Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ThincanKiller
    Registered User
    • Feb 2019
    • 91

    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
    The HUD G indicator in the Rafale is capped at 10G. Why then?

    Also you should know, the structure of the fuselage had to be redesigned to meet weights targets and expected operational life. But true, the wing is rock solid thanks to its structure inherited from a 1970 design
    It is not caped, it will unfold when you reach 10G,
    airframe is not limited to the wing and if you refer to Rafale it is not a "redesign" but a structural strengthening in specific areas for the Naval version (landing gear and hook), the basic airframe is the same, as I was saying.



    If you watch early Rafale videos, you will see a slightly different HUD symbology, mainly that preceding the high AoA test flight, of which we have not much documentation to submit, still they managed to record AoA passed 100* and negative speed of 40kt.
    Originally posted by FBW View Post
    Oh boy. Ill open a separate thread to answer this. The above is convoluted nonsense.

    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/

    Yes you better, nonsense for you seems to be everything you do not know about basic A-C design, not mentioning how to compute a turn rate.

    I rest my case.

    Originally posted by FBW View Post
    just to point out the easiest....


    Only one F-35 variant was to be 9G rated, ever. That was the F-35A. And the FCS in the F-35A allows 9.5G (NzW dependent) without over- G log You can look it up. Anything else you want to make up?
    wait- let me get you straight, your saying the FCS protects an F-16 from ever exceeding 9G correct? Wow.



    But by memory, E-F Typhoon was designed with an Ultimate Structural Load of 1.2, vs an international standard of 1.5; compare to demonstated Rafale 1.85 and you go the drift, there is NO substitute for structural strength and if you ignore it this is what happens, airframe fatigue is no joke.

    https://youtu.be/U22_7jsQy7s
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 21st February 2019, 18:42.

    Comment

    • FBW
      FBW
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Dec 2011
      • 3295

      No comment on the two false statements you made? Sorry, peddle BS somewhere else. Thanks.

      here learn how modern FCS work:
      https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...rafale-334383/

      http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_a...ml?item_id=187
      Last edited by FBW; 21st February 2019, 18:46.

      Comment

      • ThincanKiller
        Registered User
        • Feb 2019
        • 91

        Originally posted by FBW View Post
        No comment on the two false statements you made? Sorry, peddle BS somewhere else. Thanks.

        here learn how modern FCS work:
        https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...rafale-334383/

        http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_a...ml?item_id=187
        Please don't tell us "how modern FCS systems works" you can't figure how aircrafts are designed in the first place.

        I reiterate my first statement, it all depends on designed Ultimate Structural Load limits regardless of FCS, and it seems to me that you have a hard time comprehending FACTS, like; to pull 9.0.G with a margin you need a standard 1.5 Ultimate limit, at 1.2, you DONT have such limit, meaning as I was mentioning RAF pilots talking about popping rivets above 9.0G, you'll be breaking spars if you try to pull more and in any case since the event of GPWS, it is not possible to override the 9.0G limit, SAME for F-16.

        So, you lame attempt to generalise and make it look like they are all equally capable when it comes to G limits failed miserably, they simply are not designed under the same standard.

        As for F-35 I still have to see the evidence that its FCS will allow it to reach 9.0G and in any case it still have seen its performances reduced to meet its weight targets.

        Requirement for 9.0G dates from previous to 2000, Configuration 230 (230-3) and you're right for the CTOL. 11% increase in wing area to satisfy sustained turn performances requirements and meet 9G stress requirement for the CTOL variant.

        Now, I can dig it out for you but L-M had a rather hard time from this configuration and had to go through several redesigns, the latest documented for meeting their weight targets for all variants, a problem Dassault Aviation never had.

        Now do you really have an issue with comprehending the words Ultimate Structural Load? Because FCS doesn't compensate for this.
        Last edited by ThincanKiller; 21st February 2019, 19:10.

        Comment

        • TomcatViP
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Nov 2011
          • 6107

          it is not caped, it will unfold when you reach 10G,
          airframe is not limited to the wing and if you refer to Rafale it is not a "redesign" but a structural strengthening in specific areas for the Naval version (landing gear and hook), the basic airframe is the same, as I was saying.


          If you watch early Rafale videos, you will see a slightly different HUD symbology, mainly that preceding the high AoA test flight, of which we have not much documentation to submit, still they managed to record AoA passed 100* and negative speed of 40kt.
          No
          No
          It's not because they reached the vaunted 100 experimentally that it has any meaning during operations where Rafales have a lower max available AoA than a 1970's F-14 Tomcats...

          AoA and slow speed fight is certainly not where you want to compare your aircraft (think l'effet truelle and la bote meuh)*.


          *"Relase stick. Relase stick..."
          Last edited by TomcatViP; 21st February 2019, 19:15.

          Comment

          • ThincanKiller
            Registered User
            • Feb 2019
            • 91

            Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
            No
            No
            It's not because they reached the vaunted 100 experimentally that it has any meaning during operations where Rafale have a lower max available AoA than a 1970's F-14 Tomcats...

            AoA and slow speed fight is certainly not where you want to compare your aircraft (think l'effet truelle and la bote meuh.
            What NO? Did you watch those videos? I guess not, because if you did, you wouldn't write this in the first place.

            The meaning lies in the validation of the hyper maneuverability aerodynamic formula established during a multitude of wind tunnel testing, the fact that Rafale like any other modern AdlA A-C is AoA limited has got nothing to do with that.

            It is a strict squadron requirement, it doesn't mean the A-C can't take it, it is a Carefree Handling feature meant to allow your average squadron jockey to handle the A-C in its flight envelop best part without getting confused, not every pilot can handle more than 29* AoA and low speed.

            Of course those who knows can tell you, your argument becoming void you will always debate this point but it matters little, from the moment you don't mention the A-C capability to roll at speeds below 80kt without TVC, recover speed quickly and beat a F-22 in a drag race, it's all bagged from there, at least from your PoV.

            There are several reasons why you are wrong:

            First, "l'effet truelle" applies to a conventional delta.

            Second: A close-coupled canard sees the appearance of vortex lift much earlier in the AoA scale than any other delta; which means, both Gripen and Rafale need much less AoA for the same amount of lift, which in turn implies a much faster speed recovery when AoA decreases because for the same amount of lift, AoA is lower, thus less drag.

            Third, Rafale is not speed limited, meaning you can fly it with full control at speed where your competition will struggle, this is the result of hyper maneuvrability aerodynamic set up, so at 80kt or lower at the top of a yo-yo you will be able to roll and this when your opponent have to pull up to re-engage, recover speed faster than he expect as well.

            Result, you can take on a F-22 with a much higher TWR, TVC and win in a drag race. Any question?

            btw. L'effet truelle. LOL! Both F-22 and Rafale have the exact same wing plan. LEX included.
            Last edited by ThincanKiller; 21st February 2019, 19:41.

            Comment

            • TomcatViP
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Nov 2011
              • 6107

              Did you notice that the F-22 has a horizontal tail, canted verticals and "centrally" mounted wings? It's very different from the Rafale config that has a rear mounted cropped delta, single vertical and close coupled canards. They are absolutely not the same. I am a little bit scared for your... You might as well mistook your uncle for your auntie.
              Last edited by TomcatViP; 21st February 2019, 19:52.

              Comment

              • ThincanKiller
                Registered User
                • Feb 2019
                • 91

                Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
                Did you notice that the F-22 has a horizontal tail, canted verticals and "centrally" mounted wings? It's very different from the Rafale config that has a rear mounted cropped delta, single vertical and close coupled canards. They are absolutely not the same. I am a little bit scared for your... You might as well mistook your uncle for your auntie.
                So what?

                LEX with a similar angle, 48* sweep angle delta plan, so according to you, at high AoA, there can be no "Truelle effect" then?

                Don't be scared, learn your basics instead, I have read all of DRYDEN flight test reports on YF-22 and can debate on this subject forever, I'm curious to know how you figured that tail mounted or close-coupled canard-Delta were so different at high AoA other than the details i mentioned since they both generate vortex lift.

                A little reminder, F-22 has strakes close to the edge of the intakes, they produce the same kind of vortex than the root vortexes created by the canard, but there is NO vortex to feed the aileron area, meaning aerodynamic bashing due to vortex breakdown at high AoA seen on YF-22 pushed DRYDEN to suggest it could be sorted by reducing the surface of the ailerons which ended up partly shopped to limit structural fatigue. Savvy?

                In short, your F-22, with the SAME type of lift have a lower lift/drag ratio due to the absence of canard tip vortexes, vortex breakdown on the third of its wing surface and naturally, since it affects the ailerons, less roll authority at low speed and high AoA without help of its TVC, in short, no matter TWR or AoA, it will always generate less lift and more drag than a Rafale for those reasons, good thing its engines are so strong and it has TVC isn't it?

                What matters here is not all the little details you mentioned, but HOW the lift is produced by their wings and therefore, the problems encountered by F-22 at high AoA are similar to that experienced by another canard-less 48* delta.

                Try to keep things strictly technical...
                Last edited by ThincanKiller; 21st February 2019, 21:13.

                Comment

                • EC 5/25 Corsair
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Apr 2015
                  • 129

                  Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
                  *AoA and slow speed fight is certainly not where you want to compare your aircraft
                  Indeed, as it is at least very challenging for the aircraft to which the Rafale (and the 2000 to some extent) is compared.

                  *"Relase stick. Relase stick..."
                  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).
                  Last edited by EC 5/25 Corsair; 21st February 2019, 23:43.

                  Comment

                  • FBW
                    FBW
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Dec 2011
                    • 3295

                    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.
                    Last edited by FBW; 22nd February 2019, 01:02.

                    Comment

                    • ThincanKiller
                      Registered User
                      • Feb 2019
                      • 91

                      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.

                      Comment

                      • FBW
                        FBW
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Dec 2011
                        • 3295

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

                        oops, nice try.

                        Comment

                        • ThincanKiller
                          Registered User
                          • Feb 2019
                          • 91

                          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.


                          Comment

                          • ThincanKiller
                            Registered User
                            • Feb 2019
                            • 91

                            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.

                            Comment

                            • garryA
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Dec 2015
                              • 1120

                              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.

                              Comment

                              • garryA
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Dec 2015
                                • 1120

                                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 ?

                                Comment

                                • ThincanKiller
                                  Registered User
                                  • Feb 2019
                                  • 91

                                  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.

                                  Comment

                                  • ThincanKiller
                                    Registered User
                                    • Feb 2019
                                    • 91

                                    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.

                                    Comment

                                    • garryA
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Dec 2015
                                      • 1120

                                      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:	206
Size:	41.4 KB
ID:	3852444

                                      Click image for larger version

Name:	2.PNG
Views:	212
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:	206
Size:	13.2 KB
ID:	3852442 ​​​​​​​ Click image for larger version

Name:	108159main_harv_rd5_330.jpg
Views:	201
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.

                                      Comment

                                      • TooCool_12f
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Dec 2009
                                        • 3321

                                        @ 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

                                        Comment

                                        • garryA
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Dec 2015
                                          • 1120


                                          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.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X