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
    replied


    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
    You definitively have a problem with the human race. In due respect to my Cat alias, I won't bark with you Zarathurista
    Like you two spamming stuff you don't even start to comprehend in unrelated topics or going personal? Is that the kind of problem you were thinking of?

    Nah, I don't even have a problem with US aircraft manufacturers, at least I understand the reason behind their choices and I don't feel the need to troll their A-Cs topics as your bunch does...

    I haven't bothered reading the topics where you "specialists" were writing and giving your opinions, since you know better than the most advanced guys in the business anyway even if you don't pick up on the most basic stuff they write about (like low pressure, vortex breakdown, loss of control), but I understand why you come up with 1940 technology and your pet, it makes perfect sense.

    Anyway, it must be disappointing for you to figure that not everyone will fall for your pretention, as I said, when I need an "opinion", I know where to ask and it's not in forums, trust me on this one.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 3rd March 2019, 23:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    Perhaps it's time for you to send them a job application, hang on, i'm sure they don't need it, you already have a proposal for a floor runner position on its way to your local post office.
    You definitively have a problem with the human race. In due respect to my Cat alias, I won't bark with you Zarathurista

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
    You know in 1940 they too had hard belief about elliptical wing, the impossibility to go through the sonic wall or the ineptitude of having women pilots... Take a deep breath man and take one step forward into the future... with all of us yawning that you end-up reaching the point. Because your diatribe is a pain to watch. Scientifically and as an educated individual able to share serenely around different opinions.

    Canards expectations are old vented cliche. Sorry dude.
    You should be sorry for yourself, considering the amount of documentation you missed while coming up with a loudmouth lecturing everyone else, I mean who wrote the most about it? Damned right NASA/DRYDEN, US most advanced agencies with a few prototypes to make sure they got it right, your bunch don't even know F-16/18/22/35, and you care to give opinions on rafale?

    Perhaps it's time for you to send them a job application, hang on, i'm sure they don't need it, you already have a proposal for a floor runner position on its way to your local post office.

    Look at the amount of B.S you two managed to write and going on with comparison with 1940 design, ignoring well documented aerodynamic issues encountered by the very A-Cs you try to oppose to them on forum, sorry to say mate but the world of aerodynamics have changed since 1940 as you said, but L-M designed F-35 using a Dassault-system package while still managing to overshoot their weight targets by a fair margin and lose a few vortexes to low pressure they didn't figure at design stage. I'm so impressed.

    As John Boyd once said, "I could f%^k up and do better", and modest too; "as an educated individual able to share serenely around different opinions."?

    Like one should care about your opinion, we have tons better and it's not a matter of opinion, let alone pretending to serenely share some, before sharing any, you need to formate it on something else than yawning instead of learning, at least people who studied the subject can and you visibly haven't.

    Keep yawning, that's precisely what makes your bunch ignorants and us amused at your trolling of every single Rafale topic. Too, too funny.

    PSM? Gripen 90*/sec yaw rotation rate, F-35 60*/sec. Enuff said.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 3rd March 2019, 22:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    You know in 1940 they too had hard belief about elliptical wing, the impossibility to go through the sonic wall or the ineptitude of having women pilots... Take a deep breath man and take one step forward into the future... with all of us yawning that you end-up reaching the point. Because your diatribe is a pain to watch. Scientifically and as an educated individual able to share serenely around different opinions.

    Canards expectations are old vented cliche. Sorry dude.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 3rd March 2019, 21:34.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    The reasons why are explained in many aerodynamic topics, one i already posted, some others can be found (or not) on line.

    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    Yes, with a tweak in FCS and intentional control, F-35 can be put into a spin before 110deg, so what?.
    I love how you keep claim that i don't understand the words while it is you who was shown to be wrong and have to change your claims over and over.




    Well i am not the one who made up idiotic claims then get shut down by test report and flight manual pages.

    It's not "claims", boy, it's BASICS aerodynamics you never bothered to learn.

    I'm not into this "mine's bigger" syndrome of yours, 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.

    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*, but all you need is to reach an AoA where your A-C departs and it's way earlier in the AoA scale, what AoA does a SU-37 reach when performing a Kulbit again?

