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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comment

    • Shania
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jan 2017
      • 34

      Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

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

      Because flight testing was not completed.

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

      Comment

      • ThincanKiller
        Registered User
        • Feb 2019
        • 91

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

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

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

        Ear says aren't enough.

        Comment

        • TomcatViP
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Nov 2011
          • 6110

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

          Comment

          • ThincanKiller
            Registered User
            • Feb 2019
            • 91

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Comment

            • garryA
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Dec 2015
              • 1120

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

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




              Quote Dan Canin F-35 test pilot:

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

              0:00-0:56
              Quote Dave'Doc' Nelson F-35 test pilot:
              High angle of attack test take us to pass the stall point of the airplane. Once you get past that stall angle of attack, you can move the nose around: UP and DOWN , and SIDE TO SIDE
              and maneuver to get where you want to be in relation to your opponent, so that will be a maneuver enhancing capability that the F-35 has
              Your scam don't work anymore.


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


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


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

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

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




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



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


              Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
              come back when L-M says they experimented with PSM instead of trying to pass spin tests for it
              We don't need to invent ourselves capabilities by rewriting the industry books, falsely interpret what is written or said by pilots and manufacturers, it's all there documented and available for everyone to see.
              FACT: F-35 did NOT demonstrate PSM, L-M never make such a claim nor does their pilots, they ALL mention high AoA, spin and/or the level of control authority needed to recover from it; control over the at least 2 axis is part of it for those who don't understand how to get out of a spin, you'll need opposite rudder and elevator authority, which is used by all A-Cs to get out of a spin so yaw control and nose pointing capabilities are used by many other A-C during most high AoA and spin tests flights.

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



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

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



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

              Comment

              • ThincanKiller
                Registered User
                • Feb 2019
                • 91

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

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

                Comment

                • garryA
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Dec 2015
                  • 1120

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

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

                  Comment

                  • ThincanKiller
                    Registered User
                    • Feb 2019
                    • 91

                    Originally posted by garryA View Post

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

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

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

                    Comment

                    • garryA
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Dec 2015
                      • 1120

                      Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

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

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

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

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	47DF69AD-3BAD-4330-9986-FF3CD7A7D996.png
Views:	231
Size:	148.1 KB
ID:	3852678
                      Find a video of Gripen and Rafale doing this then come back

                      Comment

                      • ThincanKiller
                        Registered User
                        • Feb 2019
                        • 91

                        Originally posted by garryA View Post

                        You are so delusional, it is hilarious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        Just to separate commercial B.S from reality:

                        NASA Facts
                        National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                        Dryden Flight Research Center

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        Comment

                        • moon_light
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • May 2012
                          • 1033

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

                          Comment

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

                            Thats his M.O.

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

                            Comment

                            • ThincanKiller
                              Registered User
                              • Feb 2019
                              • 91

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              Comment

                              • panzerfeist1
                                Rank 6 Registered User
                                • Feb 2018
                                • 400

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	Got TIGERS.jpg
Views:	212
Size:	72.0 KB
ID:	3852701

                                Not trying to defend the guy but there are times where you just have to let the other user have the final word. Someone on F-16.net posted a guy jumping down a cliff gif indicating that's what happens to threads being ruined where arguments go. Only reason why I specifically stop responding is because of these reasons.
                                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
                                  Click image for larger version  Name:	Got TIGERS.jpg Views:	0 Size:	72.0 KB ID:	3852701

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

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

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

                                  Ignoring subjects way above one head is a lot simpler.

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

                                  Comment

                                  • ThincanKiller
                                    Registered User
                                    • Feb 2019
                                    • 91

                                    Originally posted by FBW View Post
                                    Thats his M.O.

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


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

                                    Comment

                                    • eagle
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jan 2000
                                      • 2370

                                      Anyway, no ignore function anymore on this or is the Rafale thread a toxic pool of unreadable garbage from now on?
                                      Click on your user name at the top right > User Settings > Account
                                      Scroll down, last point "Ignore List" - add username to ignore.
                                      Works fine for me.
                                      How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
                                      Yngwie Malmsteen

                                      Comment

                                      • garryA
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Dec 2015
                                        • 1120

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


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

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

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

Name:	giphy.gif
Views:	163
Size:	29.2 KB
ID:	3852714


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

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



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

                                        Comment

                                        • TooCool_12f
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Dec 2009
                                          • 3321

                                          Originally posted by garryA View Post

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

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

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X