Stop the personal attacks damnit!

@Nic
Your logic is sound on that subject, but bear in mind that the flight tests were all done with the twin seats of either type, not with the single seats. In general one would expect that the discrepancy in performance between the singles and twin isn’t too big, so that the performance is largely representative. But in the case of the Rafale and Typhoon twins the discrepancy is in fact considerable opposed to the single seats. Or in other words the twin seat Rafale is better designed. Maybe we’ll learn more about it in the future.

I see your point and it is a good one. The discrepancy should be much lower for single seaters than for two seaters, however, I doubt the swiss would be so stupid as to forget about this in their report. But you never know. Most people here believe they’re spoiled brats who want the biggest hot rod instead of what’s better for Swizerland (Gripen). Nevermind the biggest hotrod there would be the Typhoon and no the Rafale.

Nic

Yes it does, but fuel fraction is just one part of the range equation. Ultimately I could imagine that the Rafale enjoys a marginal edge on internal fuel, but there are factors which may in fact swing the results. Thus far I haven’t seen any figures or information which would suggest that the Rafale enjoys an edge here, but nothing specific to suggest the opposite either. The only hint we may have is the Swiss evaluation, but I’m not sure whether the “figures” presented there are reflecting the single seat variants or the twins. The single seat Typhoon holds around 250 kg more fuel than the Rafale C, but the Rafale B holds around 150-200 kg more fuel than the Typhoon twin seater.

I don’t think the swiss would go for two seaters, so it would be inane to compare twin seaters in their report. Even with an advantage of 200kg more fuel, the Typhoon still is heavier, so its fuel fractions remain inferior (everything else being equal). Add, 1 fuel tank, which is probaby the bare minimum a plane would fly with, and you get the same fuel load for a quite lighter fighter.

Nic

In a dogfight the planes usually lose a lot of altitude because manoeuvering makes you lose a lot of speed. So the easy way is to convert altitude into speed, or have very very powerful engines. When you’re at low level you can’t do that anymore, so the speed of the fight decreases. I don’t think one could keep much more than 300/350 kts while manoeuvering at low alt.

Nic

Give us names or keep it for yourself.
We had our share of “anonymous sources” from JL.

Who do you think you are little boy ?

Cut the trash talk please. Shiv has some good points, and some less good points but let’s just argue on those points.

Nic

What makes you believe that the clean range is better at all?

The Rafale has a slightly higher fuel fraction IIRC.

As per one of my favourite interweb rafale experts: http://www.indiandefence.com/forums/indian-air-force/6127-eurofighter-typhoon-v-s-dassault-rafale-analysis-300.html#post111835 😀

Nic

Certainly, here is another comment, referring to himself as lobbying

Reading the quote that you provided, it’s pretty clear he wasn’t talking about himself, but feel free to twist the truth.

Nic