TooCool_12fWe’re getting closer… To the beginning of it all 😉
TooCool_12fUK havent got their test craft yet,
usa havent crashed any yet, which is unusual for a new design
they did a vertical landing and such but its early days
how many modern aircraft lost their prototypes in testing in the last, say, 30-35 years?
TooCool_12fLula still vacillates. There is good reason for this.
1-If he declares RAFALE as the winner he will have to forget the UN Security Councel .
2-He will also have to forget the multi billion dolar Embrear deal for the US Airforce. so he is in a bad fix.
er:
1 – care to explain why?
2 – when was the USAF supposed to buy embraer aircraft worth several billion dollars? for which role and with what fundings?
TooCool_12fTVC is mostly useful at post stall maneouvring
That must be true because Paul Metz claims thrust vectoring greatest gains are at supersonic maneouvring see.
…
so we may let you discuss with yourself, I guess… 😀
Here is where you are plain wrong, you are claiming something without basis and afirming it as true, 5% has been stablished by studies based upon experimental data, the reason you do that is because you think that but you have no proof to quantify it, then you make a myth a fact without any real evidence to support you.
You think it is more but you have no evidence supporting you. Why you say that because you have seen kulbits and you equate them to turns.
Real facts TVC only will increase turn rate no more than 5%If you do not believe me read this
http://www.aero.iitb.ac.in/~akn/kunal-aug.pdf
Which is a study based upon F-18 HARV flights using TVC.read page 3 and 17
so you take a study on the F-18 and conclude F-22s caracteristics from it?
on one side an aircraft that has been optimized for manouverability using its aerodynamic caracteristics only, and on the other, an entirely different one, that has been studied from the beginning to rely heavily on TVC? if you don’t see the lack of logic in your reasoning, you’re a desperate case
TooCool_12fas I said in my previous post, the TVC allows the F-22 to use its tail planes for additional lift, as they don’t have to do pitch control which is done by the TVC. from there on, you increase overall lift and, thus, allow for higher G for a given speed.
without TVC, you loose that lifting surface (since you have to control pitch with these, basically generating “down” force to keep turning) which means you loose lift and so, you loose some of that turning ability.
I said it in my previous post already. Now, how much of it? I can’t give an accurate number (nobody here can), but saying “STR will be improved little, in the range of 5%” is just as plain BS as saying ‘it will kill 80% of it.
TooCool_12fwhat are you talking about man?
if you have any idea about the subject, I invite you to go here:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html
just put in the values and then, please, tell us where my “mathematics” are wrong. (speed and STR)
TooCool_12fIs there a way to know the TR/AOA ratio if the most common fighters…
Say 9G@10AOA&300kts
Then you can get part of the AOA induced drag and you can tell which aircraft is more efficient? The more AOA you need to achieve the 9G at a certain speed would mean more induced drag. Then we could see which wing layout would be more efficient.
Nic
Difficult, as the G’s are a result of generated lift divided by the weight of the aircraft. So, if the weight of a given aircraft varies significantly (say, like between the demo in an aitshow and combat loaded fighter), the same lift, produced at the same AoA, won’t produce the same acceleration (g’s)
TooCool_12fBased upon what? mathematics? released statements or just you own opinion?
the speed was not released by Colonel Fornof but the altitude was of 20000ft or around 6000 mtrs, you can even expect higher STRs at lower altitudes.
Studies show the F-18HARV only had an increase of 5% in max STR, or only 1 deg/s to 2 deg/s in net increase in max turn rate at all speeds
On known data, you can calculate a couple of things. For example, the f-22 is given to be a 9g aircraft, if I’m not mistaken. Which means that no matter how hard the pilot pulls on the stick, the FCS limiter won’t allow it to go over 9G. Since it won’t pull more than 9G, you can take the 28deg turn rate and calculate the speed at which it turn that much by pulling 9G. The result is 347kts maximum. Above that speed you’d have to pull more than 9G to reach such a turn rate. Under that speed, the slower you go the less G you need to turn that much.
Now, when the f-22 gets slower, it uses it elevators as additional lifting devices visible on pics from airshow demos, some even posted in this thread, onlypossible only because TVC does the “pitch control job”. Removing TVC would not only reduce f-22 lift but also pose controllability issues, as the tail is used differentially to help the big thing roll when TVC does the “pitch control”.
