Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • garryA
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Dec 2015
    • 1120

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

    1) You didn't provide any "new evidences" and I didn't change anything, from the moment members of L-M flight test team mentioned loss of control and the reasons for their test, your "new evidences" were moot, sorry.
    2) You still fail to demonstrate PS Maneuvers testing phases by L-M flight test members simply because they do not mention them, quiet the opposite.
    You are the most shameless liar i ever talk to. There are two phase of test, the first one is post stall maneuver while the second one is intentional departure recovery, yet you intentionally blurring the two so that you can interpret F-35 test as purely spin recovery test.
    Unfortunately for you, the evidence are overwhelming

    Originally posted by [B]Dave'Doc' Nelson F-35 test pilot
    [/B]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






    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Lea Haubelt explains how the tests help define the F-35 flight control software:

    To make sure the A-C stays within those parameters, not to allow for PSM.

    All you demonstrated is: You don't know what post stall maneuvers are, read the definition of the word maneuvers first.

    You ignore FACTS such as, the mention of loss of control vortex breakdown, F-22 being better at it (but they still never use PSM in combat), ALL A-Cs in this field go through the same flight testing phases and use the same "manoeuvrability" capabilities with the SAME control surfaces to get out of yaw spins, test includes increasing yaw rates and oscillations with use of some control surfaces, so according to your fuzzy definition, a Jaguar is capable of PSM.
    High AoA and spin recovery procedures and nothing 3rd and 4th gen A-C did not do
    Can a jaguar perform a pedal turn ? nope. Did the manufacturer of Jaguar said it can maneuver in post stall region to give significant advantage in air combat? nope.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	image_260751.png
Views:	584
Size:	148.1 KB
ID:	3852774



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Mention of airflow separation, vortex breakdown AND loss of control at high AoA.
    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
    I like how you intentionally skip out part of the video and hoping no one notice what you are doing, why don't you quote the whole part? oh yes, because it doesn't support your nonsense claims
    Originally posted by "Taurean Williams CF-5 Flight test engineers
    What is we testing is to see if the aircraft is still controllable at the high angle of attack regime, once we can characterize the characteristic of the aircraft at the high angle of attack regime, we move to intentional departures





    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Apparently the only thing that matters to you is air shows commercial B.S, understandably since you have no clue what high AoA and spin flight test procedures are, even the simplest basics of stall recovery or else you'd have pick it up..
    So according to an "expert" like you, pilot intentionally depart their F-35 out of control so that they can perform pedal turn in airshow, and in mock combat. What do they have to lose, only a hundred millions USD aircraft and their life .Sure sound legit



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Does Gripen yaw 30* faster than F-35 in the same situation? Yep. That's controllability levels for you, when L-M test pilot mentions loss of control, a Gripen yaws 30*/sec FASTER that F-35.
    1- LM pilot didn't said his F-35 lost control, what he said is
    There are several phenomenal when you go to high angle of attack,first is the flow which normally very smooth and get over the surface, start to separate and get a lot of turbulent, so first we have the basic control ability problem -high angle of attack and flow separation, this is basic problem for all high AoA testing, if you think the flow doesn't start to separate from Rafale/Gripen air frame when they are at AoA of 100-110 degrees then you are simply delusional.
    2- High yaw rate does not represent higher level of control ability, the control ability is show in how fast you can start and stop the yaw rate as well as how accurate you can control it. 90 degrees/sec yaw rate is irrelevant if you need a more than 1 circle to start/stop it. Otherwise, follow your logic, Gripen got nothing on F-18 and F-18 which both can reach and recover from 100-120 degrees/second yaw rate respectively
    Click image for larger version

Name:	F-18.png
Views:	579
Size:	145.4 KB
ID:	3852775

    Comment

    • ThincanKiller
      Registered User
      • Feb 2019
      • 91

      Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post

      blah blah blah.. your mom never taught you that it's not nice to lie? had your done it "hundreds of times" you'd know that speed as such is irrelevant as far as stall is concerned... and I still wait for that manoeuver that I routinely can do with my DR400.. as a pilot, you should have no trouble knowing what I speak about... so?
      Leave my mum alone, she had brains.

