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

  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    LOL! The average fanboys wet dream given on a plate by Lockheed Martin Commercials.

    How easy it is to create a forum legend and pass intentional departure and spin recovery during F-35A high angle of attack testing for PSM, a little video showing just that and the capability of the A-C to recover from a spin is enough for some to rewrite the definition of controlled flight and invent themselves new (naturally unclaimed by L-M) capabilities.
    In the other Lockheed Martin video, the difference is explained in plain English by one of the pilots (same source, different pile of L.M commercials):




    Quote Dan Canin F-35 test pilot:

    So far, we're in high AoA and spin recovery procedures:
    NOT a mention of full 3-axis control authorify during the maneuver and even less of PSM
    Otherwise said, all L-M have done are high angle of attack and spin recovery, nothing fancy there, since every fighter goes through such procedure, the difference lies in the amount of control available during the entire phase, to give you an idea, maximum AoA obtained during testing is not necessarily relevant to PSM, even the Jaguar was pushed to 100* AoA during spin testing at Boston-Combe, only it was also spin testing (yaw rotation) NOT exploring PSM capabilities.
    You are such a disgusting liar. Even though i explained to you the different between spin departure test and post stall maneuver test, and the fact that F-35 high AoA test dealing with both. You intentionally ignore the video i posted and try to selective quote a small part from another video so as to fabricate a completely different story from what actually happened.
    Yes, F-35 high AoA test including flight departure and spin recovery, as mentioned in several video. But it also include post stall maneuver as clearly explained by the pilot, and your lie won't change that.

    0:00-0:56
    Quote 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
    Your scam don't work anymore.


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    PSN is defined by the word MANEUVER which implies for an aircraft to retain the full control authority (even if the axis changes as is the case of rudder/ailerons at such regime)
    Dave Nelson said exactly that in the interview, not only he mentioned the word "maneuver", he also explained the full control authority that F-35 got in that situation


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    so that the pilot will initiate and stop the maneuver, retain control throughout its whole duration, which was the case of the PSM passed by the Gripen (even if it was a spin it was a fully controlled "helicopter turn"; on the yaw axis using aileron input).
    It is quite funny to see you try to paint F-35 post small maneuver as simple spin recovery test, yet at the same time, you try to claim Gripen can perform post stall maneuver even though even SAAB themselves never said such a thing. Literally SAAB only talk about AoA recovery-anti spin logic in their test report, Gripen had never perform any post stall maneuver in airshow, never in any dogfight exercise, but that doesn't stop a fanboy like you claim Gripen is so good at high AoA.


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Here, it is pretty clear that not only they do not initiate the stall (the A-C is just parked on its tail, then basically falls out of control as commented bybDan Canin, during all this phase, as mentioned by its test pilot, it is basically out of control, only then do they use the little control authority they still have, necessary to recover from a spin and common to most A-Cs, to add to the spin, also common in spin testing.
    I wonder that does that test procedure resemble? ah yes, Gripen test
    initiate the tests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA up to extreme angles

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    The maximum yaw rate they were able to obtain this way was 60*/sec ]rotation on the yaw axis, Gripen get 30* second higher rotation rate at 90* between 70 to 8-* AoA, this just demonstrates the difference of level of control authority between the two, since they both used aileron input but not the same way, Gripen having previously initiated the dynamic stall with elevators input.
    If we follow that logic, then F-16 clearly the fighter with best post stall maneuver capability since its yaw rate can reach up ward of 120 degrees/second in spin test.?
    FYI, F-18 can recover from 100 degrees/second rotation rate in spin test, so this mean Gripen clearly got nothing on F-18?
    Click image for larger version  Name:	F-18 spin rate.PNG Views:	0 Size:	145.4 KB ID:	3852664

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    In one case, the whole maneuver was executed under full control authority, first pitch, to get the A-C at AoA between 70 and 80* when sped was close to zero (think about the 15kt controlled flight of the Rafale mentioned by Rafale flight test team members in their report), triggering a dynamic stall, second, one the A-C "parked" (involving a notion of control to keep it there) at this AoA, aileron input was used to start and stop rotation.
    You made up the full control authority part
    what they did in gripen AoA test was climbs near vertical, then when the Gripen lose all airspeed, it will fail down, then it can be put into a vertical spin, just like in F-35 spin test




    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    In the other case Intentional Departure[/B]), the pilots did NOT triggered the departure, the A-C just runs our of starts to rotate by itself OUT OF CONTROL as mentioned by Dan Canin, only then do they start to apply control inputs to increase the yaw rotation and stop it, there is NOTHING there that many other A-C haven't been through during high AoA and spin tests, and this certainly do not qualify for PSM.
    This is single dumbest comment in this whole thread, are you insane ?you really believe the rotation start by itself without any flap/aileron input? nope, it need to be put in a spin. Don't even think you can put a straw man argument against me, i had always separate spin test and post stall maneuver
    Click image for larger version  Name:	image_260683.png Views:	0 Size:	716.4 KB ID:	3852665



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    I demonstrate the difference between two very distinctive things: Departure + Spin tests, and PSM, which is the subject of a pale attempt to blur the difference between the two, that's fanboys territory, flaming and inventing is not going to make this forum better
    That quite ironic coming from the fanboy who was trying to blur the line so that he can claim Gripen can perform post stall maneuver from its spin recovery test.


