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

  • 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:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Considering that you still make disneylandish claims about airframes and FCS surely not, I would advise you again to go back to basics and learn a tad more before posting tons of stuff you haven't taken on board yet.
    Let have a quick recap:
    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
    4-you claimed F-16 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
    ..etc
    It is quite funny how you like to make smug remark even though you are repeatedly proven wrong and almost everything you said get debunked


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Looks like you were wrong again: AIRCRAFT LOADS
    Dr. M. Neubauer, G. Guinther DaimlerChrysler Aerospace GmbH Military Aircraft, MT22, Postfach 80 11 60 81663 Munich, Germany.
    To summarize, at lower speed you are unlikely to over-stress the air frame by pulling too many Gs, the higher the speed, the more important the Load factor becomes, and NO if your FCS is working properly it will prevent you to pull higher number of Gs than your structural Load limit throughout the whole of the flight envelop.
    You don't understand what does load factor represent or why they are a limit at higher velocity
    Lift = 0.5*reference wing area*air density*lift coefficient*(velocity)^2
    G that aircraft can pull =Lift/aircraft weight
    In other word, the faster you fly, the more lift you will generate, and if you generate more lift, you can pull more G. At low speed you don't have enough lift to reach the Operational G -limit value, so that why structure G-limit doesn't matter there. It is the same case when you are at high altitude, because the air density is low, and your aircraft will struggle to generate enough lift to turn, let alone excess the G-limit. It is even worst for Sustained G value since engine thrust will also be reduced at high altitude, and lower air density mean aircraft need to fly faster to pull the same amount of G, but flying faster mean the drag is exponentially higher and hence, the turn is even harder to sustain if it wasn't already hard enough
    The same reason that make your claim about how "F-35 sustained specs change is the evidence that its structure G limit was reduced" rather laughable, at 15k feet,mach 0.8, F-35's sustain G limit is no where even near its ultimate G-limit, this should be super obvious to you if you had seen any fighter performer chart, 10k feet and up, their sustain G-limit can't even reach 9G, never mind excess it
    Click image for larger version  Name:	1.PNG Views:	0 Size:	555.4 KB ID:	3852533


    and i bet you don't know this either:
    higher G pulled doesn't necessary mean higher turn rate unless they are performed at the same velocity:
    Click image for larger version  Name:	g.PNG Views:	0 Size:	117.6 KB ID:	3852532

    Fyi, the ultimate structure G limit far excess the operational G limit, so sure FCS won't let you excess the ultimate structure limit

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    I was at Franborough when Kerherve pulled his high AoA turns after take off and I guaranty you that he could point his nose this way faster than the SU could achieve his Cobra maneuver, also I timed X-31 once and compared the turn rate with that of the Gripen in its (REAL) Helicopter turn, with 80* AoA and it was superior to that of X-31 with TVC.
    Alright,so you witness all of that, but for some reason don't have a single video of the incident and you can't find any video of that on the internet either. Yeah, seem legit.






    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Nope, again you mistake PSM with spin and spin recovery, it was not 100* AoA but 80* AoA for a good reason, (a TRUE "Helicopter" maneuver is done around this angle using ailerons deflection to rotate the airframe):
    Gripen was put into a near vertical climb at good speed then stalled dynamically when sped was low (or else you can't have the precise 70/80* AoA), maintained at 80* AoA, which is a controlled departure and NOT a simple "Intentional Departure", (you still can't figure the difference between the two), then aileron inputs were used to initiate and stop rotation on the YAW axis. What we can call a PSM and what we can NOT.
    In the case of Gripen PSM spin:
    1) They chose the angle of attack and airspeed by stalling it dynamically.
    2) Once they controlled the A-C attitude and kept it there (parking at AoA between 70 and 80*).

    3) They trigger the rotation in the yaw axis with aileron input.
    4) They stop the rotation by applying opposite aileron input
    You are such a troll
    They literally call their system HIGH AOA RECOVERY CONTROL LAW
    you know pitch dampening, anti spin logic
    Click image for larger version  Name:	10.PNG Views:	0 Size:	194.6 KB ID:	3852535
    Click image for larger version  Name:	Capture.PNG Views:	0 Size:	638.7 KB ID:	3852534


    The test Gripen gone through is literally the same as what F-16 gone through,both are yaw departure test to see how the aircraft can get out of a spin, even the way they got out of the spin are extremely similar
    Click image for larger version  Name:	departured.PNG Views:	0 Size:	178.0 KB ID:	3852536







    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Anyone with good ears can figure that L-M high AoA and spin tests departures are not controlled, they say it themselves
    Quote ONE pilot.
    First we had the basic control ability 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, (by stalling it passively).
    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 (I guess with aileron input).
    So at which point exactly can you call it a maneuver under full control since the A-C basically does what it wants and you let it until it is established in the spin?
    Nothing to do with what SAAB did which was basically to chose which AoA, what speed (since they stall it at a given speed) which implies full control of the maneuver, with enough pitch authority at low speed to create 70 to 80* AoA, so if one maneuver IS a maneuver with full control (AoA, speed), the other one is only as departure where the A-C get into the spin by itself.
    You misunderstood post stall maneuver and spin recovery big time:
    There are two separate thing which sound very similar but not the same:
    1-The pedal/helicopter turn which F-35 used in airshow and also against F-16/F-15 in dogfight practice, in this case the aircraft can be yaw around its vertical axis extremely accurate, hence, it can be used for combat, the yaw rate is around 28 degrees/second. This is what aircraft with high level of control at extreme AoA can perform
    Click image for larger version  Name:	pedal turn.PNG Views:	0 Size:	43.9 KB ID:	3852537

    https://www.realcleardefense.com/art..._109673-7.html
    You can see the level of accuracy of the pedal turn in earlier airshow video in this thread, it is not in any shape or form resemble a departure spin


    2-The yaw departure/ spin recovery test, this is what most fighters have to go through, including F-15, F-16, F-35, Gripen, Rafale..etc. The aircraft is intentionally put in a spin, this spin has very high yaw rate: can be any where from 60-120 degrees/second, then the aircraft FCS will recover the aircraft from the spin by rudder/ailerons/flaps input, depend on the kind of aircraft
    Click image for larger version  Name:	spin.PNG Views:	0 Size:	43.5 KB ID:	3852538
    Click image for larger version  Name:	jas-39.PNG Views:	0 Size:	325.4 KB ID:	3852539



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Look at the F-35 video and see how they initiate those spins, obviously a true helicopter turn is a spin, only fully controlled, F-35 departs from the vertical when speed is ZERO, at this point there is NO control whatsoever.
    So this F-35 stop yaw by coincidence?




