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

  • halloweene
    replied
    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Originally posted in the News Thread:




    "looks to be alive" = -"we are confident" ?
    -"we dare you to think otherwise" ?
    - "in all certainties" ?
    - (staring at the front cover of a sailing yacht magazine laying on the table) "uh, I will be retired" ?
    - "look, (pointing behind your left shoulder) a unicorn:! " And then gesturing a gundown from an unseen Rafale somewhere in the room), "Active cancellation!" ?

    We need a translator.


    But you have to admire how the man can keep his nerves today (ah, if all Rafale fans could be like him ).*



    EDIT:
    At a rate of 12/y, 10 years might be equal to 7.
    But don't worry, the man has a plan... "B"!

    *At frowning so much after India like an Apache tracking an erratic bear, we might have him converted to... Hinduism?
    Just for the sake of information, DA will deliver 26 RAfale in 2019. So much for the 12/year.(which were 11 btw).

    Leave a comment:


  • mig-31bm
    replied
    Dreadful !,ThincanKiller remind me of Captain_vietnam and his nonstop Russia Stronk
    https://forums.spacebattles.com/thre...alsaka.278528/
    Ignore him before mod lock down this thread.
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 6th March 2019, 07:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shania
    replied
    Another "stupid" USAF pilot who doesn't know F-35 cant do PSM
    https://youtu.be/cuf-Ys3edYI
    +1:20

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    Originally posted in the News Thread:

    Originally posted by Rob_in_NM View Post
    Dassault can secure sufficient additional orders for the Rafale fighter to take production to at least 2030.

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...decade-456291/
    Originally posted by from Dassault CEO's Mr Trappier
    With the current level of orders, plus an additional commitment from France for 30 aircraft due to be formalised in 2023, Trappier says the production line "looks to be alive for the next 10 years".
    "looks to be alive" = -"we are confident" ?
    -"we dare you to think otherwise" ?
    - "in all certainties" ?
    - (staring at the front cover of a sailing yacht magazine laying on the table) "uh, I will be retired" ?
    - "look, (pointing behind your left shoulder) a unicorn:! " And then gesturing a gundown from an unseen Rafale somewhere in the room), "Active cancellation!" ?

    We need a translator.


    But you have to admire how the man can keep his nerves today (ah, if all Rafale fans could be like him ).*

    If more Rafale orders do not arrive "this is life, we will have a plan B", he says, citing Dassault's "flexibility" as a small company.
    EDIT:
    At a rate of 12/y, 10 years might be equal to 7.
    But don't worry, the man has a plan... "B"!

    *At frowning so much after India like an Apache tracking an erratic bear, we might have him converted to... Hinduism?
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 5th March 2019, 17:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied

    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    Sure , engineers at Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Sukhoi, Chengdu, Hindustan will be very interested in your expert knowledge to help them understand post stall maneuvers are proved useless, clearly they still can't distinguish between wet dreams and reality

    Keep on trolling. I am done with you.
    We don't need your sarcasm and Psychological projection to see that you still have no idea where the difference between your wet dreams and reality is, you've been done for years btw, reading all the B.S you wrote in F-16.supercom, so there's no vortex breakdown when the flow starts to separate according to you genius? Another one to your tally, after F-4, F-14, F-111, and even F-16 as examples for high AoA and spin characteristics, it's a B.S world record.

    AGAIN: F-22 is superior to F-35 Post Stall, they don't do PSM in combat, preferring energy management, being between F-16 and F-18 is not going to make F-35 a Rafale or F-22 beater.

    All I've done was to demonstrate that close-coupled canards could and have done PSM during testing, even demonstrated their combat usefulness, as many people before me have told you, they dismissed them for the same reasons as NASA/DRYDEN, but of course, your reality denial tricks make you believe that you're right and that L-M commercial stunts are going to help them beat those A-C when they can't even equal F-22 already:

    Your fuzzy arguments were obvious in the Rafale vs F-22 video topic, everything for denying reality and take the mickey out of the French (how dare they stand up to the mighty F-22 with their cute little canard?).

    Hell that was fun, but completely wrong, and your arguments haven't changed since despite all the proof of them being completely inaccurate, I mean, better performances with worse aerodynamic efficiency??? Only trolls like you can manage that and come back for more.

