Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    I said most because i wasn't sure if legacy fighter such as Mig-21, P-47 were also put under such test.
    and i never deny that Rafale can recover from a spin or that it is extremely spin resistant, i only disagreed with tincankiller claim that Rafale can and had done the same post stall maneuver as F-35
    F-35 is also very departure resistance
    Click image for larger version Name:	3F72811F-1B5A-437E-9951-2EA436573F0F.png Views:	0 Size:	27.1 KB ID:	3852730
    You said a lot of things because you simply don't know your very basics:

    Example: The way you interpret this bit is FUNNY.

    1) Where did they mention turning this FCS off?

    Never, meaning the FCS needed to be twicked because otherwise it would prevent departure which is not exceptional for a FCS since it is designed for the purpose of keeping the A-C within its controlled flight parameters, it doesn't mean that the aerodynamic of the A-C make it spin-resistant, there is NO mention there of the aerodynamics preventing departure on its own, but FCS is mentioned and it was not turned off.

    2) Cg range and out of Cg range tests are ALSO part of the procedures, again nothing unusual there, apart for you.


    Another example: What one trainee pilot will learn even before flaring an A-C and landing, stall characteristics and the importance of speed recovery, speed recovery procedure, which control surface works and up to which AoA on your A-C, when their role crosses (rudder instead of ailerons), not to use ailerons in the stall as not to increase loss of control by stalling one wing further which would trigger a spin.

    ALL OF WHICH allows you to mistake high AoA for PSM, take those basics a step higher, you end up triggering spins, increasing the yaw rate, stopping the spin using the same controls as Boston Combe did with a Jaguar in yaw spins at 100* AoA, NO PSM there.

    Simple, but too high end for you.

    Forget P-47, you posted videos or articles of F-14 and F-16 departures as "evidences", regardless of the fact that their characteristics at high AoA were more than average, especially the F-14 and in the case of assymetric load, F-16, which is AoA limited also because your average squadron jockey might not be able to get out of a superstall, in fact you have NO clue what the difference between departed and controlled flight are.

    If we had been able to find any video of Gripen and Rafale flight tests and PSM test phases you wouldn't have been able to pick up on the most important aspect of the tests, controllability, so naturally meaning of the word maneuver is unknown to you.

    WHY does a Gripen out-perform the F-35 in a (fully controlled on 3 axis from the start of the maneuver) 70/80* AoA yaw spin by 30*/s and still can get out of it if it is not what U. Clarus says of it?

    HOW can a Rafale pilot practise (that the word used, not "reached") speeds as low as 15kt in mock combat vs a Mirange 2000 before high AoA testing and go away with it, was it NOT PSM?

    So I reiterate: There is no video, but we know more than a few things:

    1) ONERA CG-simulated PSM, Test flight team evaluated them and the conclusion of the tests are the SAME than that of the test pilots of X-31 program which was specifically designed for exploring PSM.

    You read well, (I magnified it to make sure because I have doubts about your eyesight after all the little "details" you missed):

    The pilots in the program did not support trading off other important fighter characteristics just to acquire the EFM capabilities the X-31 possessed.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	X-31-conclusion.jpg Views:	0 Size:	155.7 KB ID:	3852740

    I said this even before posting this X-31 evidence, explained several time over WHY AdlA/M.N chose to limit the Rafale at 29* and in the roll axis as well, WHY they never considered TVC ("we don't need TVC" dixit Yves Kerherve chief test pilot for the Rafale development program).

    But nope, you keep posting, spamming, flooding this topic with PSM irrelevant stuff because some geezer is doing his commercial job at an airshow, sales you high AoA maneuvers for "exceptional" PSM capabilities and you FAIL to pick up on all of that?

    LOL! Don't ask us to fall for it as easily as you do, please, I guaranty you that many of us knows better.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 24th February 2019, 11:42.

    Leave a comment:


  • TooCool_12f
    replied
    garryA

    Rafale, except maybe during some test flights obviously doesn't do such manoeuvers.. . As for spin testing, it was soon after the end of WWI that it became "standard"..

