Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 92 of 102 FirstFirst ... 4282888990919293949596 ... LastLast
Results 2,731 to 2,760 of 3034

Thread: Rafale news & discussion part XVI

  1. #2731
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    Do you have sources to support this claim?

    My understanding was that the vast majority that voted against the deal, was agains the whole idea of purchasing new fighter aircraft at that time -- i.e. they would have voted no even if Rafale had been proposed by the Swiss government -- in fact some would perhaps be even more against a Rafale deal since it would have been much more expensive, and the costs and how to finance the purchase seemed to be part of the issue.

    No doubt there were a few who voted no because they would prefer a larger, heavier machine but my impression was that this was a small minority of those who voted no. After all, during the second round the Swiss Air Force did support the Gripen NG as the preferred choice, when taking all factors into account (in particular cost).

    I may be wrong of course.

    Edit:



    Google translated from: https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/militaerf...ipen-ld.129612
    The source is me as I lived in Switzerland and actively participate to the whole topic lets say.

    To understand the Swiss vote you need to understand how democraty is in Switzerland. It is a direct democraty system, the only one in the world as far as I know. And that induce a specific mind set of people regarding vote in this country.
    They are much more pragmatic, they don't rely on propaganda and in this country you can understand what we called a consensus and community intelligence.

    Swiss people claim the grippen was too expensive regarding it's capabilities, that again didn't achieve the minimum score required. The swiss have enough money to pay any fighters available today. That doesn't make ok to pay billions for something that their own evaluation flagged as not performant enough for their own needs.

    Nobody understood why Ueli Maurer proposed the Grippen. It was a stupid decision as any stupid decision from politician in Switzerland it was refused by the population.

  2. #2732
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinefalcon View Post
    "No" is not an argument, it is a denial and as denial alone it has absolutely no value.
    I hope you don't say such things to girls.

    You are taking a pack of modifications added in urgency as a definitive solution. It was not.

    For the rest I can't help you. The Penicillin comparison was indeed very good.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinefalcon View Post
    [...] I don't think it is enough to cope efficiently with the Rafale in close combat.
    The Rafale is not efficient in close combat. This bird is pitch limited and roll inhibited at a greater level than a F15 or SH. In other world, the FCS froze the stick more often than with their peer. You can see that in some A2A video.
    A domain where the Rafale still excel is high speed subsonic fight. Different.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinefalcon View Post
    We have seen that Rafale is able to hold its own against even the F-22 and unless F-35 is as good as the Raptor, my money is on the French bird WVR fight.
    As I wrote at the time this video was released, even if this Rafale Pilot had flown a VW Beetle that day, he still would have had the upper hand against his opponent. Nothing related with Dassault here.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 16th March 2017 at 21:11.

  3. #2733
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,172
    The Rafale is not efficient in close combat. This bird is pitch limited and roll inhibited at a greater level than a F15 or SH. In other world, the FCS froze the stick more often than with their peer. You can see that in some A2A video.
    A domain where the Rafale still excel is high speed subsonic fight. Different.
    MWAARF tell that to opponents, and that includes FA-18....

    As I wrote at the time this video was released, even if this Rafale Pilot had flown a VW Beetle that day, he still would have had the upper hand against his opponent. Nothing related with Dassault here.
    Listen to the dogfight expert....

  4. #2734
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,447
    Go, get us the Raf flight manual. Nbr should be in there.

  5. #2735
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,172
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Go, get us the Raf flight manual. Nbr should be in there.
    Go, get us ONE single microspic element of proof about what you say first.

  6. #2736
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,447
    Read. Watch (with attention). It's all about the literature and disclosed confidential program footage.
    For the Rafale pitch, yaw and roll limitations in certain domain of flight, we have been already discussing this in this series of threads. Searching tools are accessible here:
    Name:  S.png
Views: 424
Size:  2.1 KB
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 17th March 2017 at 16:50.

  7. #2737
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,016
    er.. "you" have discussed... there's only one thing, the Rafale managed to hold its own against pretty much anything it flew against.. basically your "armchair experts discussion" seems to be invalidated by those pesky things called "facts"

  8. #2738
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    I hope you don't say such things to girls.

    You are taking a pack of modifications added in urgency as a definitive solution. It was not.

    For the rest I can't help you. The Penicillin comparison was indeed very good.
    I'll try once more...