    As for L-M aerodynamic expertise.... On F-35 (different design team than F-22 most probably), it's limited to "O_0 ooooops, we have a strake vortex there, supposed to energize the airflow above the wing at 10/20* outward angle, but which instead is sucked in by a low-pressure zone behind the cockpit and breakdown, causing buffet on the fin at moderate AoA", that wouldn't start higher than 20* at once, which means FROM 20* AoA or lower...

    Topic:
    Controllability. Flow separation. Low Dynamic pressures. Vortex breakdown.

    At 30* AoA your strake vortex is already burst, not doing its designed job of energizing the airflow above the wing but creating buffet over the fin instead, you were saying "expert"???


    Click image for larger version  Name:	Slide-6.jpg Views:	0 Size:	137.5 KB ID:	3854492

    I mean I know what a shape like this does for pressures since my early days flying, how they managed to miss that with CATIA and FLUENT as tools remains a mystery, talk about "expertise", and I won't mention yours, or lack of, p-poor knowledge of basic aerodynamics, let alone vortex aeros, if you don't even read a NASA thesis, don't expect to be level in a debate on the subject, you're mediocre at best, add reality denial to that...

    1) You don't need Post Stall to do most of those maneuvers, high AoA/low speed is enough, try the vertical plan.

    2) PSM makes of your little toy a slow target with NO energy to spare, Rafale has demonstrated this vs F-18 and they came up on top.

    3) If other manufacturers chose to relax their FCS, it doesn't mean they are right or that Rafale or Gripen can't do PSM, quite the opposite, they often have a cleaner aerodynamic even with assymetric load.

    4) Endly you missed the principal argument against, it's a defensive maneuver, when you have no altitude and no energy to spare. Goodbye.

    5) Some of the Russian A-C you quote btw are also limited in transonic for the same reason than F-16, prone to departure, to 7.0 or 7.5 g, expertise again...

    End of story.

    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 5th March 2019, 11:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

    .......Bla bla bla .......
    get over it, it proved useless and that's why it wasn't necessary to trick Gripen and Rafale FCS for this sort of stunts, or why top gunners flying F-22 don't use them, good for fanboyz at airshow or flaming in forums, not so in combat.

    It's not my trolling you got dragged in, it's your inability to distinguish between your wet dreams and reality, something you two have in common, I really can't help you with that.
    Sure , engineers at Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Sukhoi, Chengdu, Hindustan will be very interested in your expert knowledge to help them understand post stall maneuvers are proved useless, clearly they still can't distinguish between wet dreams and reality

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Then what do you think vortex breakdown means other than "flow which normally very smooth start to get separated
    1- In High AoA testing, they are looking at angle from 20 degrees and greater
    2- One common characteristic observed, as AoA increased, flow start ti be separated ( there is no indication when at what AoA that happen)
    Your logic train is like when you heard the doctor say: "people lose blood when their skin is cut" and "when a person lose too much blood, he die" then you interpret that as "when a person has a small cut on his skin, he die"

    Keep on trolling. I am done with you.





    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    You still can't figure out the difference between controlled DEPARTURE and a combat post stall maneuver.


    In the world of Thincankiller where all wing shape are equal, all rudder design are equal and all LERX are equal.
    Sorry, but I said PSM, you keep inventing stuff, posting "proof" of what you allege I said and haven't got the point yet, like the difference between post stall and high AoA, here you go again, and now, define maneuver and the difference between what Gripen did between 70* and 80* and this F-18 pirouette please.

    I can tell you what the difference is, Gripen can does it at much higher AoA than both F-18 and F-35 with a higher yaw rate too, and your "defensive" maneuvers don't stop F-16 or Rafale pilots to drill the brains off F-18 in ACMs, get over it, it proved useless and that's why it wasn't necessary to trick Gripen and Rafale FCS for this sort of stunts, or why top gunners flying F-22 don't use them, good for fanboyz at airshow or flaming in forums, not so in combat.

    So you still haven't got a clue, LEX are a lot more efficient when coupled with a Delta wing, since it produces vortex lift itself already, guess how they managed to partly solve the F-18 vortex breakdown after testing?

    Damned right, using strakes to produce yet another source of vortexes to stick them on the boundary layer, impossible on F-35 because VLO of curse, but eh, not everyone has the brain power to get this point, funny tough, that L-M and Dassault came to use the same <> 70* LEX and 48* delta for Rafale and F-22 no?