      Do you realize that you try to pass a 10tons fighters for a light A-C and went from " cannot be stalled to "the only way to stall it is what maneuver I pass on my DR"? How ridiculous you sound doesn't hit you between the ears yet but one day it will, when you'll know more about stalling an A-C for example...

      Speed generates pressure which generates lift, come a point where there isn't enough pressure generated and therefore not enough lift, as I said, regardless of the amount of airflow remaining on the wing, or else, one couldn't stall an A-C in a 0* AoA and vertical climb on speed only, which is what I have done, and there is no substitute for a real life demonstration of those principles, reasons for advanced manoeuvrability courses to exist in the first place, looks like you need some of those, because Hammerhead in my time was not qualified as Aerobatics.

      And btw, the L-M videos graciously spammed on this topic demonstrate how their flight test team did it, no Hammerhead but vertical stall, which is part of it.

      And yes I have done it hundred of times, not only because I liked it (it's actually quiet fun), but also because it was part of my training, with and instructor or solo on different type of A-Cs, I just fail to understand how it was not part of yours.

      Since you delude yourself into thinking that there is only one way to stall an A-C and completely failed to figure out that a Rafale is NOT your DR400, which would produce more lift at low speed anyway, that without speed you have no pressure then no lift, I am not holding my breath and frankly I couldn't care less, because whatever Rafale close-coupled canard qualities and regardless of how much I might like the A-C or not, the last thing I would claim is that it can fly by the definition of the word flying at speed where pressures and lift are way too low to keep it airborne.

      I said it could be stalled you were adamant it couldn't up to the point you realised you were wrong, which is a progress.
      Last edited by ThincanKiller; 24th February 2019, 17:23.

      Comment

      • garryA
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Dec 2015
        • 1120

        Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
        You said a lot of things because you simply don't know your very basics:
        But nope, you keep posting, spamming, flooding this topic with PSM irrelevant stuff because some geezer is doing his commercial job at an airshow, sales you high AoA maneuvers for "exceptional" PSM capabilities and you FAIL to pick up on all of that?
        LOL! Don't ask us to fall for it as easily as you do, please, I guaranty you that many of us knows better.
        Said the guy who was proven wrong over 15 times in the last two page and have to result to lying


        Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
        1) Where did they mention turning this FCS off?

        Never, meaning the FCS needed to be twicked because otherwise it would prevent departure which is not exceptional for a FCS since it is designed for the purpose of keeping the A-C within its controlled flight parameters, it doesn't mean that the aerodynamic of the A-C make it spin-resistant, there is NO mention there of the aerodynamics preventing departure on its own, but FCS is mentioned and it was not turned off.
        In Rafale spin departure test, the pilot have to disable some mode of FCS so he can put his aircraft in a departure
        In F-35 spin departure test,the pilot have to twitch the FCS so he can put his aircraft in a departure
        but in your fanboy world, it is not similar, of course unless it is a close couple canard like your pet Rafale, it must be not thing exceptional, i get your agenda



        Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
        Another example: What one trainee pilot will learn even before flaring an A-C and landing, stall characteristics and the importance of speed recovery, speed recovery procedure, which control surface works and up to which AoA on your A-C, when their role crosses (rudder instead of ailerons), not to use ailerons in the stall as not to increase loss of control by stalling one wing further which would trigger a spin.
        ALL OF WHICH allows you to mistake high AoA for PSM, take those basics a step higher, you end up triggering spins, increasing the yaw rate, stopping the spin using the same controls as Boston Combe did with a Jaguar in yaw spins at 100* AoA, NO PSM there.
        Simple, but too high end for you.
        in fact you have NO clue what the difference between departed and controlled flight are..
        Sure you should go and educate the engineer at LM who think F-35 can maneuver in post stall regime and gain advantage in combat with that, they are clearly clueless unlike our friend thincankiller

        Click image for larger version  Name:	image_260751.png Views:	0 Size:	148.1 KB ID:	3852781



        Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
        WHY does a Gripen out-perform the F-35 in a (fully controlled on 3 axis from the start of the maneuver) 70/80* AoA yaw spin by 30*/s and still can get out of it if it is not what U. Clarus says of it?
        Apply your logic, F-16 which can start a 120 degrees yaw and get out must have even better control ability at high AoA? that just show you know nothing about the topic


        Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
        HOW can a Rafale pilot practise (that the word used, not "reached") speeds as low as 15kt in mock combat vs a Mirange 2000 before high AoA testing and go away with it, was it NOT PSM?
        Pitch to very high AoA, aka Cobra maneuver and you can have momentary extreme low speed, hardly on the same level as Pedal turn or Herbst or Kulbit
        Click image for larger version  Name:	giphy.gif Views:	0 Size:	2.10 MB ID:	3852780


        Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
        If we had been able to find any video of Gripen and Rafale flight tests and PSM test phases you wouldn't have been able to pick up on the most important aspect of the tests, controllability, so naturally meaning of the word maneuver is unknown to you
        So I reiterate: There is no video
        In other words, after 3 pages of trolling, you can't provide any evidence

        Last edited by garryA; 24th February 2019, 17:37.

        Comment

        • garryA
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Dec 2015
          • 1120

          Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
          Hammerhead in my time was not qualified as Aerobatics.
          And yes I have done it hundred of times, not only because I liked it (it's actually quiet fun), but also because it was part of my training, with and instructor or solo on different type of A-Cs, I just fail to understand how it was not part of yours
          I don't think that happened either given that you have been quite disingenuous in this thread
          how about you go inside your aircraft ,fly and took a photo with a paper written thincankiller-keypublishing-2019, no need for your face.
          Odd is you won't do that and claim you don't have time and don't have to prove anything, but the truth is you lied and got caught
          Last edited by garryA; 24th February 2019, 17:59.

          Comment

          • ThincanKiller
            Registered User
            • Feb 2019
            • 91

            Originally posted by garryA View Post
            Said the guy who was proven wrong over 15 times in the last two page and have to result to lying


            Pure delusion, hardly hide how little you know about the subject.







            Originally posted by garryA View Post
            In Rafale spin departure test, the pilot have to disable some mode of FCS so he can put his aircraft in a departure
            In F-35 spin departure test,the pilot have to twitch the FCS so he can put his aircraft in a departure
            but in your fanboy world, it is not similar, of course unless it is a close couple canard like your pet Rafale, it must be not thing exceptional, i get your agenda


            No agenda here, one has airflow characteristics of the close-coupled canard and is aerodynamically stall and spin resistant, the other is not, and L-M also never claim that it is, on the other hand, when they mention loss of control and vortex brake down at high AoA, you should logically pick up on this because it is a huge clue on A-C level of control, but not everyone has the right knowledge base to do that, granted you came back for more.





            Originally posted by garryA View Post
            Sure you should go and educate the engineer at LM who think F-35 can maneuver in post stall regime and gain advantage in combat with that, they are clearly clueless unlike our friend thincankiller
            Within AoA and spin testing, not PSM as such, and at this level EVERY single A-C which is put through those tests and come out of spins possesses those qualities to a degree, depending on the A-C, it doesn't make them "PSM capable" or else, a Jaguar would be, it means they have enough control in post stall to get out of a spin.

            AGAIN: Increasing spin yaw rate, stopping it, using ailerons elevons and rudder, is not unusual, the reason why they don't use it operationally with some A-C is explained by the conclusion of the DRYDEN X-31 pilots, do you want to read it again?




            Originally posted by garryA View Post
            Apply your logic, F-16 which can start a 120 degrees yaw and get out must have even better control ability at high AoA? that just show you know nothing about the topic.
            F-16 doesn't "start" a 120* yaw, it departs out of control due to a forced entry in a flight regime and part of its flight envelop where it is prone to departure (transonic/asymetrical load), AGAIN, you still haven't got the meaning of the word control, or controlled flight, and yes, if it recover from it, at least it has the right level of control for it. btw, close-coupled canards also are more resistant to departure in this flight regime with asymmetrical load. Tada!