    Dryden conducted tests both in wind and oil tunnels, RC and piloted testing with most of the fighters in service with the USAF today, I read most of the reports available at the time (you didn't and can't find them online anymore) and they advised on recovery procedures and eventually redesign of prototypes (as in the case of YF-22) for those as well as exploring their full combat flight envelop, so I reiterate just in case you misunderstood first or 12th time:

    To pass those tests, you need the sort of control authority that the F-35 has, in 3 axis, some have more than others and papers written by NASA, Dryden engineers and SAAB chief designer both quote the delta-canard formula as having the qualities I mentioned, only Dassault, IAI didn't disclose data, you don't know it, 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 can't figure out what does what and when, what vortexes are, what vortex lift is, what is boundary layer, what vortexes does do to boundary layers, why vortex breakdown means lower control authority, then there is no point writing about a comparison between a conventional design and a close-coupled canard, since you can't tell the difference between the two when it comes to control authority at high angle of attack and F-18/F-22/F-35 all have control authority issues due to vortex breakdown to some degree a close-coupled canard doesn't know.

    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, the only thing I didn't pick up on was the fact that F-35 did pass 110* AoA, though, 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.

    The only reason why US A-C doesn't use this formula is VLO.


    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
    So much for "undocumented B.S", it's been up since the mid-80s and studied from the 60s.



    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 3rd March 2019, 20:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

    You're so full of it you still can't read plain English. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ...

    NOPE. 110% was the maximum AoA, the aircraft departed FAR earlier than that, but since you still can't comprehend the meaning of the words you copy/paste, we still have to suffer B.S by the bucket.
    Yes, with a tweak in FCS and intentional control, F-35 can be put into a spin before 110deg, so what?.
    I love how you keep claim that i don't understand the words while it is you who was shown to be wrong and have to change your claims over and over.



    Originally posted by Thincankiller
    Stop writing in Aviation forums, take on knitting
    Well i am not the one who made up idiotic claims then get shut down by test report and flight manual pages.
    Last edited by garryA; 3rd March 2019, 18:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post

    F-35 departure test was done at 110 deg AoA, i am quite Gripen don't go much further than that.
    You're so full of it you still can't read plain English. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ...

    NOPE. 110% was the maximum AoA, the aircraft departed FAR earlier than that, but since you still can't comprehend the meaning of the words you copy/paste, we still have to suffer B.S by the bucket.

    And something else, the closest to 90*AoA the highest your yaw spin rotation rate can be ("helicopter" effect of the ailerons used to start/stop the spin during Gripen test didn't hit a brain cell either), 70/80* or 110* wouldn't explain the difference between the two, Gripen spanks F-35 demonstratively by 30*/sec and that's only due to a higher level of control authority.



    Stop writing in Aviation forums, take on knitting.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 3rd March 2019, 19:02.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post

    No secret here, it matters little which AoA you are at low speed to achieve this if: a) structural integrity of the airframe allows b) depending on your particular A-C aerodynamics, your yaw axis will be controlled by either one set of control surfaces or another, (adverse, induced etc).
    On Close-coupled canards (or ANY canard surfaces equipped A-C), there is no use of the canard surfaces in the roll axis for reasons of structural torsion (it would require a much too heavy front fuselage), on the other hand, as demonstrated on Mirage IIIS/NG/4000 and IAI Kfirs (close-coupled), the airflow on the fuselage, boundary layer at the A-C wing roots and around the vertical surface is enhanced/energized by the presence of vortexes from nose cone strakes/LEX/Delta wing root, canard root and on the Rafale, the design of the fuselage itself.
    So you have several sets of vortexes to keep the boundary layer on the airframe in this area, meaning vortexes breakdown occurs at much higher AoA.
    That's a particular characteristic of the design which seems to elude to many people writing about it, at high AoA, the boundary later sticks to this part of the fuselage when that of conventional designs have already vacated, not the case of Close-coupled canards, no need to consult in forum but to read studies about the formula from people who knows, like NASA/DRYDEN/Dassault/SAAB, interpretation if forum is much too often tainted and inaccurate.
    and people in the know such as the one work at SAAB don't claim PSM for Gripen, neither does Dassault themselves ever claimed Rafale capable of performing pedal turn or Kulbit or Herbst, enough said.
    The only thing you actually know is close coupled canard keep vortex from break down later than a pure delta, but that it, you have no numerical data to compare the side force that a close coupled canard such as Gripen can generate at high AoA such as 50 degrees to compare to twin tail aircraft such as F-35 or F-22 at the same exact condition. You have no data to evaluate how accurate their control can be or how fast the yaw can be initiated or stop
    In other words, your "analyze" base on very small amount of generic information all the while making very big claim and ignore dozens other related factors, it is like someone who say higher sweep wing has less drag, therefore, Mirage III must fly faster than Mig-25.