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    come back when L-M says they experimented with PSM instead of trying to pass spin tests for it
    We don't need to invent ourselves capabilities by rewriting the industry books, falsely interpret what is written or said by pilots and manufacturers, it's all there documented and available for everyone to see.
    FACT: 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; control over the at least 2 axis is part of it for those who don't understand how to get out of a spin, you'll need opposite rudder and elevator authority, which is used by all A-Cs to get out of a spin so yaw control and nose pointing capabilities are used by many other A-C during most high AoA and spin tests flights.

    I will be honest, the most fun part of this thread is seeing you getting so loud mouth and get shut up immediately after.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	F-35 high AoA test.png Views:	0 Size:	66.2 KB ID:	3852666
    Click image for larger version  Name:	F-35 post stall.PNG Views:	0 Size:	148.1 KB ID:	3852667
    Click image for larger version  Name:	F-35.PNG Views:	0 Size:	102.3 KB ID:	3852668



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Other little detail: What is wrongly qualified PSM with F-35, "Paddle" and "Helicopter turns" are not done in post-stall situations by F-35, but high AoA, most probably using the rudder (rudder turn) to obtain the A-C turn rate, Yves Kerherve demonstrated this at the Farnoborough Airshow flying the Rafale M, rudder turns are not F-35-only territory
    So where is the video?
    It is such a coincident how Rafale with its alleged extremely awesome post stall maneuver, only demonstrated it once, and magically no one have a recording of that, so you can't find any video of that incident either.Sound legit

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    aircraft with close coupled canards are almost impossible to depart from controlled flight(FCS and mechanical problems notwithstanding)
    to
    "You get the A-C established into that out of control condition".
    NOT clear enough?
    You are either a liar or a fanboy who like to cherry pick information to claim that he is correct
    Click image for larger version  Name:	image_260683.png Views:	0 Size:	27.1 KB ID:	3852669



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    During low speed tests (mock combat vs a Mirage 2000 among other things) speed as low as 15kt was practised by one of the pilots, meaning it was Post Stall in controlled flight (unless you believe Rafale is a Chinese kite)
    a momentary pitch to very high AoA followed by recovery (Cobra maneuver) can slow aircraft speed down significantly for a moment, but many aircraft can do that, including F-14,F-15, and that certainly not on the same level as other PSM such as Helicopter turn, Kulbit or Herbst
    Last edited by garryA; 23rd February 2019, 20:06.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
    here we go, another Rafale fan boy given to the world to lecture us all...
    You need one serious reality check.

    Calling people fanboys and been able to swallow L-M B.S about PSM, not being able to comprehend what the test pilots says about the spin test and even estimate at what AoA and speed a F-35 is doing when it preforms a rudder turn takes some doing.

    As opposed to you I am no fanboy material and before someone can pass high AoA maneuvers for PSM capabilities, be it an L-M pilot, I need some more evidences than a guy on L-M payroll will give or forum divas ready to swallow everything as if it was a Sunday morning service Ostia, especially when the whole of the flight test team doesn't make the claim.

    So according to your bunch, one wouldn't need elevator and rudder control authority to get out of a spin?

    I was under the impression that increasing spin characteristics using either one or the other was a standard spin flight test procedure for decades, making it a PSM solely reserved to your X-Mass toy is taking people for granted, calling people who knows fanboys doesn't make your case here, sorry i'm not buying.

    Let me say it again, ALL fighters tested for high AoA and spin have the same capability, they have to or wouldn't get out of spins, find the logic in trying to make us believe otherwise.

    Oh yeah, British Jaguar at 100* AoA in a yaw spin test not a special event, Rafale flown at 15kt with a 30* FCS limit (not the operational 29*) still not PS... LOL! How far can the B.S factor go?

    Ah btw, at 80kt, your F-22 needs 36* AoA, which completely validate my previous posts on the subject of Rafale/Canard Delta characteristics, and just to help you with digesting, you do not need 50* relaxed FCS to do PSM.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 23rd February 2019, 18:34.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    here we go, another Rafale fan boy given to the world to lecture us all...

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by Shania View Post
    Yes I understand that but the reasons why it wasn't are not explained anywhere, you have to dig deep into what are now archives to figure it out.

    Development of F-35 is late, even if everything was renegotiated and it doesn't show as such, i'm not going to get into troll mode and start quoting all of the little glitches, I made a point about Ultimate Structural loads, that's it.

    Meanwhile bar some unconfirmed sources, we still wait for news of a 80 kN version of M88 (note that I don't even mention 90 kN), which I would make my priority for the A-C to stay competitive in the future, if there is a topic where information are even more difficult to grab when it comes to Rafale it's SAFRAN development of its engine.

    Ear says aren't enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shania
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

    Fact indeed, but no mention of the reason why they were limited.

    Because flight testing was not completed.

    http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/f...7956&mode=view

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by Shania View Post
    Its well known fact.
    Until 3F software, all previous version have limited envelope. Paris airshow was done with 3i limited to 7G.
    Fact indeed, but no mention of the reason why they were limited.