    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    In the high AOA and spin tests that has taken place since 1996 and recently concluded successfully, the normal tactic was to 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, and the aircraft could then be parked at 70 to 80 degrees of alpha.
    When giving adverse aileron input there, a flat spin with up to a maximum of 90 degrees per second of yaw rotation started and could then be stopped by pro aileron input. Recovery followed, whenever commanded.
    This is what PSM is, not a pseudo/ false "helicopter turn" at high AoA which his in fact a turn NOT a rotation on the Yaw axis as what an "helicopter turn" should be with full all-axis control throughout the whole of the phase, or a spin departure with no increased AoA to trigger it, apparently despite posting half your library you still haven't got the difference between the two.
    Now; 90* per second means 4 sec for 360*, I invite you to compare to the X-31 figure, for the time being here is the
    If I were you i'd save and archive it because it is a rare document
    Firstly, F-35 helicopter turn is a post stall maneuver, because it is a rotation around its yaw axis, which can be see quite clearly in my earlier video
    Secondly, if i was you would learn what is a spin test first, any aircraft can be put in a spin with very high spin rate, for example, this F-16 yaw rate was 120 degrees/second in the departures test, and it can recover from that too



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Nope, allowing a departure into a spin by stalling passively does NOT qualify as PSM simply because you do not have full control of the A-C on all axis throughout the whole "maneuver "
    and yet you think Gripentests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA is a PSM? it is a departure test. period.


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    any A-C can actually be put into a spin and recover with proper control input, this "me too" complexion is reaching new levels, this is not as you said "exactly" what F-16 and F-35 were doing.
    It isn't a complexion, it is fact.

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    WHERE did you read PSM anywhere in your documentation please? It never is mentioned, if F-35 had tested PSM we all would know by now, not the case, it's only spin tests and high AoA.
    It literally mentioned by the pilot how the F-35 use the pedal turn in dogfight practice with F-15 and F-16, a departure spin is not accurate enough to use in combat, and not safe enough to use in air show, hence, we don't see Gripen perform post stall maneuver either in exercise or airshows

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Again watch the video as see HOW they triggered those spins, nothing to do with SAAB PSM even if they both spin on the yaw axis, they left the A-C drop from a near nose up, vertical attitude, they didn't stall it with sudden increase of AoA, there is a full phase during which they didn't have control of the A-C, it was down to gravity, not a dynamic stall even a low speed, that's what is different (dynamic stall and AoA) and why they won't call it a PSM.
    1- as mentioned earlier, the pedal turn F-35 performed is not the same as the same as the spin it done in recovery test. I have post multiple video of F-35 perform pedal turn right after a pull and that has nothing to do with intentional departure
    2- The test of Gripen spin recovery is exactly the same as F-35 spin recovery test. Neither are PSM
    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
    They HAVE the right level of control authority, on the other hand F-16 doesn't, reason why DRYDEN limited it to 25* AoA to prevent superstall, looks like you don't know much about it either
    Guess what is the AoA limit of Gripen?
    Click image for larger version  Name:	gripen aoa.PNG Views:	0 Size:	49.2 KB ID:	3852540





    Last edited by garryA; 23rd February 2019, 10:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    @ garryA, about your last pic.. all the opposing aircraft has to do is extend in a high yoyo manoeuver and close in for a gun kill from above... the X-31A falling like a leaf would just be a nice target in such a scenario.. looks nice on paper, but you need an opponent that coooperates with you to get such a kill
    Precisely what all those who worked on this subject at the Rafale team (and probably SAAB) concluded, in fact, energy management and transient performances are always preferable in those situations, the case where you will be able to have an opponent overshoot to get a kill on him while fighting vs a good pilots is much less likely than him achieving a high yo-yo to counter your low speed maneuvers, exactly what the F-16 pilots would do (among many other) vs one S-U or any other A-C venturing in this area of their flight envelop.

    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 22nd February 2019, 13:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • eagle1
    replied
    http://www.air-cosmos.com/aeroindia-...-rafale-120699

    Interesting piece of information regarding Thalios :

    1) with the standard F4 Thalios LDP will be coupled with the future HMS (they will be linked together).
    2) Thalios LDP will use AI to help ID targets.


    There will be a functionnality with a 3D map to get a better understanding of tactical situation. The pilot could for instance see on the 3D map where Thalios is pointing its laser.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    Do you think you can divert the attention away from your claim earlier?


    Considering that you still make disneylandish claims about airframes and FCS surely not, I would advise you again to go back to basics and learn a tad more before posting tons of stuff you haven't taken on board yet.

    Design masses are defined for different flight conditions to cover the whole mass and center of gravity (C.G.) range, i.e.: -basic flight design mass -landing design mass -maximum take off mass.

    Total mass and mass distribution not only affect loads on wing as is sometimes believed but loads on most parts of the aircraft's structure.

    Design mass is one of the most important criteria for structural design. For example the basic flight design mass is coupled to the max/min allowed vertical load factor Nz, for increased masses through the rule: Nz.Weight const. to avoid overloads or assessing the effects of over-g's.

    >

    V-n Diagrams define the regime of speeds in combination with max/min allowable load factor Nz including gust conditions, see Fig. 1.2.1-1.

    For low speed regimes the attainable limit Nz depends on the maximum lift and dynamic pressure for the wing whereas for higher speed Nz is limited by the structural strength of the aircraft.


