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 ThincanKiller View Post
    As seen in a French forum.



    I personally takes this with a pinch of salt, I'd rather believe, in view of the previous stages of development, that the compressor aerodynamics, already studied for some time, are the last part of a multi-stage development phase which went through redesign of the engine modules, which first allowed for longer TBO then reduced SFC.

    So at the end, when all the components will be available, the engine will have the capability to produce 9 ton thrust but lose in terms of SFC and part longevity, though I think it might be possible to increase the thrust to 8 tons and reach a good compromise.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    LOL! Here we go again, you lack so much critical mind and understanding of the basics of aerodynamics, you can't even figure the commercial B.S from the reality of flight , let alone combat, controlled departure means accuracy of the yaw/pitch axis..
    That rich coming guys who was proven wrong over 15 times, i love how you are so desperate to save face that you resort to tactic like lying and casually skipping important evidences that your objectors put up. What happened?, why didn't you address the LM test report? ah yes, because it make you look like an idiot with what you claimed earlier.


    Originally posted by ThincanKiller View Post
    Smell commercial B.S by the bucket, first it doesn't say "but this is only because other A-F and Navies have chosen to limit their A-C AoA to 30* or 29* after testing the Operational usefulness of PSM"
    Then, WHERE does L.M says it is anything like "combat rated PSM" and speaking of accuracy of yaw/pitch, Gripen has demonstrated being superior to F-35, relaxed AoA doesn't fix inferior aerodynamics.
    Just a little reminder:
    1) They admit to one fact, F-22 is better than F-35 in the PS area and yet no F-22 pilot uses those otherwise than to bluff fanboys at airshows and produce pretty videos, a Rafale can beat a F-22, so I don't think they are so impressed by F-35 stunts.
    2) Regardless of what you can come up with, since they did NOT conduct those test for the purpose of validating"combat rated PSM", there is no consencus (quiet the opposite) in the F-35 users, otherwise said, NO specific tests, NO "rating" and in reality PSM remains strictly limited in combat when it comes to its usefulness
    3) X-31 pilots opinion proves and validate this point, and this A-C was designed AND tested specifically for validating and "rating" PSM.
    4) Gripen has a lot more PSM capabilities due to a higher level of control in the same yaw spin situation (but not only), without loss of control throughout the whole of the maneuver, and 30*/sec higher yaw rate demonstrated.
    5) I reiterate. ANY A-C going through spin testing successfully has "accuracy" of the yaw/pitc axis, or else, they would be able to a) increase yaw rate or other axis parameter for the purpose of the test, then stop it, and as a matter of FACT it takes the yaw/pitch controls to achieve that, increasing/lower AoA and yaw rate.
    If you had known anything about the whole subject you would be able to distinguish between commercial hype and reality.
    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? Does Indian limit their fighter AoA to 29-30 degrees? Does Australia limit their fighter AoA to 29-30 degrees?..etc the answer is NO. (Though it is a bit of dishonest advertise by saying only 5 gen can perform pedal turn)
    To find where LM state post stall maneuver for combat is simple, you only have to look at their test report, i know you can't read very well so i have highlighted them
    Click image for larger version  Name:	image_260770.png Views:	0 Size:	837.7 KB ID:	3853720
    Speaking of accuracy for yaw/pitch, no Gripen have never demonstrated being superior to F-35, what happened is that Gripen departure test had higher spin rate than F-35 departure test (then again, so was F-18 and F-16), but that isn't the indicator of accuracy, and it wasn't really all that special either, spin rate can be accumulated overtime, you can reach high rate if you spin around several time, but it combat, that never happen. Nevertheless, a controlled departure is not the same as a PSM that can be translated to a gun/missile solution.

    1) F-22 and F-35 does uses post stall maneuver in exercise though it is not the main point about them, but to be Frank, your argument is quite dumb, 1 Rafale beat 1 F-22 in mock dogfight that mean Rafale automatically better than F-22 now? what sort of idiot think that? a F-4 did beat a Rafale in Frisian flag, should we put it as the ultimate fighter?
    2) Unlike you, who desperately try to interpret Gripen spin departure test as Post stall maneuver capability even though neither Gripen pilot nor SAAB claimed such a thing, i don't have to come up with anything, Lockheed Martin test say it all: F-35 can use post stall maneuver to gain advantage in air combat, F-35 retain post stall maneuver capability from its brother F-22, and they also list several maneuvers it could perform. That not to mention pilot who described how he used pedal turn in mock dogfight. Also, FYI, they did test high AoA maneuvers for F-35, you are trying to dismiss such obvious fact in the face of overwhelming evidence only make you look super desperate
    Click image for larger version  Name:	Untitled.png Views:	0 Size:	42.1 KB ID:	3853719Click image for larger version  Name:	image_260771.png Views:	0 Size:	360.2 KB ID:	3853726