            Originally posted by garryA View Post
            Pitch to very high AoA, aka Cobra maneuver and you can have momentary extreme low speed, hardly on the same level as Pedal turn or Herbst or Kulbit


            Whatever, you can't even figure that you don't need to be post-stall to do that and more to the point that you need to be able to use the same controls to get out of a spin .

            So Cobra, Pedal turn or else, I believe that you still can't understand the difference, here it never was about a Cobra but controllability needed to get out of a stall and spin, what control surfaces you need to use to get out of a yaw spin, since you have no clue, you can't figure all A-Cs which go through those tests successfully demonstrate the same level of controllability to an extend and in some case MORE, like demonstrated by the Gripen PSM, and no it has nothing to do with F-16 loss of control, it was a fully controlled PSM.




            Originally posted by garryA View Post
            In short, after 3 pages of trolling, you can't prove a single claim you had made.
            I don't try to prove anything, you do it well enough, you proved time and time again that you know too little about the subject to figure what is what and consistently mistake subject (loss of control, vs fully controlled PSM, high AoA vs PSM) to the point of confusion, therefore when one pilot tells you B.S in airshow, you swallow the little ostia, leave your capacity of being critical in the basement, don't ask what AoA did they turn? And then pop in Rafale topics spamming with documentation you haven't come anywhere close to comprehend, do we have to be impressed?

            Let's see: Rafale can't be stalled, Rafale is M2.0 capable. Yeah.... Right.




            Originally posted by garryA View Post
            I don't think that happened either given that you have been quite disingenuous in this thread
            how about you go inside your aircraft ,fly and took a photo with a paper written thincankiller-keypublishing-2019, no need for your face.
            Odd is you won't do that and claim you don't have time and don't have to prove anything, but the truth is you lied and got caught



            Coming from you I take it as a compliment, at least he knows his ABC even if the most advanced stuff eludes him because apparently he haven't been through the same training than I have, including aerodynamics, but anyone who has can understand what I write, you don't, and I can tell why.
            Last edited by ThincanKiller; 24th February 2019, 18:25.

            Comment

            • moon_light
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • May 2012
              • 1033

              Originally posted by Scorpion82 View Post
              I thought monsieur Sampaix's troll time was over. Bit he is back and does what he has been doing for the past 15 years or so, flooding forums, derailling threads and prenzending to be the one and only person with a clue about aviation.
              That sounds about right. If only we can group JSR, KGB, ActionJackson and ThincanKiller in one thread so they can't flood the forum with trash

              Comment

              • panzerfeist1
                Rank 6 Registered User
                • Feb 2018
                • 399

                moon_light

                Can someone tell me whats wrong with ActionJackson(do not know much about JSR) or why users here have problems with him? Last posts I have seen from him was going into intricate details of aircraft design pertaining to stealth or not. He did have some good conversations with Jo Asakura(sucks I do not see this user alot either last time I saw him was the announcement of kinzhal for mig-31) back in the days when I was lurking these threads. Is it because he has this jinguistic approach that makes him appear he has a strong bias? Even if he does I dont think there is any faults I can find other than explaining his reasons for favoring US aircraft?
                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 moon_light View Post
                  so they can't flood the forum with trash
                  Am I? Trash would be defined by personal attacks, complete paranoia spreading, smear about some characters you knew once and spamming a topic with irrelevant B.S about another A-C, not to mention forum legends and other form of flaming B.S, I will have seen everything.

                  So, Picard, Sampax, this other guy toocool knew once, make up your mind. Hilarious, btw, explain to your pal the implication of making any canard delta using those surfaces in roll because even so he posed with a false GAF uniform in front of an E-F Typhoon it didn't look too good, I read the topic by curiosity, but this attracted my attention. LOL!
                  Last edited by ThincanKiller; 24th February 2019, 18:54.