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    There is NO "effet bote meuh" there, NO aerodynamic limitation if this is what this B.S means to some, quite the opposite, if you mistake acceleration with roll rate, as explained hundred of time by people who served in A-F using them, limitations are there to allow for your average squadron pilot to keep the A-C under control at all speed, since there is no speed limiter for example, and btw, the Mirage 2000 is also limited this way, even more in G than a Rafale
    btw, on F-18/F-35. vortexes breakdown in the area is also well documented (fluter/structural issues caused by aerodynamic bashing), so whatever AoA they will reach, they will not be as efficient as that of a close-coupled canard, even with the use of 2 vertical fins.

    So you guys can keep the effet bote meuh for confetis to throw at weddings because it's what it's worse, bar if you want to keep flaming French posters in forums.
    Another claim with no data to back up.
    FYI, posting that photo of F-35 in the wind tunnel with vortex hitting its tail (like you always do in other forums) doesn't prove your point, because:
    a- You don't have the same tunnel data for either Gripen or Rafale
    b- You don't have such data at all AoA, there is no chart or overlap curve showing their relative controllability at all AoA, it is nothing more than speculation in your part.
    c- F-18/F-35 can perform post stall maneuvers, and had demonstrated such ability, none ever seen from Gripen or Rafale.



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    You don't need 30/40/50* AoA to do a pedal turn, all you need is low speed, at whatever AoA your A-C will allow you to pass the maneuver, so if you have the choice between transcient performances (energy/acceleration) and AoA which will take it all away from you, and become more of a limiting factor than an advantage, limiting the A-C AoA makes perfect sense.
    Conclusions of PSM tests were the same than those reached by X-31 pilots with on top the comment made by Yves Kerherve; "we don't need TVC".
    .Their comment was never that post stall maneuver is useless, but rather that it is not worth it to trade of important characteristic, such as acceleration or speed just to get PSM, that mean for example: it is not worth it to have post stall maneuver if in the process you decrease acceleration by 20% due to the added weight from TVC. On the other hand, having post stall maneuver capability while not having to trade other fighter characteristic or the loss is small, it is really worth it, since it can very useful in certain case and for that reason, many new aircraft still designed to have post stall capability such as Su-57, Su-35, F-35, F-18, F-22
    Click image for larger version  Name:	image_260862.jpg Views:	0 Size:	56.5 KB ID:	3854244



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Actually, bar going over 29/30* AoA, yes they can, because you don't need to get into a stall to do a pedal turn, you can do it in a stall though
    If it is such an easy task, why you still unable to find any video of either Rafale or Gripen perform the pedal turn?



    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    And even more efficiently, as demonstrated by Gripen maximum yaw rate in yaw spin tests, 30*/sec is a huge difference when it comes to 60* to 90*, but there is little advantage in ACM there
    High yaw rate in departure test offer no advantage to operational ACM, because in controlled departure, aircraft don't have the same level of control to get a fire solution like in a combat post stall maneuver. Beside, max yaw rate accumulated after several spins can't be used in combat either

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Take this a step further and this is precisely how you depart an A-C asymmetrically (as demonstrated by the descriptive of the yaw spin test on Gripen), start a yaw spin and stop it, you'll also need to recover speed, meaning using pitch, and all of this at AoA much lower than that reached by F-18/35.
    F-35 departure test was done at 110 deg AoA, i am quite Gripen don't go much further than that.

