If Rafale requires no ballast to make up for the removal of particular equipment it’s because:

There’s a software load that compensates for any C of G changes.
The existing software load compensates better for any C of G changes.
The equipment is more evenly distributed around the C of G, so that the C of G implications are less.
The equipment is lighter, so that the C of G implications are less.
or the aircraft has greater stability (or less instability) in pitch.

This has probably been adressed already, but I think this argument is absolutely ridiculous.

Why would a deisgn team go through all the effort of rewriting a FBW software to take into account C of G changes when it would be so much simpler to just add some ballast in the places where some equipment would be added? All the more so when it means rewriting the software actually meant they would necessarily come out with test data that would differ from the production aircrafts…

No really you are ridiculously biased.

Nic

151 parachute-retarded bomblets

After the dumb bombs, the retarded bomblets. Why don’t they just use stupid missiles?

Nic

Nice to see the french flag on the F18 that landed on the CdG, and the mixed Cross of Lorraine formation fly over. I hope the french team also made such gestures towards their US counterparts.

Nic

An insult is followed by an insult. I’m sorry its just the way it has always been. PilotGHT cannot make a post without an insult of some kind I feel the need now and again to redress the balance. Futile? Yes. Unfortunately I get so worked up by some of the crap I see posted here I just cannot help myself. I am sorry if I offended you personally. By the way, yes, I agree. It is getting tiresome but try to see it from somebody elses point of view once in a while. It might open you eyes a little.

One more thing, when you see me verbally attacking a nation on a regular basis as PilotGHT does, come and tell me about objectivity, until then direct you criticism elsewhere or keep your mouth shut.

Phil 🙂

Then if you are so worked up by what PilotGHT writes, then why call Kovy a xenophobe?

And I don’t think I have to take any lessons from you. I’ll open up anytime I see fit.

Nic

You forget, that those F2 demonstrator (B302) was flown with just 2 Magic2, 2 Mica and a single 1250l supersonic tank under the belly = 16,4 tons TOW.
Do a similar load-out to the Typhoon and compare T-W-ratios.

No I did not. I agreed that the T/W ratio would be different in a plane that was really loaded compared to the plane it was simulating, however I just said that if the flight limitations of 5G/180°s roll/25AoA limits were engaged, it wouldn’t change between a fully loaded plane and that simulated plane.

And besides, my point was just that it wasn’t really important anyway in my opinion.

Nic

Well nobody in his right mind will dogfight with 2/3 fuel tanks and 2 storm shadows under the wings, so in that regard the thrust ratio under high load is totally irrelevant in my opinion. I would look at the max cruising speed/alt in those configuration as being much more important.

Anyway I have no clue why people focus on that T/W ratio. I find it very doubtfull that a combat occurs where this T/W ratio will be the decisive factor. I’d say both planes will sure have enough thrust compared to their weight and I’d leave it at that.

What’s important is the sensors performance, the sensors fusion, weapons, ECM suite… they even state in the article that they count on off boresight targetting cues and super agile missiles like the Mica EM instead of increased manoeuvrability.

That said, if the Rafale could kick the EF’s ass in T/W ratio, I’m all for it 😀

Nic

why don’t they also say the Madrid bombing is some kind of Spanish left wing conspiracy since they obviously was the biggest winner. :rolleyes:

I can’t let you say this. Aznar shot himself in the foot when trying to direct the suspicion on the ETA to gain political advantage just prior to the elections. I think that’s what really benefited the left.

Nic