    You can read about "spin history" in UK here:

    https://www.aerosociety.com/media/48...-uk-part-1.pdf

    and page 7 you can read:

    "The Air Ministry also had overall responsibility for theAeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE), which was located at Martlesham Heath in Suffolk in 1924. Its antecedents had been the former Aircraft Testing Flight of the Central Flying School at Upavon, which had moved to Martlesham in 1917, and the Armament Flight that had moved to nearby Orfordness. Its function was to evaluate aircraft that were being considered for potential entry into service with the RAF. (A similar function was performed for naval aircraft at the neighbouring Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment (MAEE), which moved to Felixstowe in 1924.) From about 1918, spinning and spin recovery were among the characteristics to be investigated as a matter of routine."

    thanks for raising the point, got me an interesting read now

    so, you can take for granted that all post 1920 designs had to pass spin tests prior to entering service
    Last edited by TooCool_12f; 24th February 2019, 10:52.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    I love how you keep changing the criteria for PSM in the face of new evidences:


    Yet you can't find a single video of Rafale and Gripen perform a post stall maneuver. What a coincident
    1) You didn't provide any "new evidences" and I didn't change anything, from the moment members of L-M flight test team mentioned loss of control and the reasons for their test, your "new evidences" were moot, sorry.

    2) You still fail to demonstrate PS Maneuvers testing phases by L-M flight test members simply because they do not mention them, quiet the opposite.


    Title of the video:

    F-35 Test Pilot Dave Nelson talks about intentional departure and recovering from stalls during F-35A high angle of attack testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Flight Test Engineer Lea Haubelt explains how the tests help define the F-35 flight control software.
    Lea Haubelt explains how the tests help define the F-35 flight control software:

    To make sure the A-C stays within those parameters, not to allow for PSM.

    All you demonstrated is: You don't know what post stall maneuvers are, read the definition of the word maneuvers first.

    You ignore FACTS such as, the mention of loss of control vortex breakdown, F-22 being better at it (but they still never use PSM in combat), ALL A-Cs in this field go through the same flight testing phases and use the same "manoeuvrability" capabilities with the SAME control surfaces to get out of yaw spins, test includes increasing yaw rates and oscillations with use of some control surfaces, so according to your fuzzy definition, a Jaguar is capable of PSM.


    Quote Dan Canin F-35 test pilot:


    There are several different phonomenon that occur when you get high Angle of attack.

    First of all, as the angle of attack increases, the flow which is normally very smooth, starts to separate from the surfaces and you got a lot of turbulences.

    First we had the basic controlability problem of high angle of attack, and flow separation also the challenge of having relatively low dynamic pressures.

    You put the A-C into a spin,
    you get the A-C established into that out of control condition, and then when the controller calls, we add a lot to that condition.




    = High AoA and spin recovery procedures and nothing 3rd and 4th gen A-C did not do:

    Mention of airflow separation, vortex breakdown AND loss of control at high AoA.


    Intentional Departure

    CF-5 Flight Test Engineer Taurean Williams.

    We're testing to see if the aircraft is still controllable at the high angle of attack regime.

    Once we are able to charecterize the characteristics of the aircraft at that high angle of attack regime, we move to intentional departure.


    NOT a mention of full 3-axis control authorify during the maneuver and even less of PSM.
    Apparently the only thing that matters to you is air shows commercial B.S, understandably since you have no clue what high AoA and spin flight test procedures are, even the simplest basics of stall recovery or else you'd have pick it up.

    Regardless of the FACT that L-M are pushing all out to sale their A-C and naturally have changed the goal posts you mentions, not me, flight test procedures remains the same, reasons for testing as well and in the case of the F-35 it is not PS maneuvers testing but what they say, L-M pilots on the payroll of L-M taking people for fool at airshow don't sale it. You get it?

    Now, what speed would a Rafale be PSM?10 kt?

    Does Gripen yaw 30* faster than F-35 in the same situation? Yep. That's controllability levels for you, when L-M test pilot mentions loss of control, a Gripen yaws 30*/sec FASTER that F-35.