    No wonder they push for this PSM thing in air shows (taking people for fools isn't really nice but It works), I know many people in the industry who were not impressed by the display, although good, I also saw better even from the 1990, think of YF-17, F-15 or other A-Cs, not mentioning Yves Kerherve at Farborough who passed two high AoA 360* after a vertical climb straight of the runway, I know it, I was there, only since the media boycotted everything Dassault (E-F consortium obliges) there is no evidences of the display anywhere on the net.

    As for the archives I am looking for other that concerning Rafale, they also were deleted from the net, Flight International changed their website so all the information on F-35 redesign and new structural limits are rather hard to find, but I did read the articles, and they are stored in one of my failed high--capacity HD, I guess data recovery should be in order but I have other priorities than digging those for the stake of debating in forums.

    This is not the only website which have been changed, that of NASA/DRYDEN as well, so all the test flight of the A-Cs of the time, up to YF-22 are no longer available, of course I have them stored in the same HD.

    btw, all of this doesn't mean I am not capable of objective critics toward Rafale, originally, its conceptor (Marcel Dassault who supervised its conception) wanted 2 X 80kN thrust and for some reason, SNECMA was allowed to drag their feet in terms of development for such of version of M88, in particular because AdlA/M.N wanted to keep the SFC/range of the A-C.

    I still think the Rafale installed thrust is in the low side and that they can't keep it that way for much longer, eventually, they will have to give it an extra 5 kN thrust per engine, especially if its weight grows with the event of new systems.

    That's one point where F-35 is superior.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 23rd February 2019, 16:28.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shania
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

    Pass the false definition of PSM, what would be the reasons for this 7.0G limit according to you?
    Its well known fact.
    Until 3F software, all previous version have limited envelope. Paris airshow was done with 3i limited to 7G.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Get some rest, will you? Thanks in advance.

    And b/w every material posted by you had been already and were discussed extensively before. You'll easily find some good stuff on the web if you want the prevailing opinion today on the subject*... AoA doesn't refer to the degree of happiness of Rafale's Fan boys.
    Mate, I do not need to "find some stuff" to know my basics, some of us have a proper education on the subject which is sadly lacking IMO, and it's not about Rafale max reached AoA, it's about what it was used for as opposed to what F-35 tests were meant to demonstrate: That would be PSM vs Spin tests for you (talk about fanboyism, too too funny).

    My comments are clear, I stick to: Industry standards, that of Dryden or Edward AFB procedure for flight testing when it comes to US A-Cs, ONERA/ and French flight test Centres for the French, and certainly don't need the "prevailing opinion" from guys who can't figure out what those standards are in the fist place.

    I demonstrate the difference between two very distinctive things: Departure + Spin tests, and PSM, which is the subject of a pale attempt to blur the difference between the two, that's fanboys territory, flaming and inventing is not going to make this forum better.

    If the results of a reality check doesn't suits you, though, i'm not responsible for people inventing themselves stuff for the purpose of flaming other posters in topics such as this one, come back when L-M says they experimented with PSM instead of trying to pass spin tests for it.


    [*Have a look at the SH flight manual. 50deg operational (50% more than a Rafale).





    Wow, we're oh so impressed, as if mattered the slightest what F-35 operational max AoA is, F-18 does the same btw, eared of it eating Rafale in mock combat lately?

    It doesn't make our specialists and those who tested Rafale PSM capabilities change their conclusion, that it is not viable in actual combat situation, especially in a furball, but obviously this kind of information will not hit a braincell with those for whom only raw, wrongly interpreted data matters, even if they only use it to come to false conclusion or post irrelevant B.S in topics such as this one (high AoA rudder turns PSM now? LOL!).

    You guys should start by basing your opinion on FACTS, starting with Structural loads, and definitions that you only can try to rewrite to format those opinions, some of us knows better.

    So no thanks, only a look at the interpretation written by your bunch is enough to stop taking any of it seriously. YOU, give it a rest.

    Originally posted by Shania View Post
    ]Maybe you should make more research ThincanKiller, this is what I found in just 5minutes... and there are many more...









    Sure, only they advertise capabilities at airshows that they don't demonstrate or even mention/claim in flight testing, if they did, L.-M would lose a lot of credibility with the industry, so they don't.

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...t-nothing.html

    As I said PSM is firmly defined and rudder turns in stall or high AoA doesn't apply for it, it is a capability every single fighter which can get out of a spin possesses, for your info increasing yaw rate is also part of spin testing procedures, not F-35 only territory or else, they would be able to get out of a spin, you might not know it but i do, complete commercial B.S and I reiterate.

    The "paddle turn" (rudder turn) is high AoA, not post-stall, something Kerherve and his Rafale M demonstrated at Farnborough for the purpose of showing the A-C capabilities to operate on Carriers, then they needed to demonstrate high AoA/low speed manoeuvrability, today it is biased toward a dynamic display based on other of the A-C qualities, in line with the AdlA/M.N combat doctrine.

    Learn what PSM are and the meaning of the word maneuvers before melting down when a pilot vault his A-C for commercial purposes.