    Looks like you were wrong again: AIRCRAFT LOADS
    Dr. M. Neubauer, G. Guinther DaimlerChrysler Aerospace GmbH Military Aircraft, MT22, Postfach 80 11 60 81663 Munich, Germany.


    To summarize, at lower speed you are unlikely to over-stress the airframe by pulling too many Gs, the higher the speed, the more important the Load factor becomes, and NO if your FCS is working properly it will prevent you to pull higher number of Gs than your structural Load limit throughout the whole of the flight envelop.





    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    so Russian engineer didn't know anything when they put TVC on Su-30 , SU-35 and Su-57 ?
    Besides, flying slow at high AoA is not a thing out of ordinary.


    I was at Franborough when Kerherve pulled his high AoA turns after take off and I guaranty you that he could point his nose this way faster than the SU could achieve his Cobra maneuver, also I timed X-31 once and compared the turn rate with that of the Gripen in its (REAL) Helicopter turn, with 80* AoA and it was superior to that of X-31 with TVC.



    Then a US F-16 pilot commented on it that it made a good, slow and near-stationary target of itself, there is one reason why AdlA and M.N doesn't favour much PSM, they tested them in operational condition.




    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    You are so full of ****
    For the so called 100 degrees AoA test, Gripen was put into a spin an see how it recover with flight control system

    Nope, again you mistake PSM with spin and spin recovery, it was not 100* AoA but 80* AoA for a good reason, (a TRUE "Helicopter" maneuver is done around this angle using ailerons deflection to rotate the airframe):
    Gripen was put into a near vertical climb at good speed then stalled dynamically when sped was low (or else you can't have the precise 70/80* AoA), maintained at 80* AoA, which is a controlled departure and NOT a simple "Intentional Departure", (you still can't figure the difference between the two), then aileron inputs were used to initiate and stop rotation on the YAW axis.
    What we can call a PSM and what we can NOT.
    In the case of Gripen PSM spin:
    1) They chose the angle of attack and airspeed by stalling it dynamically.
    2) Once they controlled the A-C attitude and kept it there (parking at AoA between 70 and 80*).

    3) They trigger the rotation in the yaw axis with aileron input.
    4) They stop the rotation by applying opposite aileron input.


    Anyone with good ears can figure that L-M high AoA and spin tests departures are not controlled, they say it themselves:
    Quote ONE pilot.



    There are several different phonomenas 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 control ability 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, (by stalling it passively).



    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 (I guess with aileron input).
    So at which point exactly can you call it a maneuver under full control since the A-C basically does what it wants and you let it until it is established in the spin?
    Nothing to do with what SAAB did which was basically to chose which AoA, what speed (since they stall it at a given speed) which implies full control of the maneuver, with enough pitch authority at low speed to create 70 to 80* AoA, so if one maneuver IS a maneuver with full control (AoA, speed), the other one is only as departure where the A-C get into the spin by itself.



    Look at the F-35 video and see how they initiate those spins, obviously a true helicopter turn is a spin, only fully controlled, F-35 departs from the vertical when speed is ZERO, at this point there is NO control whatsoever.



    In the high AOA and spin tests that has taken place since 1996 and recently concluded successfully, the normal tactic was to 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, and the aircraft could then be parked at 70 to 80 degrees of alpha.

    When giving adverse aileron input there, a flat spin with up to a maximum of 90 degrees per second of yaw rotation started and could then be stopped by pro aileron input. Recovery followed, whenever commanded.
    This is what PSM is, not a pseudo/ false "helicopter turn" at high AoA which his in fact a turn NOT a rotation on the Yaw axis as what an "helicopter turn" should be with full all-axis control throughout the whole of the phase, or a spin departure with no increased AoA to trigger it, apparently despite posting half your library you still haven't got the difference between the two.

    Now; 90* per second means 4 sec for 360*, I invite you to compare to the X-31 figure, for the time being here is the /SAAB PDF: Aerodynamic highlights of a fourth generation delta canard fighter aircraft
    U. Clarus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace.

    https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...act=mrc&uact=8

    If I were you i'd save and archive it because it is a rare document,



    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    inputs, exactly what happened in F-16 and F-35 spin test, they all initiate a yaw movement with ailerons/rudder inputs and stop them the very same way,
    Nope, allowing a departure into a spin by stalling passively does NOT qualify as PSM simply because you do not have full control of the A-C on all axis throughout the whole "maneuver " (mention of F-35 vortex breakdown at high AoA is also a dead give away too) and any A-C can actually be put into a spin and recover with proper control input, this "me too" complexion is reaching new levels, this is not as you said "exactly" what F-16 and F-35 were doing.

    WHERE did you read PSM anywhere in your documentation please? It never is mentioned, if F-35 had tested PSM we all would know by now, not the case, it's only spin tests and high AoA.

    Again watch the video as see HOW they triggered those spins, nothing to do with SAAB PSM even if they both spin on the yaw axis, they left the A-C drop from a near nose up, vertical attitude, they didn't stall it with sudden increase of AoA, there is a full phase during which they didn't have control of the A-C, it was down to gravity, not a dynamic stall even a low speed, that's what is different (dynamic stall and AoA) and why they won't call it a PSM.


    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    but that doesn't mean they all have the same level of nose pointing authority, just because your aircraft can recover from a spin at high AoA doesn't mean the same aircraft will have usable control authority for post stall maneuver in combat, because able to recover or roll at high AoA is not enough, your yaw maneuver at high AoA need to be accurate. That why Gripen was designed to return to normal flight when pilot go to high angle of attack

    They HAVE the right level of control authority, on the other hand F-16 doesn't, reason why DRYDEN limited it to 25* AoA to prevent superstall, looks like you don't know much about it either, as for F-35 until they tried different and demonstrated hat they can control the AoA when they stall the A-C, I can't tell but vortex breakdown at high AoA strongly suggest lower roll control authority.