    Now as I mentioned already Rafale pilots don't need a relaxed FCS to put an A-C at 50* AoA in order to achieve PSM and the reason why it is limited is well known, they tested PSM and concluded the SAME than DRYDEN X-31 pilots, you loose more qualities than you gain in combat by using them, reason why F-22 pilots wisely do not.

    Keep spamming and flooding this topic with stuff you still haven't understood, it's amusing.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post

    well, not "most fighters" but "all fighters" have to pass those tests, as in combat, you never know what the pilot will have to do and if he won't find himself in a spin at a moment.. so these tests are mandatory to validate the behavior of the new aircraft under such circumstances... as I pointed out above, the chief test pilot explained that they were unable to get the Rafale into a spin no matter what they did to it, and to be able to perform the spin test, they had to deactivate most if not all protections of the FCS. Once they've done it, they validated it had positive behavior and was safe.. and then went on... as they've concluded that they don't need PSM, the FCS was programmed that way.. so you won't ever see a Rafale perform such manoeuvers, simply because the FCS will keep it under a flight rules iton
    I said most because i wasn't sure if legacy fighter such as Mig-21, P-47 were also put under such test.
    and i never deny that Rafale can recover from a spin or that it is extremely spin resistant, i only disagreed with tincankiller claim that Rafale can and had done the same post stall maneuver as F-35
    F-35 is also very departure resistance
    Click image for larger version  Name:	3F72811F-1B5A-437E-9951-2EA436573F0F.png Views:	0 Size:	27.1 KB ID:	3852730
    Last edited by garryA; 24th February 2019, 09:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • TooCool_12f
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post

    My point is:
    _ Most fighters are put in spin recovery / departure test, but able to recover from a spin, highly spin resistant doesn't mean they have control authority to ultilize post stall maneuver in combat. Because PSM for combat also require high level of accuracy for the pitch/ yaw rate, as well as the ability to start / stop quickly
    _ thincankiller claimed the pedal/helicopter turn is not a post stall maneuver, and Rafale had done the same thing, so the homework is simple: where is the video?
    well, not "most fighters" but "all fighters" have to pass those tests, as in combat, you never know what the pilot will have to do and if he won't find himself in a spin at a moment.. so these tests are mandatory to validate the behavior of the new aircraft under such circumstances... as I pointed out above, the chief test pilot explained that they were unable to get the Rafale into a spin no matter what they did to it, and to be able to perform the spin test, they had to deactivate most if not all protections of the FCS. Once they've done it, they validated it had positive behavior and was safe.. and then went on... as they've concluded that they don't need PSM, the FCS was programmed that way.. so you won't ever see a Rafale perform such manoeuvers, simply because the FCS will keep it under a flight rules it was programmed to maintain

    and you won't find a video of Rafale spin tests, if anything, because the french didn't film all the flight tests and those they have are most certainly kept confidential.. which is the french policy dating from decades (an example of that policy was seen about 15 years ago when some developers were working on Falklands air war.. they could get all the information needed for the Harrier modelling, but when it came to the MIrage III (we were in the early 2000's, remember), they asked to french sources but couldn't get any useful information because it was still classified (in France, the Mirage III had been retired some 20 years ago at the time).. they had to work with Argentina

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post

    on the other hand, if their FCS is programmed to remain capped at 28-29, it's not supposed to get there in the first place, no? There was an interview of the Rafale chief test pilot Yves Kerherv who explained that, during development, for spin testing they had to disable a number of fcs features to have it in a pretty much "direct mode" (no automatic recovery of anything of the sorts) as the aircraft simply wouldn't depart into a spin regardless of what the pilot did, and what's more, even when they finally managed to get it into a spin, all they had to do was to release stick and rudder, and the aircraft would recover itself aerodynamically (with no input either from the pilot nor the fcs - as the fcs was in that "direct mode")

    So, basically, if they have made a choice not to go into post stall manoeuvering and programmed the FCS that way, how would you see the Rafale doing any post stall manoeuvers?
    My point is:
    _ Most fighters are put in spin recovery / departure test, but able to recover from a spin, highly spin resistant doesn't mean they have control authority to ultilize post stall maneuver in combat. Because PSM for combat also require high level of accuracy for the pitch/ yaw rate, as well as the ability to start / stop quickly
    _ thincankiller claimed the pedal/helicopter turn is not a post stall maneuver, and Rafale had done the same thing, so the homework is simple: where is the video?