    Then what do you think vortex breakdown means other than " flow which normally very smooth start to get separated"? Why does F-35 encounter buffet issues from this AoA exactly? You make me laugh.

    Time for a change of nappies because you keep deluding yourself into thinking that you prove me wrong, amusing...

    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    You got a point. I was dragged in his trolling

    Well if you need to associate with another mythomaniac, (the guy who paused in front of a Typhoon in a fake German A-F uniform pretending that it uses canard in the roll axis), I have no chance... I note that you also use his own false version of the acronym for LEX, regardless of the fact that those who invented it write it differently, rather arrogant for someone who can't figure Typhoon control surfaces.

    It's not "anybody's trolling" you got dragged in, it's your inability to distinguish between your wet dreams and reality, something you two have in common, I really can't help you with that.

    Here a little picture for your education, 30* AoA nowhere near close to PS...

    Click image for larger version

Name:	3-56970756e3.jpg
Views:	261
Size:	93.6 KB
ID:	3854467


    Flow visualization at 30 degrees angle of attack using tufts.

    (NASA photo EC89 0096-205 with text added)

    Note the leading-edge extension from next to the cockpit extending back to the wing and the location of the point where the LEX vortex broke down and caused buffeting of the tail.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 5th March 2019, 06:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    Don't say I haven't warned you guys. It's the ever same picture since 15 years or so that this guy is trolling aviation forums across the internet. Sampaix, Fonk, Thunder, Dare2 and whatever nickbames he has used, one must be blind not to recognise that distinguishable pattern of the "go back to school", "learn the basics", "use proper aviation teminology", "you don't comprehend" etc. phrases like a shouter on his local bazar. It's all too familiar as is his whining about French and Rafale bashing and pretending to be the poor victim who is shot for being the messanger of "universal truth". Ofcourse he will pretend not be himself, that's the reason why he precisely knows what people like me are talking about with reference to his past appearences here and elsewhere and that's the reason why he knows about specific subjects discussed that certainly only people involved can know.why? Because no one else cares and that's why I tell you to put him on your ignore list and let him starve out of the attention that he desperately needs. I know this will be ignored and the BS will go on until some moderator will finally lock down the thread and hopefully bans the troll as had been the case countless times in the past.
    You got a point. I was dragged in his trolling
    Last edited by garryA; 5th March 2019, 05:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Are you finished making a fool of yourself publicly?
    Did you figure out the difference between controlled flight and out of control departure yet? What does maneuver means? Because all the funny examples you gave us, F-4/F-14, F-111, F-16, all with pretty much well known unpopular stall characteristics demonstrated either one of the other of those two things:
    You still can't figure out the difference between controlled DEPARTURE and a combat post stall maneuver.
    I am not the one who try to blur a spin departure test and PSM
    Click image for larger version  Name:	image_260769.png Views:	0 Size:	83.6 KB ID:	3854458

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    2) You have no clue what you write
    Ironic coming from someone who was proven wrong again then again

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Personally, I think both, and something else, in the F-35 video, the flight engineers says himself that they start encountering vortex breakdown at 20* AoA, which would explain how a Gripen can reach a yaw rate 30*/sec higher in the same yaw spin with the advantage of having full controllability from the start of the maneuver, since they don't speed stall it and lose control as the L-M team explained, but stall it dynamically (you got the concept or you're going to post tons of unrelated pictures you haven't comprehended yet again?).
    Now, vortex breakdown, loss of lift, buffet, aerodynamic bashing are well known and advertised characteristics shared between F-18, F-22 and F-35, with the F-22 perhaps the least affected by it because as I already stated, it is a DELTA wing, but there is a good reason for this to happen, let's see, LEX plus inlet strakes equals two more sources of vortex.
    Getting quite desperate now do you, i love how you try to merge
    Taurean comment: "for high angle of attack testing, we actually looking at angle higher than 20 degrees...."
    and
    Dan Canin comment: " as angle of attack increased, the flow which normally very smooth start to get separated .."
    then interpret that as "the flight engineers say himself that they start encountering vortex breakdown at 20* AoA", distinguishing liar



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    best example, posting about F-18 LEX forgetting Rafale is equipped with them too, but has the advantage of more interaction between other vortex sources to keep the airflow steady at higher AoA
    In the world of Thincankiller where all wing shapes are equal, all rudders design are equal and all LERX are equal regardless of their shape and size.
    Last edited by garryA; 5th March 2019, 04:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    Yep, you keep saying that but SAAB themselves never claimed Gripen can use post stall maneuver in combat and of course they also programmed the aircraft to recover when the AoA excess 26 degrees
    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZ.