    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    And for your information, in F-16 spin test, the pilot didn't just let his hand go off the stick and wait for the aircraft to recover by itself.
    I watch this video long ago, departure in the transonic region with assymetric load you eared of it? I bet you never stalled an A-C, or passed a vertical reversal, I did, it is a bit different, just to say, so I don't know why you posted this material it doesn't make your points at all, the only thing I ignored was the 110* AoA reached by F-35, what I am sure of is that they do NOT mention PSM anywhere...


    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    It really much does, especially with your comment that somehow Eurofighter and F-35 will l be popping rivets and breaking bits long before they reach 10G-11G, yet F-35 had been flown to 9.9G, 0.1G is such a long way heh?

    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.


    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    Mind telling us where you pull this from? your behind?
    or you cannot comprehend the difference between Ultimate structure limit and sustain G limit at Mach 0.8 15k feet? seem like you should least learn the minimum so as not clutter the topic with terms you didn't understand in the first place


    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, 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.







    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    Let me guess, you don't know what is a pedal turn
    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.

    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.

    Now, we do not have much in terms of material concerning the Rafale and Gripen High AoA flight testing, much of the original material was taken off the SAAB and other web sites where they could be find but I posted a link where most of it is explained in plain English, as for what you posted you have an issue with what is written in it.


    I'll reiterate for the benefit of the debate:


    1) 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;



    TVC is not required for post-stall maneuvers, as even aircraft such as F-18 can achieve angles of attack beyond Clmax.
    Personal quote: This doesn't mean F-18 is PSM capable, it means F-18 can achieve angles of attack beyond Clmax which is the AoA required to do so.






    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.



    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?




    4) 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).

    Personal quote: Similar conclusion to that of AdlA/M.N/ONERA/Flight Test Centre pilots, if you can do without PSM you're better off because energy management is always better, your pal TooCool_12f didn't miss this bit.




    5) 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 machanical problems notwithstanding).

    Which is what I was saying, during ALL the testing they've done, they never managed to put this A-C into a superstall, they said it themselves, this is reported in this webpage as well.


    > The rest I already detailed, and there are some of those details missing in this article, like the exact nature of the canard vortexes, Root, and Canard tip vortexes are thee main vortexes, and it is the canard tip vortex which allows for roll axis authority at extreme AoA, in addition with energising the airflow above part of the wing where other A-C sees vortex breakdown, this guaranty Rafale will always be more manoeuvrable on this axis than non close-coupled canards for the same AoA, including F-22, the closest to it aerodynamically despite the absence of canard (LEX + wing plan).

    Note that this conclusion is exactly that reached by SAAB Gripen designer and again you got its PSM completely wrong.

    https://defenseissues.net/2013/08/24...fale-analysis/

    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 it, I know damned well what vortex breakdown means when it comes to control authority, so there is no point arguing against aerodynamicists who demonstrated this.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 22nd February 2019, 15:21.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Helicopter turn who are you kidding?
    If you look at the video and compare to the picture I posted you'll figure the turn radius is not only similar, the A-C attitude as well, they both end up nose down when they are close to finish their 360*, this is not a X-31.
    Nope, not the same, if the Rafale actually spin in the horizontal, then you should be able to get a video of it, in your photo, the rafale only pull down after the turn



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Nope not only you totally FAIL to comprehend what designed Ultimate Structural Load limits are but you also ignore the operational load limits imposed by their FCS to prevent them to reach those limits, enough with the forum legends and Teletubbies B.S
    Wrong, Ultimate Structural Load is ALSO part of the equation you will not go over it if your structural limit is too low or your FCS prevent you to do so because it is too low, it is exactly WHY those FCS limits are there.
    There are plenty of case aircraft excess their operational G limit in combat.
    ultimate limit are far from what pilot can pull in combat, a fighter with 9G operational G limit will have their ultimate far excess that number.



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Nothing to do with their respective designed Ultimate Structural Load limits, back to the square " I did not get it right must revise my copy".
    Instantaneous like sustained turn rates depends on the SAME factors bar the installed thrust in the case of sustained and this includes how your airframe is built, as simple as that.
    In other words, F-35 sustained G limit at 15.000 feet has nothing to do with its ultimate limit

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post

    F-14 demonstrated high AoA and low speed capability too, but that doesn't mean it can simulate a helicopter/pedal turn like F-18 or F-35
    Gripen/Rafale won't be any different


    Then where is the video of Rafale pedal turn? why do you have to result to a photo where the Rafale direction is unclear? as far as iam concern,that photo only show Rafale turn down toward the earth after a turn, that doesn't show it perform Kulbit, Herbst or Helicopter turn


    Helicopter turn who are you kidding?

    If you look at the video and compare to the picture I posted you'll figure the turn radius is not only similar, the A-C attitude as well, they both end up nose down when they are close to finish their 360*, this is not a X-31.



    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    Yes, every 9G aircraft are capable of pulling more, ultimate structure G limit are never the same as operational G limit, there are cases of 6.5 G fighters pulling 8G, 9G, this is no surprise that 9G fighters can pull 10G, 11G


    Nope not only you totally FAIL to comprehend what designed Ultimate Structural Load limits are but you also ignore the operational load limits imposed by their FCS to prevent them to reach those limits, enough with the forum legends and Teletubbies B.S.




    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    Nope, operational instantaneous G-load depend on speed, altitude (air density), and aircraft weight
    Sustain G load depend on speed, altitude, aircraft weight, drag, thrust


    Wrong, Ultimate Structural Load is ALSO part of the equation you will not go over it if your structural limit is too low or your FCS prevent you to do so because it is too low, it is exactly WHY those FCS limits are there.



    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    F-15A/C operational G limit is 8.5G
    F-16C operational G limit is 9G
    Guess who has better sustained G limit at 20.000 feet?
    F-16 can sustain about 4.8G while F-15 can sustain 5.5G
    Turn out, you should try to at least learn the minimum so as not clutter the topic with material you didn't understand

    Click image for larger version  Name:	F-15A-C.PNG Views:	5 Size:	537.8 KB ID:	3852438
    ​​​​​​



    Yes, in combat, it will look like the two photos above it, the last picture is only an illustration of what a pedal turn look like if pilot keep steering his plane around
    Nothing to do with their respective designed Ultimate Structural Load limits, back to the square " I did not get it right must revise my copy".