    One of the sequences of the display sees Flynn fly a pedal turn, designed to demonstrate the post-stall flying qualities of the F-35. Gunn says: I fly a lot of BFM [basic fighter maneuvers} where I try to get slow. I fly mostly with the pedals; the control laws allow the jet to rotate and go where I want it to turn.
    The F-35 at the show is flying with Block 3i software, meaning it is limited to 7g. However, it can fly to above 50 degrees AoA.
    Lockheed Martins chief test pilot Al Norman says the F-35 has tremendous instantaneous pitch rate, adding that in his opinion only the F-22 has superior post-stall performance.







    https://combataircraft.keypublishing...play-in-paris/
    Pass the false definition of PSM, what would be the reasons for this 7.0G limit according to you?

    As for F-22 having superior PSM performances than F-35, it gives away some of the issues encountered during F-35 high AoA tests (see the test pilot comments), mainly flow separation and lack to loss of control compared to a F-22 with TVC which a Rafale can beat with its 29* AoA limits, you guys haven't got it yet, you don't need 50* AoA relaxed FCS to do post-stall maneuvers.

    I don't think the AdlA/M.N doctrine will suffer much from this all out advertising campaign, i'm sure fanboys will be pleased though, as long as they don't realize the difference between what L-M flight test results and Air show displays involves.

    I fly a lot of BFM [basic fighter maneuvers} where I try to get slow. I fly mostly with the pedals
    Rafale test pilots also flew a lot of BFM during the low speed phase of flight testing, so again, what was the state of the A-C at 15kt and how did it turn?
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 23rd February 2019, 15:58.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shania
    replied
    Maybe you should make more research ThincanKiller, this is what I found in just 5minutes... and there are many more...

    https://youtu.be/bpEWCOCC8Xs?t=183

    https://youtu.be/0On-GMTSWvc?t=153


    One of the sequences of the display sees Flynn fly a pedal turn, designed to demonstrate the post-stall flying qualities of the F-35. Gunn says: I fly a lot of BFM [basic fighter maneuvers} where I try to get slow. I fly mostly with the pedals; the control laws allow the jet to rotate and go where I want it to turn.

    The F-35 at the show is flying with Block 3i software, meaning it is limited to 7g. However, it can fly to above 50 degrees AoA.

    Lockheed Martins chief test pilot Al Norman says the F-35 has tremendous instantaneous pitch rate, adding that in his opinion only the F-22 has superior post-stall performance.

    https://combataircraft.keypublishing...play-in-paris/

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    Originally posted by ThinCanKiller
    LOL! The average fanboys wet dream
    Get some rest, will you? Thanks in advance.

    And b/w every material posted by you had been already and were discussed extensively before. You'll easily find some good stuff on the web if you want the prevailing opinion today on the subject*... And, no, AoA doesn't refer to the degree of happiness of Rafale's Fan boys.


    *Have a look at the SH flight manual. 50deg operational (50% more than a Rafale).
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 23rd February 2019, 14:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    LOL! The average fanboys wet dream given on a plate by Lockheed Martin Commercials.

    How easy it is to create a forum legend and pass intentional departure and spin recovery during F-35A high angle of attack testing for PSM, a little video showing just that and the capability of the A-C to recover from a spin is enough for some to rewrite the definition of controlled flight and invent themselves new (naturally unclaimed by L-M) capabilities.


    In the other Lockheed Martin video, the difference is explained in plain English by one of the pilots, Dan Canin (same source, different pile of L.M commercials):





    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.

    So far, we're in high AoA and spin recovery procedures:


    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.






    Otherwise said, all L-M have done are high angle of attack and spin recovery, nothing fancy there, since every fighter goes through such procedure, the difference lies in the amount of control available during the entire phase, to give you an idea, maximum AoA obtained during testing is not necessarily relevant to PSM, even the Jaguar was pushed to 100* AoA during spin testing at Boston-Combe, only it was also spin testing (yaw rotation) NOT exploring PSM capabilities.

    PSN is defined by the word MANEUVER, which implies for an aircraft to retain the full control authority (even if the axis changes as is the case of rudder/ailerons at such regime), so that the pilot will initiate and stop the maneuver, retain control throughout its whole duration, which was the case of the PSM passed by the Gripen (even if it was a spin it was a fully controlled "helicopter turn"; on the yaw axis using aileron input).

    Here, it is pretty clear that not only they do not initiate the stall (the A-C is just parked on its tail, then basically falls out of control as commented by
    Dan Canin, during all this phase, as mentioned by its test pilot, it is basically out of control, only then do they use the little control authority they still have, necessary to recover from a spin and common to most A-Cs, to add to the spin, also common in spin testing.

    The maximum yaw rate they were able to obtain this way was 60*/sec rotation on the yaw axis, Gripen get 30* second higher rotation rate at 90* between 70 to 8-* AoA, this just demonstrates the difference of level of control authority between the two, since they both used aileron input but not the same way, Gripen having previously initiated the dynamic stall with elevators input.

    In one case, the whole maneuver was executed under full control authority, first pitch, to get the A-C at AoA between 70 and 80* when sped was close to zero (think about the 15kt controlled flight of the Rafale mentioned by Rafale flight test team members in their report), triggering a dynamic stall, second, one the A-C "parked" (involving a notion of control to keep it there) at this AoA, aileron input was used to start and stop rotation.