    Here is what you have wrote:

    Close feedback loop apply to many different flow actuation methods. It can involves small surface extended and retracted rapidly to prevent the development of vorticity in the air stream or counter a vibration mode that interfere with the boundary layer negatively (dynamic lift for example ).
    For example, the classic Hornet (F18) had one of such system mounted with the twin rudders to decrease oscillations and act favorably to counter the burst of vortex.
    Small surfaces you are talking about will in most cases create vortices, not the other way around. Usually they are called vortex generators that are often used to delay flow separation by creating vortices.

    http://smart-blade.com/products-serv...enerators.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_generator

    http://www.continuum-dynamics.com/pr-cge.html

    This is the case with F-18. Leading Edge Extension Fences are responsible for creating a second unsteady vortex that interacts with the vortex created by the LEX/LERX. This interaction energizes the rotation of the main vortex so that vortex bursting is eliminated in the vicinity of the vertical tail. Leading Edge Extension Fences / vortex generators are usually angled, sometimes in two planes which helps in creating the vortices.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	11236322.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	283.7 KB 
ID:	251952

    Even F-22 rudders create vortices.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	27676558096_9c27c1e719_b.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	185.8 KB 
ID:	251953

    In more extreme cases (high AoA / high humidity) we can see two separate vortices.

    You also have wing fences ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_fence ), but that is another story which has little to do with F18 example you have presented. Also, "system mounted with the twin rudders" is a simple L shaped bracket added to the base of each vertical tail to provide increased structural strength and in no way it is responsible for countering the vortex burst.

    To summarize, small extended surfaces you are talking about are not there to prevent the development of vorticity (like you have said), they actually create additional vortices like we have seen in the example of F-18 you wrongly used to explain your "theory".

    The Rafale is not efficient in close combat. This bird is pitch limited and roll inhibited at a greater level than a F15 or SH. In other world, the FCS froze the stick more often than with their peer. You can see that in some A2A video.
    A domain where the Rafale still excel is high speed subsonic fight. Different.

    As I wrote at the time this video was released, even if this Rafale Pilot had flown a VW Beetle that day, he still would have had the upper hand against his opponent. Nothing related with Dassault here.
    Everyone how has encountered Rafale in F-16/15/18 etc. will beg to differ!
    F-35 has similar high AoA capability and limits like F-18. F-16 that has more limited flight anvelope compared to Rafale has no problem dealing with F-18 and we know that Rafale can do the same even more efficiently.

    Here is the video where two F-18s are involved in WVR fight:



    We can notice that most of the time both planes are not going over 30° AoA (that is the limit for Rafale). Even at that AoA the plane has very slow pitch/yaw/roll rate (although probably much better than most other fighters). Above that, the planes nose pointing rate is dramatically shrinking and drag is rising and that is not the area you can efficiently exploit unless you are flying Su-35S or PAK-FA.
    At such a high AoA those planes have literally few times faster pitch/roll/yaw rates and can point in literally any direction independent of the flight vector/path. F-18 and F-35 simply can't do that. They can fly at 50° AoA, but you can forget about any meaningful/useful maneuverability.

    Bonus video:


  9. #2739
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,172
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Read. Watch (with attention). It's all about the literature and disclosed confidential program footage.
    For the Rafale pitch, yaw and roll limitations in certain domain of flight, we have been already discussing this in this series of threads. Searching tools are accessible here:
    Name:  S.png
Views: 424
Size:  2.1 KB
    As usual, claims and no substance.

  10. #2740
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    446

    Frence aircraft operations versus Libyan helicopters

    Does anyone have HUD images, HUD videos and/or information on these Libyan events? Especially interested in the helicopter events.

    1) 24 March 2011 NDTV - Libya: French plane shoots down Gaddafi plane
    Benghazi: French fighter jets struck an air base deep inside Libya and downed one of Moammar Gaddafi's planes Thursday, and NATO ships patrolled the coast to block the flow of arms and mercenaries. Other coalition bombers struck artillery, arms depots and parked helicopters, officials said Thursday.

    2) 26 March 2011 Libya - Day 8: 26 March 2011 French aircraft carried out several air strikes around Zintan and Misrata, destroying at least five Soko G-2 Gale light attack jets and two Mi-35 helicopters on the ground.

    3) 14 April 2011: In the vicinity of Sirte: Eight bunkers, four ammunition storage sites, two Amoured personnel carriers. In the vicinity of Tunisian border: One SA-3 Radar, one SA-3 missile launcher. In vicinity of Misrata: three bunkers destroyed, one helicopter destroyed.