    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    close-coupled canards allows for lower AoA for the same amount of vortex lift (appears earlier in the AoA scale), therefore, higher lift/drag coefficient.
    Compare to a pure delta, yes.
    Other kinds of wing? not necessary, after all, delta is a kind of very high sweep wing.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	sweep.PNG
Views:	161
Size:	265.2 KB
ID:	3854245
    Last edited by garryA; 3rd March 2019, 18:25.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by FBW View Post
    Dassault Rafale discussion with pilot on fighter pilots podcast. Interview starts at 17 min.
    https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/...ssault-rafale/
    Interesting, thanks.

    I would have loved it if it had been an interview of Kerherve or any of the DGA/Dassault test flight team, unfortunately, as much about France's stuff, it's advertised briefly when it comes out, then get classified, so if you missed it, haven't archived it, you just aren't informed.

    Anyway, it's a little bit "all public", but what we have confirmed is: M 1.4 supercruise and 11.0g.

    When I say "all public"I mean little details about what he means by air-to-air configuration, as for F-16, two wingtip AAM is considered as "clean".

    About the "airbrake" effect of the delta wing, again "all public", you can use it as an airbrake at max AoA, sure thing, but what is not said is; close-coupled canards allows for lower AoA for the same amount of vortex lift (appears earlier in the AoA scale), therefore, higher lift/drag coefficient.

    The A-C drags less and loses much less energy for the same amount of G than a Mirage 2000 with similar TWR (dry thrust it will beat a 2000 in full reheat), it will recover its energy faster because for the lift needed for the same maneuver it will take less AoA in every situation as well.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 3rd March 2019, 14:17.

    Leave a comment:


  • FBW
    replied
    Dassault Rafale discussion with pilot on fighter pilots podcast. Interview starts at 17 min.
    https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/...ssault-rafale/

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Yes very much that.
    If you train to stall different A-Cs in order to know their specific limits, you'll figure that they often have different stall characteristics, mostly an AoA where you shouldn't use ailerons (or else you stall one wing earlier than the other one) but rudder instead and it depends on the design itself.

    Take this a step further and this is precisely how you depart an A-C asymmetrically (as demonstrated by the descriptive of the yaw spin test on Gripen), start a yaw spin and stop it, you'll also need to recover speed, meaning using pitch, and all of this at AoA much lower than that reached by F-18/35.

    I tried to explain this from the start, there is a consensus about stall which involves AoA only, but stalling doesn't necessarily mean that all airflow have left your wing surface, since the loss of lift is the result, it can occur because of speeds at which air pressure doesn't allow for enough lift to be generated, as I said previously, you can stall an A-C in many ways, AoA, AoA and speed combined or speed only, even at 0* AoA as you will do when you pass a Hammerhead maneuver.

    In every case you will learn the most important factor for recovery is speed, so energy management is the buzzword here, not maximum AoA or how much AoA your FCS will let you get to, in theory, an F-22 is much more controllable than a conventional A-C at this level, it doesn't prevent a Rafale without TVC and with a much lower TWR to compete with it, the Rafale pilot will always be able to point its nose toward the F-22 at low speed but it doesn't need 50* AoA, using vertical yo-yo will allow you to manage your energy level.

    The A-C recovers speed very fast when you trade altitude for energy and looses little at high AoA (same at high G btw) while still remaining maneuvrable enough, I know it can do pedal turns since I have seen Kerherve do that at Farnborough with the Rafale M, but you will put the AC in an attitude where energy recovery will take more time than with a conventional high yo-yo, no advantage there, he only passed it to demonstrate low speed maneuverability of the Marine version, little interest otherwise.

    The HUD footage of the ACM between Rafale and F-22 should have given people a clue, because if you can roll at 80kt without TVC at the top of your yo-yo, there is little advantage keeping this low level of energy since you can keep pointing nose while recovering it.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 3rd March 2019, 12:16.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    it matters little
    Yes very much that.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by halloweene View Post
    Yes ECO demonstrator reached 9T, but at the cost of a poorer reliability than M-88 CGP pack.
    Not particular to M88, it's either one or the other with every engine, but only a 10 ton version would require redesign of the engine and intakes if my memory doesn't fail me, SNECMA at the time published a PDF on the CGP pack and the stages used to get there, again by memory, the aerodynamics of the compressor and perhaps other internal parts were mentioned as well.