    In the other case (L-M
    Intentional Departure), the pilots did NOT triggered the departure, the A-C just runs our of CL, starts to rotate by itself OUT OF CONTROL as mentioned by Dan Canin, only then do they start to apply control inputs to increase the yaw rotation and stop it, there is NOTHING there that many other A-C haven't been through during high AoA and spin tests, and this certainly do not qualify for PSM.



    >


    Rafale, like all Dassault fighters have been through this phase, and PSM is not part of it, it was the subject of a completely different phase of testing, during high AoA test phase, under the supervision of ONERA which made the digital simulation of the PSM maneuvers, and the flight test teams, conclusion were: Not operationally viable, they also impose FCS limit on the roll axis for the same reasons, something the USA doesn't do, it doesn't stop Rafale pilots eating F-16s for breakfast.



    Other little detail: What is wrongly qualified PSM with F-35, "Paddle" and "Helicopter turns" are not done in post-stall situations by F-35, but high AoA, most probably using the rudder (rudder turn) to obtain the A-C turn rate, Yves Kerherve demonstrated this at the Farnoborough Airshow flying the Rafale M, rudder turns are not F-35-only territory, only them he was demonstrating low speed capabilities for carrier operation.

    Close-coupled canards allow Rafale to maneuver in post-stall regime by increasing maximum lift coefficient (Clmax), making it supermaneuverable (post-stall regime is any angle of attack beyond Clmax;

    Maximum angle of attack that Rafale has reached during testing is 100 degrees, showing extensive post stall maneuvering capabilities). This is a result of canard-wing vortex interaction, with presence of canard eliminating wing vortex breakdown.

    PSM can allow Rafale to trade energy for positional advantage in one-on-one aerial combat (this is not as good idea in flight-on-flight or squadron-on-squadron, let alone larger, encounters).

    They also allow spin recovery and superstall recovery; that is, aircraft with close coupled canards are almost impossible to depart from controlled flight (FCS and mechanical problems notwithstanding).


    Additional advantage of close-coupled canards is that canard root vortexes energize air flow around vertical tail fin, meaning that it remains effective even at high angles of attack (same effect which allows wing control surfaces to remain effective at extreme angles of attack). Reason for this is a constructive interference between vortexes created by canard and those created by LERX, with downwash from canard suppressing flow separation from the wing and canard trailling edge vortex creating low pressure region above main wing surface; this effect is very pronounced in Rafale due to high canard configuration, and region makes a major contribution to lift; in fact, due to vertical separation of canard from wing, vortex lift starts appearing from 4,27 degrees of AoA. Using same effect, Saab Viggen was able to generate 65% greater Clmax at approach than a pure delta wing, achieve much greater trim control than pure tailless delta (such as Mirage) and achieve STOL capability.
    https://defenseissues.net/2013/08/24...fale-analysis/
    COMPARE:
    aircraft with close coupled canards are almost impossible to depart from controlled flight (FCS and mechanical problems notwithstanding).

    to

    "You get the A-C established into that out of control condition".







    NOT clear enough?



    To summarize, you don't need to reach 50* AoA to get into a PSM, since there is no speed limiter (auto-throttle), or to depart out of control (something you certainly don't want in combat) all you need is to get the AC below its stalling speed with pitch input to control your AoA, and there you go, you still will have full control authority, no need for fancy commercial videos there, it's written on it like on a Marmite pot.

    Les essais en Vol du RAFALE

    Patrick CASTAGNOS
    Responsable des essais en vol RAFALE
    Dassault Aviation
    BP 28, 13801 Istres Cedex, France

    Marc TOURTOULON
    Responsable quipe intgre des essais en vol RAFALE
    Centre dEssais en Vol
    13128 Istres Air, France

    During low speed tests (mock combat vs a Mirage 2000 among other things) speed as low as 15kt was practised by one of the pilots, meaning it was Post Stall in controlled flight (unless you believe Rafale is a Chinese kite).

    Since it was done previous to high AoA testing, the FCS with was being fine tuned for those speed at the time was not "twicked" to reach AoA above 30*, so if you ask IF Rafale has PSM maneuver capabilities, the answer is yes, now if you ask a French pilot if he will use this capability in combat, the answer will probably be NO in most situations, they will use the higher transcient performance of the A-C (high CL / Cx), complete 3-axis control at low speed, the capability of the A-C to recover energy quickly (the kind that allows it to beat a F-22 in a drag race) and the characteristic which allows it to reach those speed or high G with lower AoA than most.


    They stick to the conclusion of the PSM flight test and the AdlA/M.N doctrine, if a change was needed, there absolutely no reason, not aerodynamic, not structural not the FCS to prevent any pilot to use PSM, one could even say that it is perfectly possible to relax the FCS to allow it to pass FCS limit; operational 29* AoA, on the other hand, those F-35 tests were designed to fine tune the FCS so that it doesn't DEPART, something a Rafale will not do naturally, and this is also clearly explained on this L-M video.

