f-35pwiii :

Let’s just agree to disagree.

That ‘s fine by me but I believe that you could do better that just agreing to disagree . 😉
You could , well , explain to me (to us) why you think that I am wrong ? That would be more constructive than just saying that what I say is BS …
I am not saying that you would get the last word (because I believe that I am right) but you would give yourself a chance to show us what your thoughts are .
I am not an a$$ hole with an infinite knowledge . 😉

Cheers .

Mr f-35pwiii , while I read your posts carefully , I don ‘t have a lot of interest in what you say . Sorry .

You NEVER responded with something worth of interest so far . Basically , you ‘re shooting at the messenger because it is the easiest thing to do when one is not able to respond with intelligence and/or knowledge .
I know who dare2 is and I don ‘t give a monkey about him while his knowledge on Rafale has to be accounted for .
The posters you name (Mildave, Nicolas, OPIT and Tmor) are all very knowledgeable on the Dassault Rafale and they also seem to be good people , I like what they post and I learned few very good bits , especialy from OPIT and TMor .
What you don ‘t like seems to be the tone I am using . Well , if some posters (like you) would show a bit more of an open mind and respect , I would not be so … abrupt .

Cheers .

While I am here (I ‘ve got a life and a job) , I said ( sorry for the quote) :

The Eurofighter Team discarded the enormous Dassault ‘s knowledge on the matter and went on their own for a design they didn ‘t master

For saying so , I did get some stick .
So , why the Eurofighter Team suddently discovered that adding LERXs would improve the overall flight characteristics ?! 😀

They should have asked Dassault in the 80s …
I have been told of the beautifull minds and beatifull tools behind the Eurofighter design but what I see is a basic lack of knowledge wrt delta canard fighters .
It took them more than 20 years (!) of flying the Typhoon to see that LERXs (a la Mig-29 , SH , Rafale , etc) are good for lift and stability at high AoA !?
Wonderfull ! They are learning … 😀

Cheers .

f-35pwiii :

Except from the fact what Cola is saying is bang on….

No , not on everything . He forget to add wing loading in his equation and that change turning performances . You can also check the wing area : 45.7 square meter for the Rafale , 51.2 for the Typhoon . Check also the wing angle .
At high altitude and at high speed , the Typhoon has the edge . I have NEVER said the opposite .
Now , lower you go , better the Rafale performs . At medium altitude , subsonic , the Rafale gets the edge . If you go even lower and slower , the Rafale ‘s edge is increasing . Rafale pilots fighting Typhoons reported it .
Cola also said that the Rafale display is less demanding than Typhoon ‘s and he is wrong . The Typhoon ‘s pilots tried and they keep trying to do the “Square Dance” made by the Rafale but the result is not very convincing .

To make it short , the Square dance goes like this :
-start stabilized @ 380 Knt , inverted barrel then hard opposite 90deg turn , acceleration .
Repeat 4 times to make a square with a end speed of no less than 400 Knt .

from 2:13 to 2:40 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKfeSYFZSsM&feature=related

The Typhoon can ‘t turn tight enough and can ‘t recover from the inverted barrel fast enough . The French pilots said that the reason is twofold :
-1) Typhoon ‘s nose doesn ‘t “follow the aircraft” , it is “wobbling” , because of the long coupled canard . How can I explain that … Well , let ‘s take a chicken on a barbecue with the spike going through its a$$ right up its throat . It is spinning right and correctly over the fire (doing nice barrels) . Set up the spike wrong , and it ‘s gonna turn like a unbalanced potato . Do you get it ? Check any video of the Typhoon doing barrels and you ‘ll see what the French pilots are talking about .
-2) Rafale ‘s FCS is better .

TMor :

This topic is totally ruined by the people who can’t stop comparing (you’re not the only one).
What are we learning ? NOTHING ! We are going round in circles.

No Thomas , we aren ‘t going round in circles . Some posters are trying to push things forward by reminding others of some known facts to avoid confusion and mistakes . What am I trying to say ? I am trying to say that the long coupled canard design is a mistake . The Eurofighter Team discarded the enormous Dassault ‘s knowledge on the matter and went on their own for a design they didn ‘t master . They made the mistake to think that forward placed canards provide more authority when they actually don ‘t , unless someone is flying real high where the air density is lower . The other problem with long coupled canard is to manage to nose “wobbling” with the FCS , which is close to impossible (even for Dassault) . The nose instability is just too great .