    By that you can read, increased pressure/output but also better cooling, topics researched by ONERA together with material coating for higher TIT.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 3rd March 2019, 11:20.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
    In fact at max aoa (32 or 35deg - I have to check it back), the Rafale is locked in roll and yaw. This also mean that roll acceleration are tempered leading to what can be called: "l'effet bote meuh" .

    Similar value for the SH is 50deg.For the Tomcat this was 42/45. F-15 is 32. F-16 30. M2K is around 25/28. Once again data are straight from my memory.

    We have often debated this subject already. I am sure this can be accessed via a proper search on the forum

    modern US assumption regarding max AoA is the max angle where the aircraft can roll around its velocity vector. This has never been the case at Dassault (or never publicized).
    No secret here, it matters little which AoA you are at low speed to achieve this if: a) structural integrity of the airframe allows b) depending on your particular A-C aerodynamics, your yaw axis will be controlled by either one set of control surfaces or another, (adverse, induced etc).

    On Close-coupled canards (or ANY canard surfaces equipped A-C), there is no use of the canard surfaces in the roll axis for reasons of structural torsion (it would require a much too heavy front fuselage), on the other hand, as demonstrated on Mirage IIIS/NG/4000 and IAI Kfirs (close-coupled), the airflow on the fuselage, boundary layer at the A-C wing roots and around the vertical surface is enhanced/energized by the presence of vortexes from nose cone strakes/LEX/Delta wing root, canard root and on the Rafale, the design of the fuselage itself.

    So you have several sets of vortexes to keep the boundary layer on the airframe in this area, meaning vortexes breakdown occurs at much higher AoA.

    That's a particular characteristic of the design which seems to elude to many people writing about it, at high AoA, the boundary later sticks to this part of the fuselage when that of conventional designs have already vacated, not the case of Close-coupled canards, no need to consult in forum but to read studies about the formula from people who knows, like NASA/DRYDEN/Dassault/SAAB, interpretation if forum is much too often tainted and inaccurate.

    There is NO "effet bote meuh" there, NO aerodynamic limitation if this is what this B.S means to some, quite the opposite, if you mistake acceleration with roll rate, as explained hundred of time by people who served in A-F using them, limitations are there to allow for your average squadron pilot to keep the A-C under control at all speed, since there is no speed limiter for example, and btw, the Mirage 2000 is also limited this way, even more in G than a Rafale.

    btw, on F-18/F-35. vortexes breakdown in the area is also well documented (fluter/structural issues caused by aerodynamic bashing), so whatever AoA they will reach, they will not be as efficient as that of a close-coupled canard, even with the use of 2 vertical fins.

    So you guys can keep the effet bote meuh for confetis to throw at weddings because it's what it's worse, bar if you want to keep flaming French posters in forums.

    Max AoA is another topic altogether, on Rafale it has little to do with aerodynamic limits, but on performances limits, the A-C is perfectly controlable PSM but the reality is; how much energy are you prepared to trade for just a maneuver you actually can pass at 29* AoA?

    You don't need 30/40/50* AoA to do a pedal turn, all you need is low speed, at whatever AoA your A-C will allow you to pass the maneuver, so if you have the choice between transcient performances (energy/acceleration) and AoA which will take it all away from you, and become more of a limiting factor than an advantage, limiting the A-C AoA makes perfect sense.

    Conclusions of PSM tests were the same than those reached by X-31 pilots with on top the comment made by Yves Kerherve; "we don't need TVC".
    Originally posted by Shania View Post
    At its maximum angle of attack, the F-35 reacts more quickly to the pilots "pedal inputs," which command the nose of the plane from side to side, than does the F-16, according to Hanche.
    F-15 is far from being an example at this level, first it is the most AoA limited quoted so far, then it suffers from limitations such as superstall and departure in transonic which close-coupled canards doesn't know, and it is not the only one A-C with this sort of characteristics.




