Is support in the F-22 and f-35 figures?

That is one of the older proposed designs, there is another that’s being considered and its gimballed, I have doctored a picture to show you what I have seen..

It means the radar face is free to rotate so it side steps a couple of the AESA radars weaknesses, narrow fields of view compared to a mechanical scanned array and loss of resolution at the wider angles.
This is a very neat solution.

The number of modules being considered was ~1000 to 1500 (ish), it depended on price size and performance, the gimballed array helps to reduce the number of MMICs require to perform to a set standard while also giving slightly extra room to add more if required..

Please note I’ve modified this picture to show you what it looks like…

Cheers

It states here its 600mm..

http://www.eurofighter.ch/800/de/eurofighter/multisensorik/captor.html

AMSAR was also 600mm.

But with the angled face of the proposed Captor AESA, it certainly could be equivalent to 700mm
Cheers

Oh it comes from that BLOG :rolleyes:.

I have to agree the blog is… different…;-)

Anyone heard what the Typhoon export prospects are like for Oman recently?.

Cheers

Well its a very interesting statement..

“When you go and work with the best that the USAF has got”

Does he mean the pilots or the fighters??, if he means Fighters what is the USA’s best?? or did he just make it up because they were never in the air at the same time..:diablo:

Its obviously he thinks its a good aircraft, I just thought the way it was worded was interesting..

I’m sure they have flown against each other, but it seems to be a little sensitive 😉

Cheers

This is interesting.. you can see some of the group dynamics here.. the Eurofighter consortium have submitted the capability and costs to the respective governments early, two of which are reluctant to buy the full third trance (UK and Italy), these two will be wriggling and stalling by not agreeing a specifications, costs etc, this may lead to a stalemate, in which the UK and Italy can hope to renegotiate their penalties to a more favourable rate when their holding the third tranche up to ransom.

The number of Typhoons they are seeking to reduce has not been announced, but options have been mentioned as ‘cancel all’ or 50% reduction.. the German offer takes the UK and Italy’s a way of ransom away.. by deferring the hard decisions while starting production… and committing to the minimum of 50% – its neat and clever bargaining…

If Germany and Spain hold out strongly – then The UK and Italy have little room for opting out of the contract in any cheap way.

The UK has got little wriggle room for fighter purchases, they are bound tightly to JSF, but the number of aircraft they might buy is ‘fluid’.. the JSF program may be in the firing line for reductions, nothing too great as the carriers have been committed to, but I expect some cuts here too.

Seems any Eurofighter announcement at Farnborough on Tranche 3 at least has now faded, and I’d hoped that the export news also gets better too…:)

Hmmm interesting times ahead.

Cheers

Its a bit more complex than pitch authority….

The foreplanes are not actually physically connected in any way, but in practical terms they can be thought of as being connected. There are in perfect sync all the time, there is absolutely no asymetry at all generated by them. The flight controls of Typhoon are an engineering marvel. The tolerances are incredible and the cross monitoring that goes on is staggering – it has to be so because the aircraft is so unstable.

In a stable aircraft the moving control surfaces are used to make the aircraft manoeuvre. In an unstable aircraft the moving control surfaces are used to “stop” the aircraft from manoeuvring. The center of lift and the center of gravity are such in an unstable aircraft that any disturbance is going to result in a huge divergence. In a C150 or B747 such a disturbance would be naturally damped out.

If you look at any pictures of Typhoon in a hard turn you will see that the foreplane is actually leading edge down (ie against the turn). What has happened is that from the S+L condition the foreplane has briefly “let go” allowing the aircraft to pitch up and has then “caught it” again before the jet has swapped ends.

When you fly Typhoon in a gusty day, you have the stick in the middle (ie no manoeuvre demand) and the foreplane is constantly moving to counteract the gusts, in the cockpit the result is an incredibly smooth ride. The Hawk or Tornado chase is being thrown all over the place!!

So to summarize, Typhoon pitch control comes from a combination of symmetrical foreplanes and trailing edge flaps. Roll and yaw contol come from a very clever combination of differential flaperons and rudder. An even more clever schedule of leading edge slats is used to optimise the lift and trim drag throughout the flight envelope.

So the short answer is when you see a Typhoon nose pitch up its because the FCS missed a split second of work and then it does just enough to stop it going completely out of control to continue the turn..so in effect it runs on a knife edge…

Cheers

The source document states the tests were to max dry thrust, and the figure below the key index in the graph states 10 with an arrow across two divisions??.

So ~13500lbs is max dry, the figures dont fit the graph!, 50kN??