    Are you finished making a fool of yourself publicly?

    Did you figure out the difference between controlled flight and out of control departure yet? What does maneuver means? Because all the funny examples you gave us, F-4/F-14, F-111, F-16, all with pretty much well known unpopular stall characteristics demonstrated either one of the other of those two things:

    1) You flame and troll and copycat like you're used to in F-16.supercom.

    2) You have no clue what you write.

    Personally, I think both, and something else, in the F-35 video, the flight engineers says himself that they start encountering vortex breakdown at 20* AoA, which would explain how a Gripen can reach a yaw rate 30*/sec higher in the same yaw spin with the advantage of having full controllability from the start of the maneuver, since they don't speed stall it and lose control as the L-M team explained, but stall it dynamically (you got the concept or you're going to post tons of unrelated pictures you haven't comprehended yet again?).

    A wind-tunnel study to find the lift and drag characteristics of a low-aspect-ratio wing/body configuration
    from an angle of attack (AOA) of -8 to 50 degrees was conducted
    .
    A further study to find the comparative lift enhancement using the same wing/body with a close-coupled canard for wing/body angles of attack of 10, 22, 34, 40, and 48 degrees and canard deflection angles from -25 to 25 degrees was carried out.


    It was found that a properly located canard enhanced the lift at all tested angles of attack, compared to the baseline wing/body configuration results.
    The lift enhancement was maximized in the post-stall regimes, reaching values up to 34%.
    A small improvement in lift-to-drag ratio was noted at all tested angles above 10 degrees angle of attack.
    Did you get it or do you need some pretty pictures too?

    Now, vortex breakdown, loss of lift, buffet, aerodynamic bashing are well known and advertised characteristics shared between F-18, F-22 and F-35, with the F-22 perhaps the least affected by it because as I already stated, it is a DELTA wing, but there is a good reason for this to happen, let's see, LEX plus inlet strakes equals two more sources of vortex, on delta wing producing vortex lift by nature, you know why F-22 is superior to F-35 post stall..



    So in short: You DONT know your own A-Cs, even less the close-coupled canards, you can keep trying, you just don't have what it takes to figure out why Rafale pilots don't fear F-18 and can measure up with F-22, F-35 is certainly not going to phase them the slightest, that's the cost of keeping yourself in delusion and reality denial, best example, posting about F-18 LEX forgetting Rafale is equipped with them too, but has the advantage of more interaction between other vortex sources to keep the airflow steady at higher AoA.

    Trolling is not good for you.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 5th March 2019, 04:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    I reiterate. Gripen departure in yaw spin was a full scaled PSM becaused the A-C was put into it by stalling dynamically, even at low speed, demonstrating pitch control at those low speed, with increased AoA up to 70/80*, controled in both acceleration/deceleration and stop to the yaw rotation before full recovery with full 3 axis controly ahthority throughout the entire length of the maneuver.
    Yep, you keep saying that but SAAB themselves never claimed Gripen can use post stall maneuver in combat and of course they also programmed the aircraft to recover when the AoA excess 26 degrees




    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Gripen 90*/sec, F-35 60*/sec.
    Which is irrelevant since it is a spin recovery test and not a post stall maneuver, F-16, F-18 has all been to higher spin rate and recover. You don't even know many spin it need to get to 90 degrees/sec, let alone how many spin it need to stop.



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    No LEX on a F4 did you say?
    There is no LERX on F-4, yes, that is correct. So compare an ancient aircraft with positive stability such as F-4 with a close coupled canard fighter then declare that it is exactly the same between a modern with fighter with lerx and negative stability is quite disingenuous


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    how come F-18/22/35 all experience vortex breakdwon at lower AoA than a close-coupled canard then?
    interaction between wing and canard vortex can strengthen them, delay break down.
    But then again, depending on speed.