    4) 5 May 2011 NATO strikes destroy Libyan helicopters
    ALGIERS May 5 (Reuters) - NATO air strikes destroyed at least two helicopters near the Libyan town of Zintan as government forces transported them on trucks, a rebel spokesman in Zintan told Reuters on Thursday. "NATO destroyed two or three helicopters carried by big trucks on Thursday."

    5) 30 December 2014 Libyan forces shoot down militia helicopter
    Libya says it has shot down a militia helicopter, days after militants carried out airstrikes against a major oil terminal in the country's eastern region.
    'The air force shot down the helicopter as it prepared to land at a military base (Gardabya AFB) near Sirte airport, after it had taken part with other aircraft in the air raids,'

    Thanks!
    Thanks,

    Buddha

  11. #2741
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,447
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    As usual, claims and no substance.
    Already written post is of no substance? You are worrying me. Permanent recreation of past events is all about a troll, a Bot etc... I am sorry, but our discussion have a past and a neat designed Search function included with this pages.

    No seriously, I don't see why I would bother getting this the long way. I don't see where would be the incentives here.

    @ PeregrineFalcon:

    Small surfaces you are talking about will in most cases create vortices, not the other way around. Usually they are called vortex generators that are often used to delay flow separation by creating vortices.
    No

    This is the case with F-18. Leading Edge Extension Fences are responsible for creating a second unsteady vortex that interacts with the vortex created by the LEX/LERX. This interaction energizes the rotation of the main vortex so that vortex bursting is eliminated in the vicinity of the vertical tail. Leading Edge Extension Fences / vortex generators are usually angled, sometimes in two planes which helps in creating the vortices.
    The resorption of this problem was a two pronged approach: immediate (somewhat what you describe) and long term.

    F-35 has similar high AoA capability and limits like F-18.
    Like the SH. I beg to differ, that makes a (significant) difference.
    Again (AoA scale):
    M2K < F16 <= Rafale < F15 < F14 < SH <= F35 > SU35 > Mig29

    At such a high AoA those planes have literally few times faster pitch/roll/yaw rates and can point in literally any direction independent of the flight vector/path. F-18 and F-35 simply can't do that. They can fly at 50° AoA, but you can forget about any meaningful/useful maneuverability.
    The roll limitation and yaw authority is a decreasing function of the AoA. Yes. The function however are much different from one plane to the other. This depends on the aero geometry of the airframe. The F35 has "full" authority at max AoA. Canards also have a negative impact, especially when they are straight (planar) and close coupled (the asymmetry will diverge increasingly with the affected airflow). The J20 for example counter this effect with a significative diedral angle. On the video where both J20 are displayed at an airshow, you can see this.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 17th March 2017 at 23:28.

  12. #2742
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,423
    I am not an aerodynamic specialist (i actually dont know zilch about it) but i have read quite a number of interviews to French pilots stating clearly that their aircrafts were more agile than the likes of the F/A-18 E/F, Viper and the Phoon...
    Last edited by Sintra; 18th March 2017 at 00:03.

  13. #2743
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinefalcon View Post
    Everyone how has encountered Rafale in F-16/15/18 etc. will beg to differ!
    F-35 has similar high AoA capability and limits like F-18. F-16 that has more limited flight anvelope compared to Rafale has no problem dealing with F-18 and we know that Rafale can do the same even more efficiently.

    Here is the video where two F-18s are involved in WVR fight:



    We can notice that most of the time both planes are not going over 30° AoA (that is the limit for Rafale). Even at that AoA the plane has very slow pitch/yaw/roll rate (although probably much better than most other fighters). Above that, the planes nose pointing rate is dramatically shrinking and drag is rising and that is not the area you can efficiently exploit unless you are flying Su-35S or PAK-FA.
    At such a high AoA those planes have literally few times faster pitch/roll/yaw rates and can point in literally any direction independent of the flight vector/path. F-18 and F-35 simply can't do that. They can fly at 50° AoA, but you can forget about any meaningful/useful maneuverability.
    That is a gross mis-understanding of what is going on in that RAAF Hornet video and also a complete mis-understanding of how high AoA fighters operate. To say that high AoA is not valuable on the Hornet is utter lunacy. There is a reason every US fighter jet since the classic Hornet is now capable of 50 AoA or higher. To understand it better I suggest you read the following, https://fightersweep.com/4210/dogfig...-fa-18-hornet/

    A simple example of this is Typhoon which has an AoA limit similar to the Rafale yet they have created the AMK modification with one of the key purposes being to increase AoA to improve WVR combat against high AoA fighters. If the French were building the Rafale from fresh today, there is no way it would be limited to 30 AoA...