    Leave a comment:


  • TooCool_12f
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post

    Yet you can't find a single video of Rafale and Gripen perform a post stall maneuver. What a coincident
    on the other hand, if their FCS is programmed to remain capped at 28-29, it's not supposed to get there in the first place, no? There was an interview of the Rafale chief test pilot Yves Kerherv who explained that, during development, for spin testing they had to disable a number of fcs features to have it in a pretty much "direct mode" (no automatic recovery of anything of the sorts) as the aircraft simply wouldn't depart into a spin regardless of what the pilot did, and what's more, even when they finally managed to get it into a spin, all they had to do was to release stick and rudder, and the aircraft would recover itself aerodynamically (with no input either from the pilot nor the fcs - as the fcs was in that "direct mode")

    So, basically, if they have made a choice not to go into post stall manoeuvering and programmed the FCS that way, how would you see the Rafale doing any post stall manoeuvers?

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    No need for that, your documentation and ours says what it is: High AoA testing in this case, NOT PSM maneuvers testing, if you haven't got it yet, you will never, that's most probable considering that you mistake most of the other topics on the subject.
    You are mistaking being delusional (as yourself are) and educated to the point where I can actually fully comprehend what is written.
    AGAIN, L-M do NOT claim being able to perform PSM, they only mention a level of control allowing them to get out of a spin and post stall AoA region, this level of manoeuvrability is used to make sure they stay within the flight parameters of the A-Cs which is the goal of those tests and that's not PSM testing.
    Again you fail to demonstrated that this A-C is actually out of those parameters even in your video, engineers and pilots in the L-M video explains this point very well, "out of control", I can't help you with your lack of basic knowledge, POST STALL maneuvers is very specific, high AoA with the capability to recover from post stall angle of attack another thing.
    None of your documentation mentions POST STALL MANEUVERS, which is convenient for falsly claiming PSM capabilities, more of a commercial gimmick than anything else, I think this Boston Combe Jaguar pilots could claim the same having reached 100* AoA during yaw spins.
    Remind us how you get out of a yaw spin again please...
    I love how you keep changing the criteria for PSM in the face of new evidences:
    First, you claimed high AoA maneuver is only quantified as post-stall maneuver if the pilot can have control in both pitch and yaw
    then after i quote the pilot
    Originally posted by Dave'Doc' Nelson F-35 test pilot
    High angle of attack test take us to pass the stall point of the airplane. Once you get past that stall angle of attack, you can move the nose around: UP and DOWN , and SIDE TO SIDE
    you changed the comments to
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    F-35 did NOT demonstrate PSM, L-M never make such a claim nor does their pilots, they ALL mention high AoA, spin and/or the level of control authority needed to recover from it
    without realizing test pilot also mentioned how F-35 pilot can use its post stall maneuver in combat
    Originally posted by Dave'Doc' Nelson F-35 test pilot
    High angle of attack test take us to pass the stall point of the airplane. Once you get past that stall angle of attack, you can move the nose around: UP and DOWN , and SIDE TO SIDE
    and maneuver to get where you want to be in relation to your opponent, so that will be a maneuver enhancing capability that the F-35 has
    Then your selective blindness eventhough these important information are highlighted


    Click image for larger version  Name:	image_260751.png Views:	0 Size:	148.1 KB ID:	3852712

    Clearly not only to recover from a spin as you claimed
    Quite funny, because while you try to interpret F-35 post stall maneuver in mock combat and airshow as purely spin recovery, you also try to interpret Gripen spin recovery test as combat post stall maneuver capability, leading to you have to eat your own words