    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    How many sources of vortexes do you think there are on F-35, Gripen and Rafale? You can extend that to F-18 and F-22 if you wish.
    LERX, canard, in some case inlet chine and nose cone

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    WHY does L-M even bother with Vortex generators such as LEX and Strakes?
    What deos the vortexes have as effect on the F-18/22 and F-35 again?
    The vortex flow creates an area of high negative pressure on the wing upper surface which increases lift and delays separation of laminar flow
    Click image for larger version  Name:	leading edge extension and lift.PNG Views:	0 Size:	65.4 KB ID:	3854449

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    What is the reason for aerodynamic bashing of fins and elevators for those A-Cs?
    vortex break => unstable turbulent

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    During the tests, when in the AoA scale did L-M start noticing vortex breakdown again?
    Click image for larger version  Name:	1.PNG Views:	0 Size:	306.4 KB ID:	3854448



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    try to impress someone else with copy/paste material you don't understand, then just answer the simple questions I asked in my previous reply, no need for a calculator, and btw, since your pal got spanked in the F-16 forum, he havent learned anything, still come back with the same false arguments, wrong examples (F-4, F-14, F-16 and so on, all the worst in the book)... Hilarious.
    Wasn't this document posted to him at the time?
    A wind-tunnel study to find the lift and drag characteristics of a low-aspect-ratio wing/body configuration from an angle of attack (AOA) of -8 to 50 degrees was conducted.
    A further study to find the comparative lift enhancement using the same wing/body with a close-coupled canard for wing/body angles of attack of 10, 22, 34, 40, and 48 degrees and canard deflection angles from -25 to 25 degrees was carried out.
    It was found that a properly located canard enhanced the lift at all tested angles of attack, compared to the baseline wing/body configuration results.
    The lift enhancement was maximized in the post-stall regimes, reaching values up to 34%.
    A small improvement in lift-to-drag ratio was noted at all tested angles above 10 degrees angle of attack.
    Compare to F-35 test pilot explaining how at high AoA (not P.S yet) they already experienced vortex breakdown, buffet and loss of control and you got the scoop, better tough, trying to pass aquaplaning for controlled powerslide on a car forum, I can imagine the face of some drivers there...
    Which is quite disingenuous in your part, given that they were comparing a close-coupled canard design with a pure wing design of the same kind, no LERX, Chines whatsoever. LERX too can improve lift at high angle of attack.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	wing body vs canard wing body CL.PNG Views:	0 Size:	85.1 KB ID:	3854450Click image for larger version  Name:	leading edge extension and lift.PNG Views:	0 Size:	65.4 KB ID:	3854451Click image for larger version

Name:	pyjNv.jpg
Views:	278
Size:	39.6 KB
ID:	3854452

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Frankly, as i said, ther more you copy/paste the more it is obvious that trying to emulate and copycat someone is not your forte, you haven't figured that those who knows their basics can spot those who doesn't only this way and it's is EA.SY.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
    I am sure that you don't know your basics, given how you interpret the relation between G-limit and sustained G.
    The only thing you know is vortex this, vortex that, canard . That it , then you try to project that on every single things , all the wise ignore all related factors. You are like a guy who happen to know sweep wing has delayed mach cone than straight wing, and therefore he concluded that no aircraft with lesser sweep angle can fly faster than an aircraft with more sweep wing.
    Last edited by garryA; 5th March 2019, 03:38.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Rafale to join IAF inventory in September, says IAF chief Dhanoa

    India has ordered 36 Rafale fighter planes from Dassault Aviation of France as part of the IAFs modernization drive.


    https://www.hindustantimes.com/india...oti8w28uK.html

    Rafale fighter production 'alive' for next decade
    Dassault can secure sufficient additional orders for the Rafale fighter to take production to at least 2030, but is unconcerned over any potential production gap with the next-generation combat aircraft it is developing alongside Airbus.
    • 04 March, 2019
    • SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com
    • BY: Dominic Perry
    • Paris
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...decade-456291/
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 4th March 2019, 19:18.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    Don't say I haven't warned you guys.
    Err, yeah?

    Again, apart for pausing in a fake GAF uniform trying to get us to believe that E-F uses canard in the roll axis and talking manure about people what exactly have you achieved that makes you such an authority in the field?

    So now' you're a professional psychologist, are you?

    No need for any form of expertise to see that the arguments used before by others are still valid today, that the most advanced researches on the subject is still dismissed as B.S by guys like you and your pals, of course, you will pretend to know who is who, Picard, Sampax, and all the geezers who pointed out how wrong you were in the Indian forum or elsewhere, were you tried to pass yourself for a German Air Force mechanic, talk about attention-grabbing.

    Seriously, you should call it a day, because all your bunch has so far, is character assassination and reality denial, as for all the arguments used against you, they are well verified day after day.