  14. #2744
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,016
    it all depends on the goals.. Typhoon has low speed handling problems which had them experiencing with makeshift solutions as they can't redesign the aerodynamics of the complete airframe... "strangely", despite what you guys claim, the french make no aerodynamic modifications to the. Rafale and seem perfectly happy with it as is... I guess they know something that you ignore... aerodynamics, maybe?

  15. #2745
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    I guess they know something that you ignore... aerodynamics, maybe?
    Yeah sure, talking about high AoA is clearly ignoring aerodynamics...

  16. #2746
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,016
    ok, so you know better than guys working at Dassault and who made the aircraft... I seriously wonder why aren't you in some aircraft manufacturers office explaining them how to do it better... they're too dumb to understand you maybe?

  17. #2747
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    That is a gross mis-understanding of what is going on in that RAAF Hornet video and also a complete mis-understanding of how high AoA fighters operate. To say that high AoA is not valuable on the Hornet is utter lunacy. There is a reason every US fighter jet since the classic Hornet is now capable of 50 AoA or higher. To understand it better I suggest you read the following, https://fightersweep.com/4210/dogfig...-fa-18-hornet/

    A simple example of this is Typhoon which has an AoA limit similar to the Rafale yet they have created the AMK modification with one of the key purposes being to increase AoA to improve WVR combat against high AoA fighters. If the French were building the Rafale from fresh today, there is no way it would be limited to 30 AoA...
    The 30° limit is a software limit. The Rafale has demonstrated to remain controllable at over 100° AoA.

    I guess when your plane is manoeuvrable enough you don't need such high AoAs to make do.

    Nic

  18. #2748
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,016
    what is funny is that, when you look at HUD videos of the Rafale dogfighting the F-22, you see rafale's speed remaining quite low as it maneuvers inside the F-22 running around. Considering that you can't go to high AoA at high speeds anyway, it is strange that the F-22 with its thrust vectoring and "high AoA capability" had to run around the frenchie who quite "happily" remained inside its turn... demonstrating excellent low speed handling capabilities, but hey, I guess you'll find another lame excuse to claim it was done on purpose by the F-22 or something along these lines?

  19. #2749
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,436
    Yeah but if the F22 had been piloted by Hans Joachim Marseille, the F22 would have beat the Rafale 10 times out of 10.

    (Unless the Rafale was flown by James Denis.)
    Last edited by Nicolas10; 18th March 2017 at 08:01.

  20. #2750
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    ok, so you know better than guys working at Dassault and who made the aircraft... I seriously wonder why aren't you in some aircraft manufacturers office explaining them how to do it better... they're too dumb to understand you maybe?
    Did I ever say I know more than Dassault? What I said, and if you want ask the Dassault guys as I am sure they will agree, is that if the Rafale was built today it would be capable of higher AoA. Simple.

    The design is 30+ years old and built before HOBS missiles and HMS were really understood in the west.

  21. #2751
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    The 30° limit is a software limit. The Rafale has demonstrated to remain controllable at over 100° AoA.

    I guess when your plane is manoeuvrable enough you don't need such high AoAs to make do.

    Nic
    While I am well aware that the Rafale was tested to 100 AoA in some parts of its flight regime it is not certified for that operationally. Perhaps you could tell us why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    I guess when your plane is manoeuvrable enough you don't need such high AoAs to make do.
    Again, WVR combat has changed. If you don't have a HOBS missile, a HMS and exploit high AoA you are at a disadvantage.

  22. #2752
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    The 30° limit is a software limit. The Rafale has demonstrated to remain controllable at over 100° AoA.

    I guess when your plane is manoeuvrable enough you don't need such high AoAs to make do.

    Nic
    No, it was tested at over 100* AoA. Aircraft are tested to the extremes of their envelope for a reason. The Rafale is FCS limited to 30* AoA operationally. Likely there is directional instability at higher AoA like in similar single vertical stabilizer aircraft as it is blocked from airflow by the fuselage at high AoA. That's the reason for twin tails in aircraft capable of operationally flying at high AoA.