Basically, you remove TVC, and the f-22 will loose a good chunk of its controllability under G-load. And have reduced lift, especially at lower speeds, resulting in lesser ability to “pull G’s” and therefore lesser turn rate
TooCool_12fas far as rafale is concerned, the first rafale deliveries were for the navy in 2001.
Both european programs were hampered by the end of cold war (late 1980’s where there were only demonstrators flying) which resulted in big reductions in fundings and also, for the rafale (don’t know for the typhoon) new requirements that all led to significant delays.
Without that, the rafale would have been introduced in the early 90’s, as a follow up from the Crusader for the Flottille 12F (first french rafale (navy) squadron)
TooCool_12fThat’s the wrong analogy. A better analogy would be if I sent you a .jpg image that had an imbedded code, your mirroring of the image wouldn’t necessarily reproduce the imbedded code hidden in that image. Think of it as kind of an electronic water mark.
actually, if I’d take your jpg and copy/paste it before sending it to someone, it would be replicated exactly as you made it (with watermark, etc, which is the whole point in watermarking it, since it’s persistent). so your “example” actually points to the fact that you don’t need to “see” the watermark to copy it.
If I tried to draw your jpg by hand, then eventually I’d miss a few things (my eyes won’t see everything), but the computer doesn’t see the jpg as an image, but simply as a collection of electric impulses (0s and 1s if you prefer) and records it as such. The RWR records the signal in the same way (every peak in the wave is recorded, regardless of what it may mean) and can “simply” send it back (it’s all relative, of course, the better the technology employed, the “simpler” the task is. If you send it “reversed”, you get cancellation, if you send it back as it is with just a time shift, you feed the radar with various ranges for the target (and he has to manage to pick a good one).
But what seems apparent is not that you don’t understand what cola and others say, but don’t want to admit it.. there’s a difference, and basically, loss of time for more or less everybody in here
TooCool_12fif you go that way, we can also say that EADS (Airbus “owner”) works against Dassault by being one of the builders of the Typhoon 😉
Until France becomes a socialist country, the competition is part of its economy, and if Embraer makes something that fits their needs, they can buy it… 😉
TooCool_12fthat’s also why arturo is probably right. had the UK been part of rafale program, it would probably never entered the F-35 program, since as it was supposed to build its new carriers pretty common with the french, they’d probably make them with catapults to use the aircraft they already have “on the shelf”… which would also be quite interesting from logistics PoV, considering the high commonality in pieces between the terrestrial and naval variants
For italy, the problem is different since they have no carriers that would be suitable for rafales and don’t plan to build anything bigger in forseeable future.
TooCool_12fI do not think so, tell me of that 28 deg/s STR how much do you think might be the result of TVC? most people who have not read reports and studies think it will be at least 5 deg/s so the F-22 must be an equal of Eurofighter but most of people who dismiss the STR of the F-22 as a TVC trick, will think the F-22 must have a STR of 18 deg/s and with TVC it gets to 28 deg/s.
However they forget TVC means only an aid to lift and most of the burden for its STR is carried by its wings.
Saddly for those who think the F-22 is a brick specially because has no foreplanes, it is unaccurate. the F-22 achieves its very high STR due to its wing and little drag and its TVC only will help it in a minor way.
Thrust is mostly the horizontal vector and when it is vectored it is in a very small deflections in order to keep speed and direction.TVC in a turn is not working as when it flies at high AoA or does the kulbit.
what part? probably a very big part…
little question to you: do you have any idea of the speed at which a fighter like a F-22 can reach 28° turn rate?
TooCool_12fback to cobra? again running circles I see…
this is pointless.. you are proven wrong, you change subject, and a few pages later, when proven wrong on another subject, you jump back with misconceptions that were proven wrong several pages ago…
you really look like a little kid arguing with his fantasies, and jumping all over the place to keep saying “‘I’m right, I’m right”…
TooCool_12fok, so let’s see.. today’s electronics if programmed correctly can adapt to a signal in matter of fraction of a microsecond… how often do you expect your “magic radar” to change frequencies?
Sign In