    Originally posted by Shania View Post
    "This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent," Hanche wrote. "This 'pedal turn' yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the 'pedal turn' provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely."
    --
    Like any other modern fighter, FCS dont let F-35 depart... Gripen and Rafale claws laws are more strict, it doesnt matter what they can do in testing, operational jets cant do what F-35 can.




    Actually, bar going over 29/30* AoA, yes they can, because you don't need to get into a stall to do a pedal turn, you can do it in a stall though.

    And even more efficiently, as demonstrated by Gripen maximum yaw rate in yaw spin tests, 30*/sec is a huge difference when it comes to 60* to 90*, but there is little advantage in ACM there, if 1) you lose your energy, 2) you're at AoA where recovering it is going to take more time than a F-16 pilot needs to drill your brain out in a gun-only contest, reason why the top guns flying F-22 doesn't even try it even so their TWR is so much higher than a Rafale in ACM.

    There is a point where one has to distinguish between commercial bragging and reality (Gripen and Rafale are still F-35 competitors).
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 3rd March 2019, 13:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    Italked 2 years ago with a tech at DGA propulseurs about it (he is in the same aeroclub as me) . The very hih temps tested during Turenne 1 were not specifically designed for M88, ut for SCAF DP (the drone) engine. And they were reaching higher temps. Talking later with ppl from Safran or DA, this temp higher tolerance was more designed to improve visits rythm so as to help drone stealthiness.
    About Turenne 2, yes it is probably meant to NGF or a new version of M-88, didn't heat anything about a 9T prototype although.
    Yes ECO demonstrator reached 9T, but at the cost of a poorer reliability than M-88 CGP pack. Thins are moving quickly although. But i'm afraid someone may have mixed projects. Presently, many said that due to airflow amount dictated by air intakes, M-88 could not go further than 8.3 T on present Rafale.
    Thins are moving so quicly i may have lost a track.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by halloweene View Post

    Take it with a bucket of salt. Temps cited are way inferior to those tested and noone ever talked about a 9T (or less or even more) dry thrust engine. Presently these tests are more drone oriented in order to disminish the dismounting/opening of traps etc rate.
    I thought ECO demonstrator had already reached 20.000lbs a long time ago?

    No mention of drone either, in fact, it's either 20.000lbs or SFC/TBO etc, if the engine is capable of it with a redesigned compressor (they spoke of internal aerodynamics at the time), it matters little what they use it for.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    In fact at max aoa (32 or 35deg - I have to check it back), the Rafale is locked in roll and yaw. This also mean that roll acceleration are tempered leading to what can be called: "l'effet bote meuh" .

    Similar value for the SH is 50deg.For the Tomcat this was 42/45. F-15 is 32. F-16 30. M2K is around 25/28. Once again data are straight from my memory.

    We have often debated this subject already. I am sure this can be accessed via a proper search on the forum

    modern US assumption regarding max AoA is the max angle where the aircraft can roll around its velocity vector. This has never been the case at Dassault (or never publicized).
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 2nd March 2019, 14:36.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shania
    replied
    At its maximum angle of attack, the F-35 reacts more quickly to the pilots "pedal inputs," which command the nose of the plane from side to side, than does the F-16, according to Hanche.

    "This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent," Hanche wrote. "This 'pedal turn' yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the 'pedal turn' provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely."


    --
    Like any other modern fighter, FCS dont let F-35 depart... Gripen and Rafale claws laws are more strict, it doesnt matter what they can do in testing, operational jets cant do what F-35 can.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post


    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

    Bucked of commercial B.S for fanboyz revisited.

    Answers are simple, already gave them but fanboyz can't read properly, they only can interpret, and YES F-16 is even more AoA limited than Rafale or Gripen, other than that, it is plain obvious they they won't pass those airshow stunts in combat because it makes them slow, energy-less targets, they didn't with F-22, they won't do it with F-35 which is inferior to it PS.

    Repeat all you wish what you chose to believe, FACT is, Gripen passed a PSM with a yaw rate 30* higher than F-35, NOT at 50* AoA but between 70* and 80* AoS, meaning NOT High AioA but well past departure AoA.

