i can watch the planes !!!

Why not F-35 Owl ??? 🙂 Pretty bird isn’t it ?