    3) As usual, you are very disingenuous, they didn't said post stall was useless, they didn't support trading off others important fighter characteristic just to get post stall capability that means for example: it is not worth it to cut your speed in half to get post stall capability. PSM for aircraft, can be seen as similar to a sniper having a hand gun, he will rarely use it, but in some case, it can still be useful.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	image_260765.jpg Views:	0 Size:	158.0 KB ID:	3853728
    4-5) Nope, you can repeat that a thousand times, it still won't change the fact that Gripen has no combat PSM capability, nor was it ever tested for such thing. SAAB never claimed Gripen has full control to transit from a PSM to a gun solution, only that it can be put into a spin then recover, that it. You want to prove Gripen can utilize post-stall maneuver, go find a single test report of SAAB saying such a thing about Gripen, instead of desparately trying to interprete controlled departure test as PSM
    Click image for larger version  Name:	image_260769.png Views:	0 Size:	47.2 KB ID:	3853727
    Last edited by garryA; 28th February 2019, 17:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    As seen in a French forum.

    Parly also announced a 115 million contract for a feasibility study, dubbed Turenne 2, in which Safran will develop new turbine blades for the M88 engine, which powers the Rafale fighter jet.

    The new blades are expected to boost the M88s thrust to nine tons compared to the present 7.5 tons.

    https://sldinfo.com/2019/02/an-updat...february-2019/
    I personally takes this with a pinch of salt, I'd rather believe, in view of the previous stages of development, that the compressor aerodynamics, already studied for some time, are the last part of a multi-stage development phase which went through redesign of the engine modules, which first allowed for longer TBO then reduced SFC.

    So at the end, when all the components will be available, the engine will have the capability to produce 9 ton thrust but lose in terms of SFC and part longevity, though I think it might be possible to increase the thrust to 8 tons and reach a good compromise.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    Originally posted by garryA View Post

    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
    LOL! Here we go again, you lack so much critical mind and understanding of the basics of aerodynamics, you can't even figure the commercial B.S from the reality of flight , let alone combat, controlled departure means accuracy of the yaw/pitch axis.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	image-260772.jpg Views:	0 Size:	177.2 KB ID:	3853667

    Only 5th generation fighters like the F-35 and Lockheed martin F-22 Raptor can execute high AoA pedal turns
    Smell commercial B.S by the bucket, first it doesn't say "but this is only because other A-F and Navies have chosen to limit their A-C AoA to 30* or 29* after testing the Operational usefulness of PSM".

    Then, WHERE does L.M says it is anything like "combat rated PSM" and speaking of accuracy of yaw/pitch, Gripen has demonstrated being superior to F-35, relaxed AoA doesn't fix inferior aerodynamics.

    Just a little reminder:

    1) They admit to one fact, F-22 is better than F-35 in the PS area and yet no F-22 pilot uses those otherwise than to bluff fanboys at airshows and produce pretty videos, a Rafale can beat a F-22, so I don't think they are so impressed by F-35 stunts.

    2) Regardless of what you can come up with, since they did NOT conduct those test for the purpose of validating"combat rated PSM", there is no consencus (quiet the opposite) in the F-35 users, otherwise said, NO specific tests, NO "rating" and in reality PSM remains strictly limited in combat when it comes to its usefulness.

    3) X-31 pilots opinion proves and validate this point, and this A-C was designed AND tested specifically for validating and "rating" PSM.

    4) Gripen has a lot more PSM capabilities due to a higher level of control in the same yaw spin situation (but not only), without loss of control throughout the whole of the maneuver, and 30*/sec higher yaw rate demonstrated.

    5) I reiterate. ANY A-C going through spin testing successfully has "accuracy" of the yaw/pitc axis, or else, they would be able to a) increase yaw rate or other axis parameter for the purpose of the test, then stop it, and as a matter of FACT it takes the yaw/pitch controls to achieve that, increasing/lower AoA and yaw rate.


    If you had known anything about the whole subject you would be able to distinguish between commercial hype and reality.




    Last edited by ThincanKiller; 28th February 2019, 13:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    Originally posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    Thanks. Wrt to LDP/HMD integration has there been any details?
    According to an Istres test engineer from Istres i will of course ot cite, announcement should be done at PAS19. Most of the work is done.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shania
    replied
    Any news about CEC capabilities of Rafale?

    Leave a comment:


  • Scorpion82
    replied
    Thanks. Wrt to LDP/HMD integration has there been any details?

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • FBW
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • SpudmanWP
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scorpion82
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    What Talios pod give (integrated with new helmet).

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

    Leave a comment:


  • garryA
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • moon_light
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shania
    replied
    ThincanKiller do you consider Cobra PSM?

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThincanKiller
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • panzerfeist1
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X