    Instantaneous like sustained turn rates depends on the SAME factors bar the installed thrust in the case of sustained and this includes how your airframe is built, as simple as that.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Now, considering their demonstrated respective high AoA and low speed capabilities, the only thing that prevent a Rafale or Gripen to emulate F-18 or F-35 AoA are the traditional squadron Op limits, certainly not their structural or aerodynamic limits
    F-14 demonstrated high AoA and low speed capability too, but that doesn't mean it can simulate a helicopter/pedal turn like F-18 or F-35
    Gripen/Rafale won't be any different

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Thanks for the video but i'm not overly impressed, I saw Kerherve do that at Farborough on the Rafale M straight off the Runway after a vertical climb, he actually made TWO 360*.
    Click image for larger version Name:	Farborough.jpg Views:	0 Size:	35.3 KB ID:	3852422
    Then where is the video of Rafale pedal turn? why do you have to result to a photo where the Rafale direction is unclear? as far as iam concern,that photo only show Rafale turn down toward the earth after a turn, that doesn't show it perform Kulbit, Herbst or Helicopter turn

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    So you'd have tried everything to make your false point which was: Every 9.0G A-C is capable of pulling more, FCS is god.
    Yes, every 9G aircraft are capable of pulling more, ultimate structure G limit are never the same as operational G limit, there are cases of 6.5 G fighters pulling 8G, 9G, this is no surprise that 9G fighters can pull 10G, 11G

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Nope, I didn't miss anything but you certainly did, Op G load depends directly on structural load limits; instantaneous or sustained, it matters little, end of the topic, if you haven't got it yet, I can't help you with that .
    Nope, operational instantaneous G-load depend on speed, altitude (air density), and aircraft weight
    Sustain G load depend on speed, altitude, aircraft weight, drag, thrust
    F-15A/C operational G limit is 8.5G
    F-16C operational G limit is 9G
    Guess who has better sustained G limit at 20.000 feet?
    F-16 can sustain about 4.8G while F-15 can sustain 5.5G
    you should try to at least learn the minimum so as not clutter the topic with terms you didn't understand

    Click image for larger version  Name:	F-15A-C.PNG Views:	0 Size:	537.8 KB ID:	3852438
    ​​​​​​


    Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    @ garryA, about your last pic.. all the opposing aircraft has to do is extend in a high yoyo manoeuver and close in for a gun kill from above... the X-31A falling like a leaf would just be a nice target in such a scenario.. looks nice on paper, but you need an opponent that coooperates with you to get such a kill
    Yes, in combat, it will look like the two photos above it, the last picture is only an illustration of what a pedal turn look like if pilot keep steering his plane around
    Last edited by garryA; 22nd February 2019, 09:25.

    Leave a comment:


  • TooCool_12f
    replied
    @ garryA, about your last pic.. all the opposing aircraft has to do is extend in a high yoyo manoeuver and close in for a gun kill from above... the X-31A falling like a leaf would just be a nice target in such a scenario.. looks nice on paper, but you need an opponent that coooperates with you to get such a kill

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Speak for yourself, you visibly didn't read what is written in the doc you posted.
    If had, you would have figured that he doesn't mention the F-16 in the topic of superstall but the fact that it posses an Alpha limiter as I was saying, so your little literature doesn't serve your cause and certainly don't support you calling people names, when it comes to mistaking A-C, testing flight envelops, spin recovery and post-stall maneuvring on the topic, you should apply them to yourself. For the reason for F-16 AoA limitation see DRYDEN Flight test reports
    Do you think you can divert the attention away from your claim earlier?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	1.PNG
Views:	215
Size:	41.4 KB
ID:	3852444

    Click image for larger version

Name:	2.PNG
Views:	221
Size:	248.8 KB
ID:	3852445 ​​​​​​​


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Actually Rafale performed Post stall maneuvers, the Herbst maneuver among them, controled flight below 30kt during a mock fight vs a Mirage 2000, this is a lot more relevant to AdlA and M.N than a 50* AoA Op limit, a guy like Yves Kerherve, Rafale M test pilot and chief test pilot for the Rafale program at the time conclusion were: We don't need TVC. I'll take his specialist word over yours any time.
    so Russian engineer didn't know anything when they put TVC on Su-30 , SU-35 and Su-57 ?
    Besides, flying slow at high AoA is not a thing out of ordinary.





    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Gripen at 90* AoA demonstrated that it could initiate a yaw movement with ailerons inputs and stop them the very same way, that's what CONTROLED flight means, not getting your hands off the stick and wait for the A-C to recover by itself.
    You won't do that with a F-16, boy, and spin recovery doesn't equal to controlled flight in post-stall situation, if you cannot see the difference between the two, there is no point having this conversation in the first place, regardless of the biased opinion of those who probably doesn't know a bit about Gripen or Rafale high AoA test flights, and btw however hard they tried, Rafale test pilots during high AoA flight test (AoA relaxed FCS) never managed to put it into a superstall, that's arodynamics vs FCS "twicks".Yes they do, Rafale low speed nose pointing capability is one of its most remarked capabilities, ask any pilot who got into a dog fight vs them, it can roll at 80kt and even lower than that, THIS is what CONTROLED flight means, and they are much less prone to loss of control than conventional A-Cs like the F-16 I quoted for example, which also mean that they CAN initiate maneuvers and stop them at those AoA, you really think post-stall maneuvers like that Gripen or Rafale pulled during testing are done without full 3-axis control?
    In your doc, they put F-35 into a SPIN to test its recovery capability, from there I am standing this doesn't qualify as post stall maneuvers
    You are so full of ****
    For the so called 100 degrees AoA test, Gripen was put into a spin an see how it recover with flight control system inputs, exactly what happened in F-16 and F-35 spin test, they all initiate a yaw movement with ailerons/rudder inputs and stop them the very same way, but that doesn't mean they all have the same level of nose pointing authority, just because your aircraft can recover from a spin at high AoA doesn't mean the same aircraft will have usable control authority for post stall maneuver in combat, because able to recover or roll at high AoA is not enough, your yaw maneuver at high AoA need to be accurate. That why Gripen was designed to return to normal flight when pilot go to high angle of attack