The Typhoon design shows a real emphasis on high altitude flight characteristics at the expense of … everything else .

Seahawk :

One geration ahead for Rafale seems right. EF is 4th Rafale is rather 5-.

I said half a generation ahead .
The M2000 is 4th gen , the Typhoon 4.2 and the Rafale 4.7 (F-22 is the 5th gen benchmark) . I know that ‘s a bit silly but I need a rating to make things clearer . 😎

Cheers .

EE :

Pity for you that your opinions aren’t factual.

They are and they have been since 1985 (1978 I should say). :diablo:

jackonicko :

Yeah yeah. The Rafale is half a generation ahead of the Typhoon. You really are a twit, Bluey.

Yes the Rafale is half a generation ahead of the Typhoon and that since 1985 .
We could post for another 200 pages and you will still not beleive it but engineerers on both sides know it , unlike you and some others .
Just an example : if the Eurofoghter Team knew a bit more about electromagnetic propagation on curved surfaces , the typhoon wouldn ‘t look like a M2000 with canards . The only other aircraft using the same shaping wrt the front RCS is the F-35 and that came after the F-22 .
From the front , the Rafale ‘s RCS is probably 2 to 3 times lower than Typhoon ‘s .
There is also the way both aircraft are showing their “nose” , a cruising Typhoon is flying with its nose higher (due to a different center of gravity and different instability , long coupled canard) , showing more its intakes and its under wings (and belly) . Typhoon ‘s canard also show a bigger surface at angles , when turning . Also , the canard don ‘t show any RAM thickness and sawtooth , unlike Rafale .
Then , there are the avionics and onboard electronics , more advanced on Rafale .
You can turn the problem around or even upside down , the result is telling Gentlemen .
You want it or not … 😎

@TMor , stop looking down on me and keep quiet .

Cheers .

Now , wrt the Swiss eval ..

It ‘s the eval for the Swiss .
Myself , I think that as long as the Swiss keep their Gripen up to date , it ‘s not a bad choice but it ‘s not the best choice . The Rafale is .
Anyway , the Swiss eval did show something who has come as the shock for the typhoon Team : the Rafale is ahead in AtoA .
The margin the Dassault fighter enjoys before the engagement is very good , or enormous , or huge , depending on where you stand .

Since the Swiss are looking at a multirole fighter , interceptor orientated , their eval makes a lot of sense but some are clearly gobsmacked by the results .
I am not .
I hate to repeat myself but the Typhoon is 0.5 generation ahead of the M2000 (and on steroîds) and the Rafale is a whole gen ahead of the 2000 .
A Captor-E wil close the gap and give a range edge to the Typhoon but the Rafale will stay ahead because fighting will still be easier with the Rafale .
And this is what counts in the end .

Now , I am not saying that the people who made the Typhoon are wank..s , they only had it wrong from the start , they did not foresee the futur , they lacked knowledge on some key factors and the 4 Nation ‘s partnerchip was a mistake , leading to a lack of fundings , will , understanding and mutual goals .
I read some very interestings studies these past years like this one :
http://icas-proceedings.net/ICAS1998/PAPERS/04.PDF

and many others and when I compare them to studies from Dassault , I can see that whatever the Typhoon Team said and wrote , they did not have Dassault ‘s knowledge .
By example , The argument “long-coupled canard/close couple canard” has been resolved by Dassault long ago .
The USA with various prototypes found Dassault to be right (while not reaching Dassault ‘s expertise) , Russia canard fighters all use close couple canard , same with China (J-20) …

Cheers .

Scorpion :

@Bluewings
The lacking DASS performance was owed to the immaturity of some of its components and possibly mission data which are of critical importance for the ESM, ECM and MAWS. I think that DASS with the refinement and rectification of issues has matured a lot and is more capable than it was back then.

Tell me more if you can , then .

Cheers .