haha I was almost sure that Jackonicko was actually Jon Lake… that bogus rafale vs typhoon article in air international pretty much gave it away. Needless to say that the credibility of Air International went down pretty badly with that article.
Anyway I see some pretty good points in lordassap’s posts, despite the fact that the guy couldn’t be more obnoxious if his life depended on it.
That said, with the quote of Scorpion82 included:
Mach 1.5 supercruise with half internal fuel clean and the ability to demonstrate supercruise when a french duck wasn’t able to do it.
Mach 1,5 SC clearly seems to be a maximum upper limit (without stated configuration) if you refer to the eurofighter site which lordassap linked to (although he linked to the wrong page, you can find the qote in the “powerplant” section).
I don’t know what “upper limit” means in that case, nor if it is an airframe upper limit (the article doesn’t souns like it), but the specifics are not precise enough to lead to a comparison. That said nowhere does it say that it’s a theoretical airframe upper limit of a non existing configuration as lordassap says. So it shows his bias here.
So at best it’s M 1.3 with AtoA load vs Rafale’s M 1.2 with 4 mica and 1 tank.
Climb to 40k ft in 90 sec with 4 x ASRAAM + 4 x AMRAAM + 2 x 1000 l tanks (according RAF Typhoon pilot)
Climb to 40 k ft in 120 sec with 4 x MICA + 1 x 1250 l (According MN Rafale pilot).
His point about climb is an interesting one, because it is true that we don’t have the starting point for both planes to make an educated comparison. Is it climb from 0kph on the airfield? Climb from rollout? Or zoom climb at all? You have to find that out before making a comparison.
Scorpion, I know it’s hard to keep cool when one is arguing with someone behaving like lordassap is, but just try to stick with the usual fair comparisons you got us accustomed to.
Nic
Sign In