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    More than all those 3 A-C, on rotation rate in the yaw axis, 30*/sec more that F-35 is a spanking from any standard
    Once again, you try to blur the line between a spin recovery and an accurate pedal turn with full control authority
    Come back when you can find video of Gripen or Rafale doing this
    Click image for larger version  Name:	giphy.gif Views:	0 Size:	2.05 MB ID:	3852713
    Click image for larger version

Name:	giphy.gif
Views:	162
Size:	29.2 KB
ID:	3852714


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    considering that you mistake most of the other topics on the subject.
    You are mistaking being delusional (as yourself are) and educated to the point where I can actually fully comprehend what is written.
    Said the guy who was proven wrong repeatedly over 13 times

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    True (if maneuvring is getting out of post stall or spins) but not everyone of them can actually do that efficiently enough (under full 3-axis control during the whole duration of the maneuver) for those maneuver to be valid in combat situation
    Which remind us of how many time Gripen pilot used its "PSM" capability in mock combat and dogfight? zero. Unlike the F-35 which used its PSM capability again then again both in mock dogfight and airshow



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    2) As mentioned by Yves Kerherve when he was Chief Test pilot for the Rafale program, "we don't need TVC", which is consistent with the level of control authority demonstrated by the A-C during flight testing, to which you can add "we don't need 50* AoA to perform PSM
    Yet you can't find a single video of Rafale and Gripen perform a post stall maneuver. What a coincident
    Last edited by garryA; 24th February 2019, 05:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • eagle
    replied
    Anyway, no ignore function anymore on this or is the Rafale thread a toxic pool of unreadable garbage from now on?
    Click on your user name at the top right > User Settings > Account
    Scroll down, last point "Ignore List" - add username to ignore.
    Works fine for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by FBW View Post
    Thats his M.O.

    Been banned everywhere. We know that isnt going to happen here quickly so buckle up for a crapstorm of schizophrenic posts. Anyway, no ignore function anymore on this or is the Rafale thread a toxic pool of unreadable garbage from now on?
    Aren't you the one who stalk me down to my message box?


    "crapstorm of schizophrenic posts" seems to be your bred and butter, and no, i'm NOT "banned everywhere," I am NOT everywhere, cure this paranoia.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by panzerfeist1 View Post
    Click image for larger version  Name:	Got TIGERS.jpg Views:	0 Size:	72.0 KB ID:	3852701

    Not trying to defend the guy but there are times where you just have to let the other user have the final word. Someone on F-16.net posted a guy jumping down a cliff gif indicating that's what happens to threads being ruined where arguments go. Only reason why I specifically stop responding is because of these reasons.
    Just imagine me stalking him and wasting the F-35 topic this way, (where I just posted, you can compare my comments to his).

    I visited F-16 forum and obviously this topic is hot with fanboys, as it was when some Rafale fans were debating the M2.0 capabilities of the A-C because one AdlA pilot said it was M2.0 capable, whatever, ignoring requirements, design goals, aerodynamics, structural limits is fun for a while if you want to troll but as you said it ruins topics.

    After all it is perhaps what some are trying to do, but I have to say that it is somewhat understandable if they don't know what they are talking about (and this one is a hell of an anvil when it comes to that) and stick to what air show pilots says, even if they countradict test pilots and engineers.

    Ignoring subjects way above one head is a lot simpler.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	DA00030100.jpg Views:	0 Size:	219.0 KB ID:	3852705
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 24th February 2019, 03:02.

    Leave a comment:


  • panzerfeist1
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Got TIGERS.jpg
Views:	211
Size:	72.0 KB
ID:	3852701

    Not trying to defend the guy but there are times where you just have to let the other user have the final word. Someone on F-16.net posted a guy jumping down a cliff gif indicating that's what happens to threads being ruined where arguments go. Only reason why I specifically stop responding is because of these reasons.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by moon_light View Post
    Moving the goalposts, cherry picking, pretending defensiveissue is a refutable source, false equivalence
    Which goal posts? This one? LOL!