                  Comment

                  • ThincanKiller
                    Registered User
                    • Feb 2019
                    • 91

                    Originally posted by panzerfeist1 View Post
                    moon_light

                    Can someone tell me whats wrong with ActionJackson(do not know much about JSR) or why users here have problems with him? Last posts I have seen from him was going into intricate details of aircraft design pertaining to stealth or not. He did have some good conversations with Jo Asakura(sucks I do not see this user alot either last time I saw him was the announcement of kinzhal for mig-31) back in the days when I was lurking these threads. Is it because he has this jinguistic approach that makes him appear he has a strong bias? Even if he does I dont think there is any faults I can find other than explaining his reasons for favoring US aircraft?
                    You never know, if you visited the Indian Forum before it was closed, you'd understand this scorpion guys aversion for sampax, I believe that he never really recovered from being demonstratively proven wrong claiming Typhoon used canard in the roll axis, Picard, I don't know, but apparently everyone kicking the US/British fighter mafia in forums is considered as a threat.

                    Anyway, that's what happens when people run out of proper argument and i'm sorry to say but there are some guys who should really not be writing this stuff, because they understand zilth to it.

                    Comment

                    • Shania
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jan 2017
                      • 34

                      ThincanKiller do you consider Cobra PSM?

                      Comment

                      • ThincanKiller
                        Registered User
                        • Feb 2019
                        • 91

                        Originally posted by Shania View Post
                        ThincanKiller do you consider Cobra PSM?
                        It depends from my PoV, if the A-C pitch control surfaces triggers the recovery phase or if it just recovers by gravity of simply because the airframe "wants" to return into the airflow.

                        Think about what a maneuver involves, starting it, controlling it, stopping it; you don't have all 3, you don't have a maneuver as such, putting a F-16 out of its flight envelop by pulling like big foot on the stick (extreme example for illustrating what I am aiming at), doesn't mean you start a PSM, you only put it out of control, for this cobra thing it should be the same, less spectacular but nonetheless the same when it comes about levels of control.

                        In short, to call anything a maneuver, you need to retain full control over it.



                        I forgot to mention, loss of control (whatever axis) comes into the "Intentional loss of control" category when it is triggered, it does not implies PSM if the full level of control is not retained throughout the whole duration of the "maneuver".
                        Last edited by ThincanKiller; 24th February 2019, 19:21.

                        Comment

                        • moon_light
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • May 2012
                          • 1033

                          Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
                          You never know, if you visited the Indian Forum before it was closed, you'd understand this scorpion guys aversion for sampax, I believe that he never really recovered from being demonstratively proven wrong claiming Typhoon used canard in the roll axis, Picard, I don't know, but apparently everyone kicking the US/British fighter mafia in forums is considered as a threat.
                          Anyway, that's what happens when people run out of proper argument and i'm sorry to say but there are some guys who should really not be writing this stuff, because they understand zilth to it.
                          After witnessing what you did in this thread, i can imagine what your version of proven someone wrong is like: you flood the thread with trashs until your opponents are bored and ignore you. Picard, is not considered as threat, he is considered as a fool.

                          Comment

                          • garryA
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Dec 2015
                            • 1120

                            Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
                            Pure delusion, hardly hide how little you know about the subject.
                            Said the guy who claimed fighter sustain G at Mach 0.8 ,15k ft will be affected by its ultimate structure limit


                            Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
                            No agenda here, one has airflow characteristics of the close-coupled canard and is aerodynamically stall and spin resistant, the other is not, and L-M also never claim that it is, on the other hand, when they mention loss of control and vortex brake down at high AoA, you should logically pick up on this because it is a huge clue on A-C level of control, but not everyone has the right knowledge base to do that, granted you came back for more
                            They clearly said in high AoA test, they have to deal with the basic problem such as turbulence, low dynamic pressure but of course, as a liar you are, you claimed F-35 lost control at high AoA





                            Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
                            Whatever, you can't even figure that you don't need to be post-stall to do that
                            So can Jaguar perform these maneuvers or not, simple yes/no question. If yes, show a video.