    They also stalled the A=C dynamically, meaning they started the maneuver with FULL control of it throughout and stopped it, when L-M test pilots speaks of loss of control, should; be clear enough but you're unable to comprehend what it means.

    And i'm done arguning with you since you obviously don't comprehend what is written in the first place (high AoA vs Post Stall for a starter), as I first said, their stunt is advertised as high AoA, even the air show one, and the goal of those tests were high AoA, never to test PSM and validate them for combat, even if S-H does it, it doesn't make them so hot in ACM, this bit obviously is the commercial B-S-ing that get the crowd behind the manufacturer, unfortunately, they overdone it, some of us knows what spin tests implies even if you don't.

    End of your wet dream methink.
    Laughable for a troll such as you to call test report commercial BS but theory that himself come up with as fact.
    Even funnier when you pretend like every single countries i mentioned earlier only use F-16, do you think that people won't noitice when you skip out: F-18 E/F, F-35, F-22, Su-27, Su-30MKI, Su-30MKK, FGFA, Su-35, Su-57? I have never said PSM is some sort of super silver bullet in close combat, nor did i ever claimed it is the strongest point of F-35. But PSM can be useful in some conditions that why many countries still keep it
    To honest though, it is sad how you keep making claims that you can't back up then have to keep changing your claims over and over until you lose any credibility you ever got, like how you have to keep changing your claim from " f-35 has never beeen tested anywhere close to 90 degree AoA" then to " F-35 was only tested in spin recovery " then to " F-35 can't perform PSM, because it lose control at high AoA," then now to "F-35 PSM is inferior to F-22 so it will never be used in combat ". That desperation is both hilarious and sad at the same time.
    FACT:
    according to SAAB, they tested Gripen in an intentional departure test to verifed high AoA limit and spin recovery control system. There was never been a single word from SAAB themselves or Gripen pilot claiming Gripen can use post stall maneuver to gain advantage in combat (clearly opposite of what LM and F-35 pilot talk about F-35).

    Just because Gripen was put to higher yaw rate then recover, doesn't indicate more accurate control than f-35, after all, F-16 can recover from 120deg/sec yaw rate and F-18 can recover from 100deg/sec yaw rate. You now gonna claim "but ..but ..but Gripen get to that yaw rate by its arelions input". It doesn't matter because higher yaw rate can just be accumulated, as long as the side drag isn't too high, the rate will keep increasing, you don't know how many spin does it take to get to 90 deg/second, you don't know in how many second gripen can stop if the pilot wanted to. In other words, that number impress no one but you.



    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post
    Regarding the AoA limit, let me ask you this: Does Russia limit their fighter AoA to 29-30 degrees? Does USA limit their fighter AoA to 29-30 degrees?

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

    Bucked of commercial B.S for fanboyz revisited.

    Answers are simple, already gave them but fanboyz can't read properly, they only can interpret, and YES F-16 is even more AoA limited than Rafale or Gripen, other than that, it is plain obvious that they won't pass those airshow stunts in combat because it makes them slow, energy-less targets, they didn't with F-22, they won't do it with F-35 which is inferior to it PS.

    Repeat all you wish what you chose to believe, FACT is, Gripen passed a PSM with a yaw rate 30* higher than F-35, NOT at 50* AoA but between 70* and 80* AoS, meaning NOT High AoA but well past departure AoA.

    They also stalled the A-C dynamically using pitch control, meaning they started the maneuver with FULL control of it throughout and stopped it, when L-M test pilots speaks of loss of control, should be clear enough but you're unable to comprehend what it means.

    And i'm done arguning with you since you obviously don't comprehend what is written in the first place (high AoA vs Post Stall for a starter), as I first said, their stunt is advertised as high AoA, even the air show one, and the goal of those tests were high AoA, never to test PSM and validate them for combat, even if S-H does it, it doesn't make them so hot in ACM, this bit obviously is the commercial B-S-ing that get the crowd behind the manufacturer, unfortunately, they overdone it, some of us knows what spin tests implies even if you don't.

    End of your wet dream methink.
    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 1st March 2019, 13:47.

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X