    Click image for larger version  Name:	gripen II.PNG Views:	0 Size:	698.3 KB ID:	3852421
    Click image for larger version  Name:	Gripen recovery.PNG Views:	0 Size:	706.6 KB ID:	3852420

    And for your information, in F-16 spin test, the pilot didn't just let his hand go off the stick and wait for the aircraft to recover by itself
    Click image for larger version  Name:	F-16.PNG Views:	0 Size:	465.9 KB ID:	3852428

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Now for the full of it hilarious bit.
    What exactly does this have to do with its Ultimate Structural Load limit I keep mentioning?
    An A-C with a lower margin than the standard 1.5 will have a 10.5 g, with 1.2 Ultimate Structural load like E-F, you perfectly can test it a 9.9 g to see how it behaves it doesn't mean you will pull 11.0 or 10g without problems, and its Operational Load limit is firmly 9.0G.
    If you cannot comprehend what is written you should try to at least learn the minimum so as not clutter the topic with material you didn't understand in the first place, the 0.9g beyond the operational limit mention should have grabbed your attention before you decided to show off.
    0.9 G over an operational limit is common in flight testing, it is designed to explore the behaviour of the A-C passed those Op limits, nothing fancy there, but of course for fanboys it is SOOO exiting, missing the point totally, so back to the topic of designed Ultimate Structural Load, come back when you digested it, if ever, a clue: The standard is 1.5, that of all F-35 have been lowered.
    It really much does, especially with your comment that somehow Eurofighter and F-35 will l be popping rivets and breaking bits long before they reach 10G-11G, yet F-35 had been flown to 9.9G, 0.1G is such a long way heh?

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    The standard is 1.5, that of all F-35 have been lowered
    Mind telling us where you pull this from? your behind?
    or you cannot comprehend the difference between Ultimate structure limit and sustain G limit at Mach 0.8 15k feet? seem like you should least learn the minimum so as not clutter the topic with terms you didn't understand in the first place





    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    where does it says F-35 performed post-stall maneuvers again?
    Let me guess, you don't know what is a pedal turn
    Even pre-IOC,this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns are incredible and deliver a constant 28 degrees/second
    https://www.heritage.org/defense/rep...and-concurrent
    Click image for larger version

Name:	108158main_harv_rd4_330.jpg
Views:	216
Size:	13.2 KB
ID:	3852442 ​​​​​​​ Click image for larger version

Name:	108159main_harv_rd5_330.jpg
Views:	210
Size:	16.4 KB
ID:	3852443 ​​​​​​​

    Click image for larger version  Name:	1.PNG Views:	0 Size:	255.8 KB ID:	3852419
    Attached Files
    Last edited by garryA; 22nd February 2019, 09:34.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    You call yourself someone who know his basic but you can't even distinguish between ultimate structure limit and a sustain G limit at specific altitude and speed ?
    Sorry say again?

    So you'd have tried everything to make your false point which was: Every 9.0G A-C is capable of pulling more, FCS is god.

    Nope, I didn't miss anything but you certainly did, Op G load depends directly on structural load limits; instantaneous or sustained, it matters little, end of the topic, if you haven't got it yet, I can't help you with that but I can do that for you on the topic of low speed.

    Les essais en Vol du RAFALE
    Patrick CASTAGNOS Responsable des essais en vol RAFALE

    On the side of low speeds, the limit is 100 kt but 80 kt is sometimes practiced during flight demonstrations by pilots wishing to highlight the qualities of the aircraft. A minimum of 15 kt was practiced in a combat exercise against the Mirage 2000 by a vindictive pilot; it was therefore a test with a little advance on a campaign of high incidence flights that, seen the risks inherent in this type of evolutions, we only expected when we consider that a prototype is "superabundant"
    Now, how can a Rafale mock-fight at 15kt being AoA limited to 29* is another topic, I can elaborate if you wish, but again, the AdlA/M.N doctrine is NOT that of USN/USM or even perhaps USAF biased toward extreme AoA, they never felt they needed this capability to fight F-18 so I hardly see why it is needed vs F-35.

    I can remember one F-16 pilot commenting on the SUs Cobras saying that it just made them slow, stationary targets for him to shoot, that's one clue., energy management and transient performances vs extreme AoA.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 22nd February 2019, 04:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post

    You are so full of ****,


    Speak for yourself, you visibly didn't read what is written in the doc you posted.

    If had, you would have figured that he doesn't mention the F-16 in the topic of superstall but the fact that it posses an Alpha limiter as I was saying, so your little literature doesn't serve your cause and certainly don't support you calling people names, when it comes to mistaking A-C, testing flight envelops, spin recovery and post-stall maneuvring on the topic, you should apply them to yourself. For the reason for F-16 AoA limitation see DRYDEN Flight test reports.






    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    Getting to high AoA and yaw departure tests are very common, many aircraft go through with that including Rafale and Gripen, but that doesn't mean they suddenly have the same level of control over nose pointing at high AoA like a F-35 or Flanker with TVC
    Actually Rafale performed Post stall maneuvers, the Herbst maneuver among them, controled flight below 30kt during a mock fight vs a Mirage 2000, this is a lot more relevant to AdlA and M.N than a 50* AoA Op limit, a guy like Yves Kerherve, Rafale M test pilot and chief test pilot for the Rafale program at the time conclusion were: We don't need TVC. I'll take his specialist word over yours any time.

    Gripen at 90* AoA demonstrated that it could initiate a yaw movement with ailerons inputs and stop them the very same way, that's what CONTROLED flight means, not getting your hands off the stick and wait for the A-C to recover by itself.

