so, it’s roughly 3 flights per month-first flight included, or roughly one per 10 days. Is it a good ratio?

it depends on what they test on these flights. Once you made the flight, you have to analyze the data, draw conclusions, eventually decide abot what needs to be done (changed?) next, etc…

For comparison, the F-35 completed the initial 45 test flights using 2 test aircraft and it took them 19 months to do so, according to this site:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogscript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A84cbf263-c419-4999-86fe-5951708af8b1

If it’s comparable in any way, I’d say the russians are working (or at least testing) fine, for the moment

er, there’s something strange with the statement:

Fighter fully confirms the claimed characteristics, and this means that some serious modifications aircraft structure is required.

I don’t know but, did they make things the way they should not on purpose? 😀

apparently, Lula has decided.. not to decide…

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20100406trib000495569/avions-rafale-le-bresil-reporte-sa-decision-a-mai.html

His decision is delayed till the end of may… it seems that everybody in brasil know what they want except the president… now it’s the “syndicate of metal workers of sao paulo” that claims support for the gripen. I only wonder when we’ll get the national soccer team deciding who they support.

Boeing does not have to create a new airframe – it has however chosen (for the 2nd time) to propose a new varient of the KC-767 that builds on the existing KC-767 airframe with parts from other existing 767s flying today – somehting Boeing has proven quite capable of doing.

If you want to insist on a risk gap between the two bidders then the greater risk is definitely with EADS (even more so now that NG has dropped out). Boeing fitting all FAA certified parts of different 767 varients is small potatos compared to the other development work both/either side must to do to meet all requirements.

this is incredible… you don’t realize that one can’t just bolt on a new pair of wings and let go, do you? If you change some rivets you have to do the testing to prove it didn’t alter the design beyond what would need a new certification.

Changing wings, cockpit, engines and I don’t know what else requires an almost complete flight test program not unlike a flight test program with a completely new airframe. On one side, they add a few “options” (EADS) and on the other they rebuild a new aircraft, from old parts, could I say… (Boeing).

http://www.ausairpower.net/AIM-9X-FPA-seeker-300.png

If that’s the image seeker you are talking about I would say you can’t draw any conclusion from it unless you know at what range the seeker is from the plane.

Nic

actually, if it’s the complete image and considering its pretty pixelated looks, all you have to do is to put a grid on it, so it matches the pixels from the image and you can easily count lines and rows to get the resolution.

thing is: it was.. like it or not, what was developed was a bombtruck that may manage to defend itself just in case… basically…

A F-105 in its time was more or less the same: a bombtruck that should have some self defense capabilities. While it could shoot down other aircraft if it ever got into position, it was definitely not its strong point. Was it a bad aircraft? no, it was just made to do something else…

I suppose they’re to be taken from UK’s planned orders? Good thing anyways. Every deal like that will make it more probable that eventually all initially planned orders are to be fulfilled. Hopefully something similar can be achieved with Switzerland.

Are there any news on MRCA yet? The threads about Indian AF are a bit difficult to follow. 😉

switzerland? seemed to me that the typhoon wasn’t even on the final list (Gripen, SH and Rafale being the three contenders remaining)

I guess that what he wants to say is that the Rafale A was not the same aircraft. It was bigger, but had more or less similar empty weight (so, lower wingloading which allows for better turning performance, for example). It also did not have the same engines either.

All in all, they look similar, aerodynamically they’re very similar, but there are also significant differences