    And something else, "universal truth" is what is written by those who know, not you, that is, you prefer to talk B.S about people.

    Now, since we are in a Rafale topic, what I couldn't miss was that the same geezers who came up with stuff like *loss of control is maneuvring" kind of nonsense, in many topics, including the F-22 vs Rafale video one in the F-16 forum I just visited, are going to explain to us that what the USAF graduates and other NASA/DRYDEN specialists who wrote those theses don't know what they wrote.

    So let's agree to disagree, no I don't believe the unicorn version of controlled flight which makes a F-16 departure out of control a PSM, and I believe those who wrote theses on the subject of close-coupled canard especially the bit where they tested those solutions at AoA between -8 and +50* with mention:
    It was found that a properly located canard enhanced the lift at all tested angles of attack




    You call that B.S, I call that scientifically conducted and conclusive tests.

    So trying to detract people attention from such "details" by coming up with the same paranoiac tirades and disneylandish definitions of controlled flight time and time again is not making your cases, Mr.

    Oh, I nearly forgot, we had the same kind of rain dancing about Rafale M 1.4 supercruise and 11.0g, it takes time to debunk their whatever they like to call fake news, "opinions", but one day or another it hit them, some posted this leaked (at the time, info reserved to Salon Officials) and were trolled to death by the "specialists" who today try to pass out of control departure for controlled flight...



    Click image for larger version  Name:	fiche-rafale-le-bourget-2011.jpg Views:	0 Size:	146.0 KB ID:	3854427
    Have a nice one.


    https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/...ssault-rafale/
    Attached Files
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 4th March 2019, 19:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scorpion82
    replied
    Don't say I haven't warned you guys. It's the ever same picture since 15 years or so that this guy is trolling aviation forums across the internet. Sampaix, Fonk, Thunder, Dare2 and whatever nickbames he has used, one must be blind not to recognise that distinguishable pattern of the "go back to school", "learn the basics", "use proper aviation teminology", "you don't comprehend" etc. phrases like a shouter on his local bazar. It's all too familiar as is his whining about French and Rafale bashing and pretending to be the poor victim who is shot for being the messanger of "universal truth". Ofcourse he will pretend not be himself, that's the reason why he precisely knows what people like me are talking about with reference to his past appearences here and elsewhere and that's the reason why he knows about specific subjects discussed that certainly only people involved can know.why? Because no one else cares and that's why I tell you to put him on your ignore list and let him starve out of the attention that he desperately needs. I know this will be ignored and the BS will go on until some moderator will finally lock down the thread and hopefully bans the troll as had been the case countless times in the past.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by moon_light View Post
    That is too hard for him, he is a fanboy who learned some buzzwords at best.
    Psychological projection is your favourite trick is it?

    I don't need prove anything to your bunch, mate, and i never claimed i was at this level (although i fully understand what is written as opposed to many of you), I simply said more advanced stuff. meaning a lot more advanced that your bunch, especially this troll, here are some buzzwords he has no clue of...

    In short if you can't even figure how vortex lift works, can't tell what L-M test pilot means by vortex breakdown and loss of control (F-35 spin test video, F-16 transonic departure video), you're not even at entry level of a flying school, guess what much more advanced means in this case.

    Look at you not even capable of comprehending the meaning of the words control, maneuver and what they imply, comparing out of control to controlled flight takes some doing, troll fashion no? 120*/sec yaw rate an F-16 PSM? LOL!

    So try to impress someone else with copy/paste material you don't understand, then just answer the simple questions I asked in my previous reply, no need for a calculator, and btw, since your pal got spanked in the F-16 forum, he havent learned anything, still come back with the same false arguments, wrong examples (F-4, F-14, F-16 and so on, all the worst in the book)... Hilarious.

    Wasn't this document posted to him at the time?

    A wind-tunnel study to find the lift and drag characteristics of a low-aspect-ratio wing/body configuration from an angle of attack (AOA) of -8 to 50 degrees was conducted.

    A further study to find the comparative lift enhancement using the same wing/body with a close-coupled canard for wing/body angles of attack of 10, 22, 34, 40, and 48 degrees and canard deflection angles from -25 to 25 degrees was carried out.

    It was found that a properly located canard enhanced the lift at all tested angles of attack, compared to the baseline wing/body configuration results.

    The lift enhancement was maximized in the post-stall regimes, reaching values up to 34%.