    You won't do that with a F-16, boy, and spin recovery doesn't equal to controlled flight in post-stall situation, if you cannot see the difference between the two, there is no point having this conversation in the first place, regardless of the biased opinion of those who probably doesn't know a bit about Gripen or Rafale high AoA test flights, and btw however hard they tried, Rafale test pilots during high AoA flight test (AoA relaxed FCS) never managed to put it into a superstall, that's arodynamics vs FCS "twicks".

    Now for the full of it hilarious bit.

    ............The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits.


    What exactly does this have to do with its Ultimate Structural Load limit I keep mentioning?

    An A-C with a lower margin than the standard 1.5 will have a 10.5 g, with 1.2 Ultimate Structural load like E-F, you perfectly can test it a 9.9 g to see how it behaves it doesn't mean you will pull 11.0 or 10g without problems, and its Operational Load limit is firmly 9.0G.

    If you cannot comprehend what is written you should try to at least learn the minimum so as not clutter the topic with material you didn't understand in the first place, the 0.9g beyond the operational limit mention should have grabbed your attention before you decided to show off.

    0.9 G over an operational limit is common in flight testing, it is designed to explore the behaviour of the A-C passed those Op limits, nothing fancy there, but of course for fanboys it is SOOO exiting, missing the point totally, so back to the topic of designed Ultimate Structural Load, come back when you digested it, if ever, a clue: The standard is 1.5, that of all F-35 have been lowered.

    Now they did push it to 110* AoA? Good for them, at least we learn that they never did it before, perhaps being @ss-kicked by 4th gen A-C on the AoA topic was a little much after all, it took them some time, but your "specialist" comments are quiet funny.

    Getting to high AoA and yaw departure tests are very common, many aircraft go through with that including Rafale and Gripen, but that doesn't mean they suddenly have the same level of control over nose pointing at high AoA like a F-35 or Flanker with TVC


    Yes they do, Rafale low speed nose pointing capability is one of its most remarked capabilities, ask any pilot who got into a dog fight vs them, it can roll at 80kt and even lower than that, THIS is what CONTROLED flight means, and they are much less prone to loss of control than conventional A-Cs like the F-16 I quoted for example, which also mean that they CAN initiate maneuvers and stop them at those AoA, you really think post-stall maneuvers like that Gripen or Rafale pulled during testing are done without full 3-axis control?

    My turn to quote:

    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; TVC is not required for post-stall maneuvers, as even aircraft such as F-18 can achieve angles 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.
    Did you watch those F-35 videos? Funny they mention vortex brake down, again if you had before posting you would have picked up on this detail and figured that spin and spin recovery are NOT maneuvring as such, here is the rest of this bit:

    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. Rafale has advantage over Viggen in that its canards are controllable, allowing for better control of vortices, and can take off in 700 meters when carrying 4 MICAs and auxilliary fuel tank; minimum takeoff distance is 400 meters and landing distance is 450 meters. When landing, both canards and trailling-edge control surfaces can be used for braking, and Rafale may be able to use canards for braking even while in flight.
    https://defenseissues.net/2013/08/24...fale-analysis/

    In your doc, they put F-35 into a SPIN to test its recovery capability, from there I am standing this doesn't qualify as post stall maneuvers, where does it says F-35 performed post-stall maneuvers again?


    Now, considering their demonstrated respective high AoA and low speed capabilities, the only thing that prevent a Rafale or Gripen to emulate F-18 or F-35 AoA are the traditional squadron Op limits, certainly not their structural or aerodynamic limits, simply because the AdlA/Marine Nationale doesn't regard high AoA/low speed maneuvers (above 29* AoA) as valid combat maneuvers and too risky for the average squadron pilot, more to it, when is the last time you eared of a F-18 winning to even a F-16 doing just that on a regular basis?

    They prefer energy management meaning more limited AoA but more 3-axis control and speed recovery, Rafale doesn't have low speed limits, it is capable of recovering its energy quickly, a lot faster than a hornet and perhaps well a F-35.

    Second back to square one token, mistaking spin recovery with post stall maneuvers takes some doing. Bravo!

    So is F-16


    That's precisely why it is firmly limited to 25* AoA, in order to avoid entering superstall, that's the purpose of flight testing btw, nothing fancy, just exploring the real aerodynamic capabilities of the A-C before defining its operational limits, F-16 9.0G/25*AoA.

    Thanks for the video but i'm not overly impressed, I saw Kerherve do that at Farborough on the Rafale M straight off the Runway after a vertical climb, he actually made TWO 360*.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Farborough.jpg Views:	0 Size:	35.3 KB ID:	3852422
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 22nd February 2019, 08:18.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Why don't you complain to L-M about the data they provided to the press then?
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...impact-381683/
    You call yourself someone who know his basic but you can't even distinguish between ultimate structure limit and a sustain G limit at specific altitude and speed ?

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

    This is one area where Rafale is hard to beat, but not everyone actually knows why, looking at the AoA hard Op limit is very deceptive for the reason I explained, US aircrafts are not AoA limited the way French A-C are, to the exception of F-16 which can get into a superstall passed the FCS-limited AoA, it is an aerodynamic limitation, not structural, but if you look at the raw numbers of demonstrated AoA during testing, none of them actually came anywhere close to 100*, not the TVC-X-31, not the F-18, none of them X or F whatever.
    Put into this context, 70* AoA is not that impressive, I mean Saab Draken pulled Cobra maneuvers for decades, John Boyd was doing this in a F-100, what matters is the level of control the A-C retains once departed, post-stall manoeuvring requires control.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    Gripen also demonstrated post-stall maneuvers, those characteristics are specific to close-coupled canards which are naturally resistant to stall, retain control and do not risk superstall, but they both are AoA limited for operational reasons, it is a choice, not an incapability.
    Keep trolling
    Click image for larger version  Name:	40OijeR.png Views:	0 Size:	716.4 KB ID:	3852386

    https://aviationweek.com/defense/f-3...hter-maneuvers

    Click image for larger version  Name:	giphy.gif Views:	0 Size:	2.42 MB ID:	3852387


    F-14 had been tested to around 90 degrees AoA

    Click image for larger version  Name:	giphy.gif Views:	0 Size:	1.73 MB ID:	3852390