    That said, no one would doubt the low speed handling of the Rafale. It has proven itself to be a capable low speed dogfighter in exercises.

    The F-22 v Rafale hud video proves zilch, except that the pilot in the Rafale was better that day. Every aircraft can lose in those scenarios, does not mean the Rafale or F-22 is more or less maneuverable in close-in dogfights. Trying to claim superiority or parity based on a single outcome in DACT is the epitome of ignorance.

    Both the F-22 and Rafale are vulnerable in those close-in knife fights due to their lack of HMD/HMS.

    (Edit- put horizontal stab by mistake)
    Last edited by FBW; 18th March 2017 at 11:18.

  23. #2753
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    While I am well aware that the Rafale was tested to 100 AoA in some parts of its flight regime it is not certified for that operationally. Perhaps you could tell us why?
    Because they decided it that way... quite possibly as dragging you a$$ in post-stalled flight regime is usually the best way to get killed... and if you have a solid source that explains it in another way, please share, but claiming "it doesn't do it because it can't" doesn't stand as it proved it could do it

  24. #2754
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,092
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    Because they decided it that way... quite possibly as dragging you a$$ in post-stalled flight regime is usually the best way to get killed... and if you have a solid source that explains it in another way, please share, but claiming "it doesn't do it because it can't" doesn't stand as it proved it could do it
    Not this stupidity again...

    Just because an aircraft was controllable with one load under one set of conditions doesn't mean that it would be in any general sense.

    Fighter aircraft designers aren't in the habit of slapping arbitrary limits on aircraft "just because," and there most certainly are circumstances where high AoA capability is useful in WVR combat.


    Here for example is a quote about the "Aerodynamic Modification Kit" being developed for the Typhoon to among other things... improve its AoA performance:

    Eurofighter Project Pilot Germany Raffaele Beltrame said: “This programme has been a tremendous success with very impressive results – in some areas even better than we expected.

    “We saw angle of attack values around 45% greater than on the standard aircraft, and roll rates up to 100% higher, all leading to increased agility. The handling qualities appeared to be markedly improved, providing more manoeuvrability, agility and precision while performing tasks representative of in-service operations. And it is extremely interesting to consider the potential benefits in the air-to-surface configuration thanks to the increased variety and flexibility of stores that can be carried.

    “It´s right to say that the EFEM/AMK work has allowed us to discover a new aircraft with much higher performance and greater potential to meet the challenges of the years ahead.”
    https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/ne...des-completed/


    Typhoon’s supersonic agility is reportedly unbeatable, but its current angle-of-attack (AoA) limits at lower speeds are less impressive; a Cassidian (Airbus Defence & Space) -led effort is testing an aerodynamic modification kit for Typhoon that would remedy this. The ‘Aerodynamic Mod Kit’ (AMK) will include new re-shaped strakes,leading-edge root extensions (which have already been tested), and extended trailing-edge flaperons. The AMK aims to deliver increases to the maximum wing lift, the AoA limit and the roll rates at high AoA. The strakes will generate vortices that will maintain a controlled airflow over the wing surface even at high angles-of-attack. According to Airbus Defence and Space Test Pilot Chris Worning: “The first stage was to proof the concept. Do some measurements to see if the strakes did what we thought they would do … we will fly the Aerodynamic Modification Kit next. We have a mod kit and we’re hopefully going to fly it here (Manching) this summer. This is basically what you could put on a series production aeroplane.” Flying at high angles-of-attack can be helpful in close-in combat, allowing a fighter to point its nose quickly and accurately (this is one of the reasons why the F/A-18 remains such a nasty opponent in the WVR arena). The Typhoon’s current AoA limit is slightly more than 24°, approximately the same as the Lockheed Martin F-16 (which is around 25°). The new changes are expected to increase the limit to at least 34°. Worning was keen to point out that flying at high AoA in combat must be performed with due consideration. “You have to remember when you have a very high AoA there is also a disadvantage: you’re creating an awful lot of drag.” Worning admitted that, currently, the Dassault Rafale has a slightly higher maximum AoA (29° in the air-to-air mode) than the Typhoon but is confident that the new kit will at least equal, and probably surpass, the higher figure of the French rival. The flight testing of AMK is expected this year and will be a verification of the computer modelling. Once tested, Airbus Defence & Space will be able to develop the flight control software for a strake on an operational aircraft. The strake is designed to improve agility at subsonic speeds; it will not affect the aircraft in the supersonic regime but, as Worning confi dently added, “there’s not much you can improve there, to be honest”. There’s rarely a ‘free lunch’ in aerodynamics but the strake (which will weigh only few kilos) seems to come close.
    http://gnanavelaviator.blogspot.com/...r-typhoon.html