    A small improvement in lift-to-drag ratio was noted at all tested angles above 10 degrees angle of attack.
    Compare to F-35 test pilot explaining how at high AoA (not P.S yet) they already experienced vortex breakdown, buffet and loss of control and you got the scoop, better tough, trying to pass aquaplaning for controlled powerslide on a car forum, I can imagine the face of some drivers there...

    O_0 oooooooch.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 4th March 2019, 16:25.

    Leave a comment:


  • moon_light
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    If you really learned much more advanced aerodynamic stuff than any of us, i am sure you can solve this aerodynamic math problems easy:
    Prove to us you aren't just an armchair expert then.
    Click image for larger version Name:	lecture 25 David.PNG Views:	0 Size:	21.3 KB ID:	3854318
    That is too hard for him, he is a fanboy who learned some buzzwords at best.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    Yep, your so called "basic aerodynamic knowledge" when you think fighter sustained G is greater then 9G at Mach 0.8, 15k ft or spin departure equal combat post stall maneuver, i am sure never bothered to learn that kind of baSiC AerOdYnaMic
    Blah.

    The more you post the funnier you sound... For one thing, you should start by buying an Oxford dictionary and open it at the pages maneuver and Psychological projection.

    I reiterate. Gripen departure in yaw spin was a full scaled PSM becaused the A-C was put into it by stalling dynamically, even at low speed, demonstrating pitch control at those low speed, with increased AoA up to 70/80*, controled in both acceleration/deceleration and stop to the yaw rotation before full recovery with full 3 axis controly ahthority throughout the entire length of the maneuver.


    Gripen 90*/sec, F-35 60*/sec.

    Now, after your pal posted the Rafale M pilot interview, what we've learned (we knew it but it was confirmed then) was some of the A-C limits.



    Rafale M1.4 supercruise, 11.0g.




    About Close-coupled canards.

    B. CLOSE-COUPLED CANARD
    The advantages of a close-coupled canard have been known since the 1960s.
    It was found by Behrbohm [Ref . 1] that the combination of a close-coupled canard and delta wing, of small aspect ratios, has significant advantages over a conventional delta-wing or wing/horizontal-tail configured aircraft.
    Both CLmax and the angle of attack for CLmax are increased by the addition of a delta-canard to a delta-wing.
    NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, Califormna
    THESIS..........-
    FLO WFIELD STUDY OF A CLOSE-COUPLED CANARD CONFIGURATION by John F. O'Leary
    June, 1992








    Canard effect
    The canard produces two additional vortices which combine with the vortices on the delta wing. This gives an extension of controlled airflow up to a higher AoA and





    an unshielded fin and rudder
    .
    FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL, 14 December 1985
    a paper by test pilot Walter Spychiger of the Swiss Defence Technology and Procurement Agency





    Now a couple of simple questions for you newbie:

    No LEX on a F4 did you say? So how come F-18/22/35 all experience vortex breakdwon at lower AoA than a close-coupled canard then?

    Click image for larger version  Name:	309920main-EC89-0096-226-full.jpg Views:	0 Size:	139.6 KB ID:	3854337

    How many sources of vortexes do you think there are on F-35, Gripen and Rafale? You can extend that to F-18 and F-22 if you wish.

    WHY does L-M even bother with Vortex generators such as LEX and Strakes?

    What deos the vortexes have as effect on the F-18/22 and F-35 again?

    What is the reason for aerodynamic bashing of fins and elevators for those A-Cs?

    During the tests, when in the AoA scale did L-M start noticing vortex breakdown again?


    Frankly, as i said, ther more you copy/paste the more it is obvious that trying to emulate and copycat someone is not your forte, you haven't figured that those who knows their basics can spot those who doesn't only this way and it's is EA.SY.