                            Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
                            a controllability needed to get out of a stall and spin, what control surfaces you need to use to get out of a yaw spin, since you have no clue, you can't figure all A-Cs which go through those tests successfully demonstrate the same level of controllability to an extend and in some case MORE, like demonstrated by the Gripen PSM, and no it has nothing to do with F-16 loss of control, it was a fully controlled PSM
                            Nope, it wasn't, Gripen was an intentional departure test, where the aircraft was put into a spin and recover. That it, nothing more, not nothing less. Not even SAAB or any Gripen pilot claimed Gripen can perform post-stall maneuvers,not in airshow, not in mock combat, your fanboy lie can't change that.
                            For your information, a controlled departure is not the same as combat rated PSM, because to be able to utilize PSM, the accuracy of the yaw/pitch is important
                            This clearly shown in F-18E/F flight control development versus legacy F-18C
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	f-18.PNG
Views:	503
Size:	83.6 KB
ID:	3852851





                            Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
                            Within AoA and spin testing, not PSM as such, and at this level EVERY single A-C which is put through those tests and come out of spins possesses those qualities to a degree, depending on the A-C, it doesn't make them "PSM capable" or else, a Jaguar would be, it means they have enough control in post stall to get out of a spin
                            I don't try to prove anything, you do it well enough, you proved time and time again that you know too little about the subject to figure what is what and consistently mistake subject (loss of control, vs fully controlled PSM, high AoA vs PSM) to the point of confusion, therefore when one pilot tells you B.S in airshow, you swallow the little ostia, leave your capacity of being critical in the basement, don't ask what AoA did they turn? And then pop in Rafale topics spamming with documentation you haven't come anywhere close to comprehend, do we have to be impressed?
                            I love how you are so desperately try to dismiss F-35's post stall capability, only to be shut down by fact and evidence.
                            ​​​​
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	F-35 post stall 1.PNG
Views:	493
Size:	837.7 KB
ID:	3852852
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	F-35 post stall maneuver.PNG
Views:	499
Size:	360.2 KB
ID:	3852853

                            According to you, LM sure use air show as an opportunities to test intentional departure, even though, like you claimed, F-35 has no control at high AoA.

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	F35 Aerial Demonstration PAS17.jpg
Views:	493
Size:	522.1 KB
ID:	3852854


                            Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
                            Coming from you I take it as a compliment, at least he knows his ABC even if the most advanced stuff eludes him because apparently he haven't been through the same training than I have, including aerodynamics, but anyone who has can understand what I write, you don't, and I can tell why.
                            In other words, you lied and got caught.

                            Comment

                            • halloweene
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2012
                              • 4351

                              What Talios pod give (integrated with new helmet).

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-1J...ature=youtu.be

                              Comment

                              • Scorpion82
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jul 2005
                                • 4480

                                Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                                What Talios pod give (integrated with new helmet).

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-1J...ature=youtu.be
                                Haven't seen any particular reference to the HMD in that video. Interesting is the direct overlay to the moving map, IIRC that's already done with SAR imagery right? Any hint on full color integration of the TV imagery with the F4 standard? Since when has the tablet been integrated on the Rafale?

                                Comment

                                • SpudmanWP
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jan 2009
                                  • 5292

                                  Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                                  What Talios pod give (integrated with new helmet).

                                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-1J...ature=youtu.be
                                  There is no imagery in that helmet.
                                  "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                                  Comment

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

                                    Talios is an impressive example of newer targeting pods. I am curious if the newer generation of external pods have the same KCAS and G limits as previous external pods. No documentation I can find. Anyone?

                                    Comment

                                    • halloweene
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jan 2012
                                      • 4351

                                      Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post

                                      There is no imagery in that helmet.
                                      The new helmet is not in the video. Wait for PAS19. The integration of Talios with new helmet was announced during aeroindia.
                                      Last edited by halloweene; 26th February 2019, 10:38.

                                      Comment

                                      • halloweene
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jan 2012
                                        • 4351

                                        Originally posted by Scorpion82 View Post

                                        Haven't seen any particular reference to the HMD in that video. Interesting is the direct overlay to the moving map, IIRC that's already done with SAR imagery right? Any hint on full color integration of the TV imagery with the F4 standard? Since when has the tablet been integrated on the Rafale?
                                        The tablet "decalco" isn't new, it is second generation one (first was a samsung) in service now. The helmet for AdA should be announced in Paris in june. i think F-35 have a similar fucntion with SAR imagery, but i dunno if they can directly zoom from nulerical "classic" map.

                                        Comment

                                        • Scorpion82
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jul 2005
                                          • 4480

                                          Thanks. Wrt to LDP/HMD integration has there been any details?

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X