    We don't need to invent ourselves capabilities by rewriting the industry books, falsely interpret what is written or said by pilots and manufacturers, it's all there documented and available for everyone to see.

    FACT:
    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; control over the at least 2 axis is part of it for those who don't understand how to get out of a spin, you'll need opposite rudder and elevator authority, which is used by all A-Cs to get out of a spin so yaw control and nose pointing capabilities are used by many other A-C during most high AoA and spin tests flights.



    Click image for larger version  Name:	Dopmaine-de-vol.jpg Views:	0 Size:	188.5 KB ID:	3852610



    End of topic and of the fanboys wet dream.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 23rd February 2019, 14:22.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller"
    LOL! Test flight report mentions controlled flight at speed as low as 15kt, I guess Rafale must have a hell of a CL to stay airborne at this speed without being PS no? btw this was BEFORE the high AoA test phase with a non relaxed FCS.
    Actually what they said exactly was " a low speed of 15kt was reached in mock combat against agressive Mirage pilot", there was no details on how that speed was reaches or for how long. A pitching cobra like maneuver can easily reduce the speed significantly momentary




    Originally posted by ThincanKiller
    Now, you are the one denying what their designers and pilots say, L-M clearly never made this claim for the reasons I explained, they never did PSM, but demonstrated spin recovery and the level of control involved to do that, the fact that you managed to post tons of unrelated (to PSM) material doesn't change this fact, so the one with the problem is yourself, stop trying to make it ours, none of us care your opinion, here is why.

    Let's resume:

    You don't accept industry standards, try to redefine the meaning of the words written or said by professional aerodynamicists and pilots, claim capabilities even pilots and manufacturers doesn't for both F-16 and F-35, (where do they mention PSM capabilities, I posted two links mentioning them for both Rafale and Gripen you came up with none?), can't figure out what Structural load does, not to mention what maneuver means when it comes to distinguishing between PSM, intentional departure and the level of control authority needed to get out of dodge, that if you can't retain a certain level of control after a stall you won't be able to get out of it but that PSM is yet another level up and involves a FULL level of control during the whole duration of the maneuver (or else, the only maneuver there is the recovery, still not PSM, something they never demonstrated), you don't pick up on the out of control or vortex breakdown comments of F-35 pilots as if meant nothing, chose to ignore what it does when it comes to the A-C flight envelop limitation, take FCS for Jesus himself, the full monty. Poor guy.

    I didn't fail to demonstrate that you were wrong in all accounts and that both Gripen and Rafale were designed with PSM and hypermaneuvrability in mind through two different articles, you, on the other hand, still have to show us anything else than high AoA and spins testing with just enough control authority for recovery, and that, with a full 30*/sec lower yaw rotation rate than Gripen during its demonstrated PSM, something of a little detail you also fail to pick up on, since the words controled and flight means nothing to you, but eh, keep deluding yourself and entertain this paranoia of yours about this Picard guy, he must have had an easy time owing you considering your abysmal knowledge base.

    I guess Star Trek online should suits you better than debating subjects way above your head because all you've been doing so far was trolling, out of argument, take on the poster: Sorry but i'm not used to this level of mediocrity.

    Bye, you've been deleted, enjoy the video, but I doubt that you will understand what is going on.

    To be fair i am quite impressived with how you can fabricate a story completely opposite from what happened. Unfortunately for you, everyone can read, and anyone who had followed this discussion will know that you are repeatedly proven wrong
    1- you claimed no US fighter had been tested anywhere close to 100 degrees AoA=> turn out F-35 had been tested to 110 deg, same for F-22 , even F-14, F-15, F-16 all had been push to 90-100 degrees AoA in their test
    2-you claimed that F-35 rivets will all fly out long before the pilot pull 10G=> turn out ,it had been flown to 9.9G
    3-you claimed operational G load is directly proportional to ultimate structure limit, sustained or instantaneous aren't important => turn out, it clearly isn't , i showed you and example that F-16 with higher ultimate structure limit can have lower sustained G limit than F-15 and also the fact that fighter can't sustain anywhere near 9G when they fly at 10.000 feet or higher. As a bonus, i showed you that pulling higher G doesn't neccesary translate to a higher turn rate unless both turn are performed at the same velocity, but you choose to ignore that.
    4-you claimed F-16 pilot just let go off the stick and the aircraft will recover => turn out he recover from the spin by rudder input
    5-you claimed F-35 KPP specs change is the evident that its structure get weakened => turn out you were hilariously wrong, the Sustain G spec at that altitude is no where even near 9G
    6- You claimed Gripen test is a post stall manuever test while F-16 test was a spin departure test=> turn out, they are both spin recovery test, it is even mentioned in the test report how the anti spin logic and the recovery control law of Gripen operate, there is not even a single word in the test report mentioning that the spin departure can be used in combat.
    7- You brag about how Gripen spin rate can reach 60 degrees/seconds spin rate in its spin departure-recovery test => turn out, it is quite usual thing, F-16 yaw rate even reach 120 degrees/second in yaw departure test.
    8-You keep claim that F-35 can't perform any post stall maneuver and it was only tested for spin departure recovery=> turn out, not only i can post multiple video of F-35 perform post stall maneuver in a fully controlled manner, but also the comment of pilots talking about how he used the pedal turn in dogfight exercise.
    further more, in this video:
    from 0:00- 0:56
    The pilot said very clearly: once past the stall point, F-35 can still pitch its nose up and down, and yaw its nose side to side, maneuver toward the adversary. He even said it is maneuver enhancing capability , but the troll keep insist F-35 can't perform any PSM