    Click image for larger version  Name:	maxresdefault.jpg Views:	0 Size:	109.6 KB ID:	3852699

    There is no goal posts in this industry, only standards and fanboys who scored own goals by reposting commercial stuff they didn't read properly and even less understand (or is that deliberate?).

    If some guys can't READ plain English, doesn't comprehend what is said and written, nor knows what is what, I can't help it if they get get done by L-M pilots on the company payroll who take them for ignorant by passing high AoA for PSM, while the test flight team is adamant that vortex breakdownand loss of control occurs at this sort of PS AoA, and that those tests are meant to fine tune the FCS to prevent departure in those flight regimes.

    Yet Another FACT: Yaw and pitch are used to get out of stall and spins, so many other A-C have this capability, only they don't use it operationally, are you going to deny this as well? Cherry picking are we?

    So again, what we've seen are only common and public use of what other fighters does when they have those capabilities (enough control authority to get out of a spin that is), but F-35 doesn't have it to the full, (vortex breakdown, loss of control) not to the level of F-22, even less X-31 (more about its TVC), even a Gripen shows more controllability at 80* AoA according to U. Clarus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace.

    More than all those 3 A-C, on rotation rate in the yaw axis, 30*/sec more that F-35 is a spanking from any standard, talk about nose pointing, L-M are making so much noise about it, they forget that there are A-Cs out there which already have done it decades ago AND better.

    Not everyone lacks this level of objectivity and those little pictures doesn't change that.

    The only thing I didn't know about F-35 was the fact that it reached 110* AoA and then again it is irrelevant to PSM since manoeuvring involves full 3-axis control, departure, loss of control and recovery or paddle/rudder turns at max AoA doesn't qualify for PSM, which part of what the test pilot said didn't you understand?

    As for the usefulness of such maneuvers, I think we all know what it is, limited, SAAB, the Sweedish A-F, Dassault, DGA/AdlA and M.N flight test team all agrees with DRYDEN X-31 pilots finding, another FACT you chose to ignore on top of this other fact, no A-C is flown at 15kt while still not being in PS.

    F-22 doesn't do those fancy aerobatics in combat, you don't need 50* AoA FCS relaxed FCS to do PSM, you perfectly can do it with a FCS limiting you at 29 or 30* AoA, what is needed, is the proper aerodynamic qualities.

    Now, time to stop crying and start learning your stuff a little, aerodynamics and structural loads would be a good start, let me help you with some.

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=...KScCpCPenyfXM:
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 24th February 2019, 02:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • FBW
    replied
    Thats his M.O.

    Been banned everywhere. We know that isnt going to happen here quickly so buckle up for a crapstorm of schizophrenic posts. Anyway, no ignore function anymore on this or is the Rafale thread a toxic pool of unreadable garbage from now on?
    Last edited by FBW; 24th February 2019, 02:22.

    Leave a comment:


  • moon_light
    replied
    Brand new account, moving the goalposts, cherry picking, false equivalence, pretending defensiveissue is a refutable source.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	493.jpg Views:	0 Size:	56.5 KB ID:	3852695
    Last edited by moon_light; 24th February 2019, 01:53.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post

    You are so delusional, it is hilarious

    Click image for larger version  Name:	47DF69AD-3BAD-4330-9986-FF3CD7A7D996.png Views:	0 Size:	148.1 KB ID:	3852678
    Find a video of Gripen and Rafale doing this then come back

    No need for that, your documentation and ours says what it is: High AoA testing in this case, NOT PSM maneuvers testing, if you haven't got it yet, you will never, that's most probable considering that you mistake most of the other topics on the subject.

    You are mistaking being delusional (as yourself are) and educated to the point where I can actually fully comprehend what is written.

    AGAIN, L-M do NOT claim being able to perform PSM, they only mention a level of control allowing them to get out of a spin and post stall AoA region, this level of manoeuvrability is used to make sure they stay within the flight parameters of the A-Cs which is the goal of those tests and that's not PSM testing.