  25. #2755
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,016
    plenty of blah-blah with zero substance.. you euther can prove the Rafale couldn't go beyond 30• for a specific reason or you can't and have only assumptions. What gapoened to the Typhoon is irrelevant because it has different arrodynamic layout, and different people who programmed its flight computer - it has zero relevance in Rafale's case

  26. #2756
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,322
    I provided the reason, sorry if you can't understand it. I will explain it slowly with a simple example: put a piece of paper in between the fingers of your hand, then place hand in front of a fan. Rotate your hand upward, notice the airflow does not connect with the paper at a certain point? As your fingers begin to point up toward ceiling, your hand shields paper from fluttering. Now, how do you correct uncommanded yaw motion when the vertical stab is not in the airflow?

  27. #2757
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,172
    Oh wait... The anecdot is mentioned in Germain Chambost book "La véritable histoire du Rafale". In the very same book it is mentioned that AoA was limited to 30° (29 btw) for operational relevance. The intersting part in High AoA is to maintain manouvrability at low speed, which should be the real metrics.

    Mica (and the couple Rafale/Mica was designed alongside) has always been a hobs missile. And NO you do not necessarily need to have a HMS (which Rafale have now btw, as proven above) to use a hobs missile (see article in defesanet).

    The F-22 v Rafale hud video proves zilch, except that the pilot in the Rafale was better that day. Every aircraft can lose in those scenarios, does not mean the Rafale or F-22 is more or less maneuverable in close-in dogfights. Trying to claim superiority or parity based on a single outcome in DACT is the epitome of ignorance.
    True and untrue. it simply shows different capabilities of aircrafts. That is what is mentioned at the end of text slides (thanks to "H") . Btw it was during DACT but outside of DACT.

    The F35 has "full" authority at max AoA. Canards also have a negative impact, especially when they are straight (planar) and close coupled (the asymmetry will diverge increasingly with the affected airflow). The J20 for example counter this effect with a significative diedral angle. On the video where both J20 are displayed at an airshow, you can see this.
    as usual sexy words meaningless. Canards have a "full active airflow control"...

  28. #2758
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,092
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    plenty of blah-blah with zero substance.. you euther can prove the Rafale couldn't go beyond 30• for a specific reason or you can't and have only assumptions. What gapoened to the Typhoon is irrelevant because it has different arrodynamic layout, and different people who programmed its flight computer - it has zero relevance in Rafale's case
    Actual sources with expert testimonial, which of course is "blah-blah with zero substance" in the mind of a fanboy.

    Here are two thoughts for you to connect:


    High AoA capabilities are useful under some circumstances. This has been well established by years of operations and exercises by many different nations operating several different aircraft.

    The Rafale is limited to 29 degrees AoA in an air to air configuration. *Edit: see below


    You want to believe that the limit isn't really a limit for emotional reasons. You want to believe the Rafale offers the same high AoA as other designs but for some reason its designers decided to cripple the Rafale... just because. Basically you want to believe that the Rafale's designers choose to deliberately cripple their design because the alternative is to believe that your favorite plane isn't the best at everything.


    *Edit: The Rafale is apparently capable of 29 AoA with a centerline tank, and 32 AoA without any tanks.... obviously the -totally arbitrary- limit set by the designers for no reason is influenced by the Rafale's load.
    Last edited by hopsalot; 18th March 2017 at 15:10.

  29. #2759
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,172
    However, i just asked to a Istres test pilot. Think his answer should be very educative.

  30. #2760
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,073
    afaik, gripen aoa limit is set to 26 degree, while having been tested up to 115 and can be parked indefinitely at 60-70,
    this is less than rafale and i think its down to thrust, a fighter loses momentum while flying around with this drag,
    while occasionally useful, its detrimental to overall combat performance to ever slow down that bad.
    if the fighter was shaped like a football, or had infinite thrust, then it would not be any reason to set a software limit,
    but as things stand, rafale is by far leaner while flying with the pointy end first.

    eurofighter canard layout has zero relevance to rafale aoa
    Last edited by obligatory; 18th March 2017 at 17:06.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES