Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ThincanKiller
    Registered User
    • Feb 2019
    • 91

    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.

    Comment

    • garryA
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Dec 2015
      • 1120

      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

      Comment

      • ThincanKiller
        Registered User
        • Feb 2019
        • 91

        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.

        Comment

        • eagle1
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Feb 2011
          • 1125

          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.

          Comment

          • ThincanKiller
            Registered User
            • Feb 2019
            • 91

            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.

            Comment

            • garryA
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Dec 2015
              • 1120

              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.

              Comment

              • garryA
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Dec 2015
                • 1120

                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

                Comment

                • ThincanKiller
                  Registered User
                  • Feb 2019
                  • 91

                  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.

                  Comment

                  • panzerfeist1
                    Rank 6 Registered User
                    • Feb 2018
                    • 393

                    Jesus christ enough of this **** already at any rate this thread is going to get deleted because some sperglords will ruin it for the majority here that do not give a **** anymore.
                    I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.

                    Comment

                    • ThincanKiller
                      Registered User
                      • Feb 2019
                      • 91

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

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



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



                      Les essais en Vol du RAFALE

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

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

                      Comment

                      • Olrik
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jan 2015
                        • 18

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

                        Comment

                        • ThincanKiller
                          Registered User
                          • Feb 2019
                          • 91

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

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

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

                          Comment

                          • Olrik
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jan 2015
                            • 18

                            Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

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

                            Comment

                            • ThincanKiller
                              Registered User
                              • Feb 2019
                              • 91

                              Originally posted by Olrik View Post

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

                              Bring good info, share it.

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

                              Comment

                              • garryA
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Dec 2015
                                • 1120

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




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

                                Let's resume:

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

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

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

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

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


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

                                Comment

                                • ThincanKiller
                                  Registered User
                                  • Feb 2019
                                  • 91

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

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


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





                                  Quote Dan Canin F-35 test pilot:

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

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

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

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

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


                                  Intentional Departure

                                  CF-5 Flight Test Engineer Taurean Williams.

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

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

                                  NOT a mention of full 3-axis control authorify during the maneuver and even less of PSM.






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

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

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

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

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

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



                                  >


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



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

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

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

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

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


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

                                  to

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







                                  NOT clear enough?



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

                                  Les essais en Vol du RAFALE

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

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

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

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


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

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

                                  FACT:
                                  F-35 did NOT demonstrate PSM, L-M never make such a claim nor does their pilots, they ALL mention high AoA, spin and/or the level of control authority needed to recover from it; control over the at least 2 axis is part of it for those who don't understand how to get out of a spin, you'll need opposite rudder and elevator authority, which is used by all A-Cs to get out of a spin so yaw control and nose pointing capabilities are used by many other A-C during most high AoA and spin tests flights.



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



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

                                  Comment

                                  • TomcatViP
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Nov 2011
                                    • 6106

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

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


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

                                    Comment

                                    • Shania
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jan 2017
                                      • 34

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

                                      Comment

                                      • ThincanKiller
                                        Registered User
                                        • Feb 2019
                                        • 91

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

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

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

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

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


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





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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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







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

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

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

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

                                        Comment

                                        • Shania
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jan 2017
                                          • 34

                                          Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

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

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X