    Again you fail to demonstrated that this A-C is actually out of those parameters even in your video, engineers and pilots in the L-M video explains this point very well, "out of control", I can't help you with your lack of basic knowledge, POST STALL maneuvers is very specific, high AoA with the capability to recover from post stall angle of attack another thing.

    None of your documentation mentions POST STALL MANEUVERS, which is convenient for falsly claiming PSM capabilities, more of a commercial gimmick than anything else, I think this Boston Combe Jaguar pilots could claim the same having reached 100* AoA during yaw spins.

    Remind us how you get out of a yaw spin again please...

    Modern Fighters have the ability to maneuver in the post stall region
    True (if maneuvring is getting out of post stall or spins) but not everyone of them can actually do that efficiently enough (under full 3-axis control during the whole duration of the maneuver) for those maneuver to be valid in combat situation (hence those F-35 high AoA tests), not even the F-22, good for air shows and fanboys, not so for real life situations, or else they would routinely do PSM during mock combat, they don't and those A-Cs are better than F-35 in this area (X-31 and F-22).

    Just to separate commercial B.S from reality:

    NASA Facts
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Dryden Flight Research Center

    X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability Demonstrator.
    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...S-009-DFRC.pdf


    The X-31 constituted a revolution in air combat in the poststall region.

    1) The pilots in the program did not support trading off other important fighter characteristics just to acquire the EFM capabilities the X-31 possessed.

    2) But they did conclude that the improved pitch pointing and velocity-vector maneuvering permitted by thrust vector control did provide new options for the pilot to use in close-in combat.

    Post-stall maneuvering allowed the pilots to rotate and point the nose of the vehicle at the adversary aircraft in such a way that the adversary pilot could not counter the maneuver.
    But this was true only when used selectively and rapidly.

    The X-31 also greatly improved flight safety since it was fully controllable and flyable in the post-stall region, unlike other fighter aircraft without thrust vectoring.

    1) Funny DRYDEN came to the same conclusion than AdlA/M.N test pilots with an A-C specifically designed for validating (or not) PSM in combat situation.

    2) As mentioned by Yves Kerherve when he was Chief Test pilot for the Rafale program, "we don't need TVC", which is consistent with the level of control authority demonstrated by the A-C during flight testing, to which you can add "we don't need 50* AoA to perform PSM.

    I rest my case, Santa is not going to give those boyz what they want, better let them think they do.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 24th February 2019, 00:02.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

    You still haven't managed to demonstrate any POST STALL maneuvers capabilities from the test flight team.

    Maneuvrability "beyhond stall angles of attack" is what ANY Aircraft needs to get out of a spin, ABC = elevators and rudder control authority, you don't have it, you don't get out of a spin, I don't know how your brain manage to block this but you keep doing it.

    Now get a life, you're full of yourself but still don't comprehend the basics.
    You are so delusional, it is hilarious

    Click image for larger version

Name:	47DF69AD-3BAD-4330-9986-FF3CD7A7D996.png
Views:	230
Size:	148.1 KB
ID:	3852678
    Find a video of Gripen and Rafale doing this then come back

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post

    Exactly like i predicted, you talk big but then get shut down immediately, all your convoluted theory became nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidences.
    You still haven't managed to demonstrate any POST STALL maneuvers capabilities from the test flight team.

    Maneuvrability "beyhond stall angles of attack" is what ANY Aircraft needs to get out of a spin, ABC = elevators and rudder control authority, you don't have it, you don't get out of a spin, I don't know how your brain manage to block this but you keep doing it.

    Now get a life, you're full of yourself but still don't comprehend the basics.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 23rd February 2019, 20:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Flooding a Rafale topic with F-35 nonsense still not able to figure what PSM is, that's the local troll tactic.

    Good thing I don't bother reading it, I've done my home work, cheers.
    Exactly like i predicted, you talk big but then get shut down immediately, all your convoluted self made theory became nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidences.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Flooding a Rafale topic with F-35 nonsense still not able to figure what PSM is, that's the local troll tactic.

    Good thing I don't bother reading it, I've done my home work, cheers.

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X