    By contrast, there is zero video of Rafale or Gripen perform post stall maneuver in airshow. Especially in the case of Gripen, there is no Gripen pilot mentioned he how used its post stall maneuver capability in combat, in the whole test report of Gripen, there is not a single word about post stall maneuver, the whole report is about how the flight control system recover Gripen to normal flight path if Pilot accidently excess 26 degrees AoA.
    9- You claimed Gripen has extremely good high AoA nose control that why it is not limited to 26 AoA like F-16 => turn out, the flight control test report also show Gripen limited to AoA of 26 deg
    Last edited by garryA; 23rd February 2019, 07:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by Olrik View Post

    Hmm... not exactly my point, but sticking to aviation topics without flaming afterburners works for me too!
    That's the whole point.

    Bring good info, share it.

    when I can watch a HUD video, I always am very careful to read the parameters, very interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Olrik
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

    The dogfight video demonstrates several aspects of the A-C aerodynamics and FCS.
    ...
    Hmm... not exactly my point, but sticking to aviation topics without flaming afterburners works for me too!

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by Olrik View Post
    The dogfight video is a fitting metaphor, good effort from both sides, now lets shake hands and move on.
    The dogfight video demonstrates several aspects of the A-C aerodynamics and FCS.

    First it will roll at 80 kt, and this is not exceptional for a Rafafle, just recorded in this instance, second it also shows like most Rafale videos, how little AoA the A-C needs to pull Gs or at low speed, otherwise said, one of the aspects of it being impossible to put into a super stall because of its aerodynamic layout and optimisation of its vortex lift, and one reason its AoA is not relaxed like F-18/F-35, it doesn't need to.

    The whole topic is clearly detailed by
    U. Clarus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace and the article from Defense issue.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 22nd February 2019, 23:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • Olrik
    replied
    The dogfight video is a fitting metaphor, good effort from both sides, now let’s shake hands and move on.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by panzerfeist1 View Post
    Jesus christ enough of this **** already at any rate this thread is going to get deleted because some sperglords will ruin it for the majority here that do not give a **** anymore.
    I am not going to reply to him anymore, there is no point, on the other hand, I managed to find some rather rare documentation or links that I posted for the purpose of information of one of the topic subject for those interrested.

    Canard-delta characteristics and PSM capabilities.
    https://defenseissues.net/2013/08/24...fale-analysis/



    Aerodynamic highlights of a fourth
    generation delta canard fighter aircraft
    U. Clarus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace
    link to the PDF
    https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...act=mrc&uact=8



    Les essais en Vol du RAFALE

    Patrick CASTAGNOS
    Responsable des essais en vol RAFALE
    Dassault Aviation
    BP 28, 13801 Istres Cedex, France

    Marc TOURTOULON
    Responsable quipe intgre des essais en vol RAFALE
    Centre dEssais en Vol
    13128 Istres Air, France
    link to the PDF
    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...RHvKTVP-AtX_9B

    Leave a comment:


  • panzerfeist1
    replied
    Jesus christ enough of this **** already at any rate this thread is going to get deleted because some sperglords will ruin it for the majority here that do not give a **** anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post

    Not all A-C are built with the same aerodynamic qualities and i have no problem with that. But you clearly have problem with the fact that Rafale, Gripen don't have combat post stall capability
    LOL! Test flight report mentions controlled flight at speed as low as 15kt, I guess Rafale must have a hell of a CL to stay airborne at this speed without being PS no? btw this was BEFORE the high AoA test phase with a non relaxed FCS.

    Now, you are the one denying what their designers and pilots say, L-M clearly never made this claim for the reasons I explained, they never did PSM, but demonstrated spin recovery and the level of control involved to do that, the fact that you managed to post tons of unrelated (to PSM) material doesn't change this fact, so the one with the problem is yourself, stop trying to make it ours, none of us care your opinion, here is why.

    Let's resume:

    You don't accept industry standards, try to redefine the meaning of the words written or said by professional aerodynamicists and pilots, claim capabilities even pilots and manufacturers doesn't for both F-16 and F-35, (where do they mention PSM capabilities, I posted two links mentioning them for both Rafale and Gripen you came up with none?), can't figure out what Structural load does, not to mention what maneuver means when it comes to distinguishing between PSM, intentional departure and the level of control authority needed to get out of dodge, that if you can't retain a certain level of control after a stall you won't be able to get out of it but that PSM is yet another level up and involves a FULL level of control during the whole duration of the maneuver (or else, the only maneuver there is the recovery, still not PSM, something they never demonstrated), you don't pick up on the out of control or vortex breakdown comments of F-35 pilots as if meant nothing, chose to ignore what it does when it comes to the A-C flight envelop limitation, take FCS for Jesus himself, the full monty. Poor guy.