    A useful link for you.
    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...ucbuU0g39CchPQ
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 4th March 2019, 11:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    It's not "claims", boy, it's BASICS aerodynamics you never bothered to learn.
    Yep, your so called "basic aerodynamic knowledge" when you think fighter sustained G is greater then 9G at Mach 0.8, 15k ft or spin departure equal combat post stall maneuver, i am sure never bothered to learn that kind of baSiC AerOdYnaMic


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    I can comprehend what is actually written simply because I have learned the basics and much of the more advanced stuff, not to mention had it demonstrated as a student in flying schools, thus I can easily tell who knows what and it becomes clear to me that the most basic stuff already eludes you big time. I do, I can't help it if you chose to keep yourself in this dark zone of ignorance of those flight mechanics principles, and this is no "claims", this is aerodynamics and physics.
    If you really learned much more advanced aerodynamic stuff than any of us, i am sure you can solve this aerodynamic math problems easy:
    Prove to us you aren't just an armchair expert then.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	lecture 25 David.PNG Views:	0 Size:	21.3 KB ID:	3854318

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    110* AoA isn't exceptional for a modern fighter and completely unnecessary to reach for spin tests since your most efficient angle for those tests will be in theory closer to 90*
    whatever your pet fighter has done must be the most efficient, every other way is complete trash. I understand your thought


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Now you haven't managed to shown me "to be wrong and have to change my claims over and over", since I keep repeating the same thing again and again
    Let have a quick recall shall we
    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, this say a lot about your knowledge of spin departure 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 - recover from 60 degrees/seconds spin rate in its spin departure-recovery test => turn out, it is quite usual thing, F-16 spin rate even reach 120 degrees/second in spin departure test.
    8-You claimed 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 and then the test report of Lockheed Martin clearly stated that F-35 can perform post stall maneuver in combat like its brother F-22
    9- You claimed Gripen has extremely good high AoA nose control that why its FCS does not limit the aircraft to 26 AoA like F-16 => turn out, the flight control test report also show Gripen recover system will automatically engage after AoA of 26 deg
    10-You claimed that Post stall maneuver is useless, and all other airforces limit their fighters AoA to maximum of 30 degrees => turn out you are missing out on F-18E/F, F-35A/B/C, Su-30 MKK, Su-30MKI, Su-35S, Mig-35, F-22, Su-57, FGFA


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    it still is 30*/sec slower in the yaw axis Post Stall than Gripen and this is rather relevant when it comes to the so-called PSM designed to face a threat, it demonstrates two things, you don't need TVC and a close-coupled canard can maneuver more efficiently than a conventional design PSM? Gripen 90*/sec yaw rotation rate, F-35 60*/sec. Enuff said.
    Again, you try to blur the line between Post stall maneuver and a spin departure test
    FYI, F-16, f-18 reached and recover from 100-120*/sec yaw rotation rate in these kinds of test.




    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    So much for "undocumented B.S", it's been up since the mid-80s and studied from the 60s.
    B. CLOSE-COUPLED CANARD
    The advantages of a close-coupled canard have been known since the 1960s.

    It was found by Behrbohm [Ref . 1] that the combination of a close-coupled canard and delta wing, of small aspect ratios, has significant advantages over a conventional delta-wing or wing/horizontal-tail configured aircraft.

    Both CLmax and the angle of attack for CLmax are increased by the addition of a delta-canard to a delta-wing.

    NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, Califormna

    THESIS..........-
    FLO WFIELD STUDY OF A CLOSE-COUPLED CANARD CONFIGURATION by John F. O'Leary
    As expected from a disingenuous person, you skip out the vital part of that study
    The comparison was against positive stable conventional wing-tail aircraft. Not to mention that F-4 also lack vortex generation device such as LERX or chines.
    So, exactly like i said, you cherry pick a small part of information to make your case, while ignoring all relevant parameter that influences the result.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	canard.PNG Views:	0 Size:	208.0 KB ID:	3854317
    Last edited by garryA; 4th March 2019, 10:18.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
    No.You was the one jumping to the jugular, insulting half the forum since the week you started posting. Don't victimize yourself.
    Sorry? Insulting? SHOW us please a quote of me "insulting half the forum".

    You really think much too highly of yourself, first, it is no insult to point out that you have no clue what you write about, and sure thing, when it comes to the whole subject you really have no clue, not you, not your pal.

    Second, you're far from being "half the forum" and this topic is not mine, why would I feel victimized?

    Third, I don't feel victimized at all, quite the opposite, considering what your pal and your self keep writing I feel a lot more confident I demonstrated my points, bring up more yawning and pets, and I certainly don't need to insult anyone.

    I'll leave you to your trolling, your paranoia and your cat, have a good day...



    are old vented cliche
    Yep, vortex aerodynamics... Reason for F-22 and F-35 to be equipped with strakes. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 3rd March 2019, 23:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    No.You was the one jumping to the jugular, insulting half the forum since the week you started posting. Don't victimize yourself.

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X