    F-15 also


    Getting to high AoA and yaw departure, spin resistant tests are very common, most fighters must go through with that including Rafale and Gripen, but that doesn't mean they suddenly have the same level of control over nose pointing at high AoA like a F-35 or Flanker with TVC.
    When was the last time Gripen or Rafale did something like this:

    or this


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    As for the issue of G limitation, there also the forum legends are hard to kill, to resume, if you believe the advocates of "they all can do it", an A-C with no structural load margin will not break parts pulling as many Gs as Rafale, sorry but in the case of E-F the Ultimate Structural load is 10.8 G, meaning you'll be popping rivets and breaking bits long before you reach this, at which point you will simply shred the A-C apart and I believe it is the same for the F-35 for the same reason.
    At that time, Griffith had taken one of the initial F-35A test aircraft to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). Now, as the pace of testing continues to accelerate despite earlier delays caused by an inflight dual generator failure, and problems with the integrated power package (IPP), the jet has been flown to Mach
    ............The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by garryA; 23rd February 2019, 10:21.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by FBW View Post
    LOL. The Ooops come from the fact that a geezer like yourself can ignore basics well known of people who have some remote interest in the subject, as I said, if yours in it is limited (to now harassing people when you lost an argument) and demonstrated your lack of understanding of the basics, you should stop writing in them.

    Apparently this guy knows his basics, but obviously, he is not the only one, you should try a forum like Check Six where some people come from advanced aerodynamic and design courses and learn some, not to mention the A-C you keep writing about politico-industrial history.

    Now, what did we learn so far? That not every modern/9.0G advertised fighter CAN pull more than 9.0G, that hard FCS limits exists for structural or aerodynamic reasons, not to pull more Gs but prevent to go over those limits, that the "pull more G to avoid terrain" is not an Operational requirement and that G-overriding is a forum legend.

    Rafale CAN pull 11.0G by design, write this page and go over it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by EC 5/25 Corsair View Post
    Indeed, as it is at least very challenging for the aircraft to which the Rafale (and the 2000 to some extent) is compared.


    This is one area where Rafale is hard to beat, but not everyone actually knows why, looking at the AoA hard Op limit is very deceptive for the reason I explained, US aircrafts are not AoA limited the way French A-C are, to the exception of F-16 which can get into a superstall passed the FCS-limited AoA, it is an aerodynamic limitation, not structural, but if you look at the raw numbers of demonstrated AoA during testing, none of them actually came anywhere close to 100*, not the TVC-X-31, not the F-18, none of them X or F whatever.

    Put into this context, 70* AoA is not that impressive, I mean Saab Draken pulled Cobra maneuvers for decades, John Boyd was doing this in a F-100, what matters is the level of control the A-C retains once departed, post-stall manoeuvring requires control.

    Gripen also demonstrated post-stall maneuvers, those characteristics are specific to close-coupled canards which are naturally resistant to stall, retain control and do not risk superstall, but they both are AoA limited for operational reasons, it is a choice, not an incapability.


    Originally posted by EC 5/25 Corsair View Post
    The FCS signalling the pilot to return to a more conventional flight regime doesn't mean the aircraft doesn't behave well in the current regime; i.e. lo-speed hi-AoA. And the Rafale happens to be excellent here. Did you forget that the confrontation you refer to ended up in 6 draws, 1 win for the Raptor, and 1 disputed win for Rafale?

    Impressive for an aircraft that has a lower AoA limit than the 70s Tomcat (if this fact you quoted has any relevance - it hasn't).
    Hint: see the excellent lo-speed roll capability of the Rafale explained above (the 2000, while canard-less, is quite a good roller at low speed when using the rudder).
    You are spot on.

    There are some people in forums who seems to have a problem with that, so the trend is to try to make other believe that there is no reason for that and make of FCS the new religion, forgetting the most basic principles which starts by designed Structural Load limits and aerodynamics.

    FCS does not compensate for any structural or aerodynamic limitation, the fact that some A-C are better than other in some area of their flight envelop is the result of compromises made at design stage and it is not difficult to understand that an aircraft which was designed as a Carrier-Based fighter with a modern FCS will have good low speed/high AoA characteristics if the design is sound.

    As for the issue of G limitation, there also the forum legends are hard to kill, to resume, if you believe the advocates of "they all can do it", an A-C with no structural load margin will not break parts pulling as many Gs as Rafale, sorry but in the case of E-F the Ultimate Structural load is 10.8 G, meaning you'll be popping rivets and breaking bits long before you reach this, at which point you will simply shred the A-C apart and I believe it is the same for the F-35 for the same reason.

    On the other hand, as a result of this design choice,Typhoon have a higher TWR, higher operational ceiling, slightly better climb rate, probably a higher acceleration rate in the last quarter of its flight envelop and can supercruise a couple of .M higher than a Rafale, but it will not be able to out-turn it at low to medium speed and altitude in the same configuration simply because it is not designed for this, structurally and aerodynamically.

    Now this should be enough to close the subject of which A-C can pull how many G and why pilots does or does not pull 11.0G during air shows, Rafale demo pilot made it clear a long time ago, "to demonstrate the A-C capabilities", and one of them is to pull 11.0G with to wingtip AAs, replaced by smokeys for the show.

    End of debate.


    Leave a comment:


  • FBW
    replied
    http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic....372906#p372906

    oops, nice try.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by FBW View Post
    Ah, I knew I recognized this clown. Thincankiller/Picard/ forgot your F-16.net name/ whatever you called yourself before you were banned from every single forum on the internet.

    Peddle your theories on the blogspot you pay for. The rubes who quote you are almost as clueless as you. By the way, dont you think that the fact you have to keep changing your name on every forum is a hint that you have no idea what you are talking about?

    others can answer you, Im out. Good luck till your banned here.
    Excuse me but I will not endorse your paranoia.

    I am not Picard and do not even know who it is, first thing, secondly if your knowledge base limitation about aviation results in you calling people names in forum, I strongly advise you to stop writing in them and start learning your basics.

    Thanks in advance.

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X