    I didn't fail to demonstrate that you were wrong in all accounts and that both Gripen and Rafale were designed with PSM and hypermaneuvrability in mind through two different articles, you, on the other hand, still have to show us anything else than high AoA and spins testing with just enough control authority for recovery, and that, with a full 30*/sec lower yaw rotation rate than Gripen during its demonstrated PSM, something of a little detail you also fail to pick up on, since the words controled and flight means nothing to you, but eh, keep deluding yourself and entertain this paranoia of yours about this Picard guy, he must have had an easy time owing you considering your abysmal knowledge base.

    I guess Star Trek online should suits you better than debating subjects way above your head because all you've been doing so far was trolling, out of argument, take on the poster: Sorry but i'm not used to this level of mediocrity.

    Bye, you've been deleted, enjoy the video, but I doubt that you will understand what is going on.

    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 22nd February 2019, 22:41.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    I bet you never stalled an A-C, or passed a vertical reversal, I did, it is a bit different, just to say
    No you didn't, stop with your lie, you are not impress anyone


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    what I am sure of is that they do NOT mention PSM anywhere...
    Then what is this:

    and this

    and the pedal turn that pilot talk about?




    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    It will, depending on how much they lowered its Ultimate Structural Load limit to shred weight, there again you ignore reality and try to make up that they are all equals, that's hilarious, L-M have lowered ALL of F-35 variants Ultimate Structural Load limits to meet their weight targets, testing the 9.0G version at 9.9G is the maximum it will probably take, or else they would have pushed it a bit higher.
    You haven't provide single piece of evidence to show that weight reduction effort will affect F-35 Ultimate G limit, let alone affect it significantly
    As to maximum limit the aircraft can take, if the maximum an aircraft can take is 9.9G, they won't fly it up to that, because a slight mistake and they can lose hundred millions USD and the pilot can die. If they can fly it up to 9.9G then it means the ultimate limit is much higher than that





    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    You seems to suffer from a strange obsession for the material coming out of this part of human anatomy, so let's be clear: I do NOT CARE what you delude your self in to thinking I comprehend or NOT, the FACT remains, you cannot go OVER a structural G load without consequences and FCS are there to prevent this to happen
    and as a matter of fact, the ultimate structure G limit will be much higher than the operation G -limit, that is clearly demonstrated when multiple aircraft excess their G limit they don't break instantly


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    furthermore, I reiterate, be it instantaneous or sustained they are part of the turn rates equation, I don't know where you figured A-C were all built the same or with Klingon material but you live in coucouland, not reality.
    if you look at an E-M chart,the higher you fly, he harder it is to generate enough lift for high G, to the point that pulling high G is not beneficial anymore because your turn rate will be lower since you have to go too fast
    Especially considering that sustained G of aircraft can't even reach 9G when they fly above 10.000 feet.
    Aircraft certainly aren't made with indestructible material, but neither are the pilot flew them.



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

    Let me guess you can't figure what Ultimate Structural Load does to an Airframe, what G load is, what PSM, spin or Intentional Departure are.
    I do, that why i was able to educate you just now


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Back to your library you have MUCH work to you, because so far, all you demonstrated is a taste for false interpretation, flooding the topic with material you don't fully comprehend doesn't make your case.
    Said the guy who was proven wrong repeatedly


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    I'll reiterate for the benefit of the debate:Close-coupled canards allow Rafale to maneuver in post-stall regime by increasing maximum lift coefficient (Clmax), making it supermaneuverable (post-stall regime is any angle of attack beyond Clmax;
    Post stall are maneuver done where the wing already stall, aka already pass the CLmax point




    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

    2)Maximum angle of attack that Rafale has reached during testing is 100 degrees, showing extensive post stall maneuvering capabilities)

    Personal quote: THIS was done under the supervision of ONERA after digital simulation in order to explore the validity of PSM in combat situation
    Reaching high AoA doesnot mean Rafale or Gripen have high level of control for post stall maneuver
    F-14, F-15, F-16 were all pushed to extremely high AoA in test, between 90-100 degrees, yet none of them have the nose authority of F-35 or F-18 at low speed


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    3) This is a result of canard-wing vortex interaction, with presence of canard eliminating wing vortex breakdown
    Personal quote: F-35 high AoA testing demonstrated just that, Wing vortex breakdown, so you can be sure that even if its FCS allows for higher AoA, the problem is still there, whether it is fully PSM capable remains to be seen, on other A-Cs, you need TVC, Rafale Chief test pilot said after the high AoA tests "WE DON'T NEED TVC". This should be clear enough for an aerodynamic anorak like you no?
    and yet, F-35 can perform post stall maneuver such as the helicopter turn both in dogfight exercise and in airshow, something neither Rafale or Gripen was able to do, some like actual LM engineers know more than you


    If you had any credibility left, you destroyed it by citing Picard


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Now enough of this laughable generalisation syndrome, not all A-Cs are designed with the same aerodynamic qualities and even less with the same structural standards, you having a problem with this aspect of reality doesn't change
    Not all A-C are built with the same aerodynamic qualities and i have no problem with that. But you clearly have problem with the fact that Rafale, Gripen don't have combat post stall capability

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X