The International Rafale forum

Silly me I didn't even read the thread title!

Got to get used to the forum still.

Nic

AGAIN: "Unrestrictive FCS" is EADS technico-commercial innacurate term for validation of Typhoon flight envelop; they only managed to validate the opening of Typhoon flight envelop, no more than this.

When they reached 70* AoA during ALSR test-flight they trumpeted Typhoon as being "the most maneuvrable fighter aircraft in service in Europe":

Quid of the 8.2 g restriction? And Gripen 90* AoA? And Rafale 100* AoA + Post-Stall maneuvres Typhoon canot do because of its ALSR system and limitations?

Please spare us these sort of insult to informed member's intelligence, we have enough of EADS technico-commercials to do this.

What you mean or what I mean when we write something inaccurately is irrelevant and if the topic rules are to be respected by ALL you still fail to demonstrate that Typhoon Low speed and AoA limitation imposed by EADS programes have been lifted.

AGAIN: I doubt very much you’ll be able to do this because there has never been ANY official statement from Eurofighter or EADS in this sens, you are making it up and still fail to demonstrate now as you will in the future, these restricion still remain.






Yes it does.

All what EADS ever said about it is that the flight envelop was fully opened to 9 .0 g and then validated, aerodynamic limitations at low speed and high AoA remains the same.

As for you AGAIN you make unspecific statements about those limitation being lifted while bringing absolutely NO evidences of that.






My statements are very specifics and touching specific points which are specificaly documented as opposed to your points which are NOT documented at all because they are false.





Sounds more like Tornado pilots being amazed and satisfied of their Typhoon performances, Rafale pilots make the same staments about their aircrafts often enough.

Nowhere to be seen a statement about Typhoon having superior performances or even their engine superior TWR.




TVC was the MAIN factor for the hyper-maneuverability and AGAIN there is a lot more to it:



NOW: Read the DRYDEN stament.

Quote Langley AFB DRYDEN document:



A 30% difference between TFK-90 and Typhoon is what TVC was doing and post-stall maneuvres were not demonstrated with Typhoon at any time, they ARE with Rafale.



It is THE role which determines the Typhoon wing design and therefore its flight envelop.

My analysis on their design points is perfectly relevant, had the Eurofighter team wanted to emphasize the dogfighting capabilities over the interception role, the wingswep angle would not have been so steep.

Rafale design was never intended for the use of TVC and post-stall maneuvre had to be made possible by use of aerodynamic features ONLY.

Combat Mach was determined at 1.6/1.8, hence the choise of close-coupled canard, 48* swep angle leading edge and 2.2 aspect ratio.



Those are the aerodynamic design feature best suited for high-aoA and low-speed, precisely what Typhoon doesn't posses.



Now, this was before even the choice of close-coupled canards another feature which put the emphasis on high aoA and low speeds maneuvrability.










WRONG. You keep des-informing people.

The FCS was never seriously envisaged despite the design and demonstrative tests.

Typhoon flight envelop was well known and was and still is superior by design to MiG-29 and Su-27 expecially in the M 1.8/2.0 region.

NONE of the proposed design was fitted with FCS and all performances were based on aerodynamic design points.

You keep trying to imply an increase in performance of Typhoon with the arrival of phase 5 and this is wrong, Typhoon flight envelop was already fully demonstrated years ago it haven’t been enhanced since, only CLEARED.

That’s only one design point and it turns out that when it comes to air combat, low speed and high AoA are still very much in fashion even using IR AAMs and HMD.

This is precisely where Typhoon is limited compared to others despite your repeated and unproven claims of the opposite.






Everything. And F/A-18 is certainly less AoA restricted than Typhoon, it have NO such restrictions at lower speeds either.






The relevance AGAIN is the performances of low wingload vs higher TWR and it looks like you are doing your denial trick again.

We seen this before in AFM where you already failed to bring any evidence of your claims, you still fail today and will fail in the future, you can't comprehend the differernce between clearence and opening of the flight envelop…





Because F/A-18 is of the SAME “generation” just in case you didn’t noticed yet.






It is not "my conclusion", it is a more than reasonable assumption, validated by aerodynamic researches (DRYDEN/SAAB/Dassault-Aviation/BAe) and based on known aerodynamic characteristics of their design as well as their respective (9.0 g) turning point but also on comments made by specialist from Korea after the aircrafts had been pited vs F-15.

Their remarks about Rafale higher instantaneous turn rate and nose pointing ability was more than validated by F/A-18 pilots not so long ago.

If you don’t read people’s post you won’t understand and it looks increasingly like you don’t.





It WAS, because it couldn't pull any high-g at this speed.






Commenting on a comment you didn’t read is not too respectful for a starter, then again you keep assuming he hadn’t experienced 9.0 g in a Typhoon which is false.




Indirectly it DOES lead to AoA restrictions and PLEASE show us the Typhoon known AoA and low-speed limits being “lifted”.

EADS didn’t spend all the dosh they did splash on the ALSR and Transonic Mitigation programe for nothing, they started by the most urgent issues because they were not making the Typhoon SAFE to fly at these speeds.

READ the EADS documentation...

FCS twicking didn’t change the aerodynamic limitation then, opening the 9.0 g envelop further didn’t this time either, so 9.0 g clearence for all Typhoon doesn't lift these aerodynamic limitations at lower speed expecially because they do not involve high-g loads.

Phase 5 only validated all of Typhoon FCS developement INCLUDING ALSR and Transonic Pitch Up Mitigation.

Typhoon can DEPART at low speed and this by virtue of the long moment harm arrangement, NOT because of the innacuracy of its speed sensors.



As opposed to close-coupled canard conmfiguratrion:







"Cleared for the full envelop" makes it "more agile" compared to the non-cleared (8.2 vs 9.0 g) but certainly NOT in the areas where its aerodynamics are limiting it and for which two different flight test programes were conducted with FCS limitations for GOAL.

You try falsly to imply that EADS was capable of enhancing an aircrafts aerodynamic characteristics with FCS while the world specialist all are in concordance with the opposite FACT: It only makes it fly WITHIN these limitation.





Well it is about time you get some proper opinion instead of trying to assume and rewrite the books.





Testing is validating design points at best, “ideas” are already well developed from conceiptual design to aerodynamic design points.




Yet you keep throwing information at us which are proven inaccurate by sources such as DRYDEN, EADS and even BAE while ignoring their importance as well as that of Typhoon design points particularities…

If one turns out to be a relatively good dogfighter, it doesn’t mean that its design is that of a dogfighter as was the case for Mirage 2000.

Design points are there for the purpose of first level optimization and the role determines the direction toward which the designers wants the performances to go.

Even F-22 have aerodynamic design points more suited for dogfight then Typhoon not mentioning TVC which Typhoon doesn't posses…




I hope you don’t think of the source who told you the Typhoon canards were used for roll control…





I’m not interested in systems as such, I’m interested in the platforms.

At this level you visibly don’t understand Typhoon’s aerodynamic design points and what they mean.

You fail to distinguish between opening of a flight envelop and clearence of the same flight envelop and keep coming with this "New software" thing as if it did erase Typhoon aerodynamic problems, it didn't…

I really think you still have to learn to make the distinction between those sources too, but you need to know a lot more about aircrafts and aerodynamics to do this, you don't read the right books…

Wingman...

We have no proof Rafale won most of its dogfights against Typhoons (same for the contrary). The Rafale pilot himself wanted to counterbalance his claim.
Even if we had some, block 5 may be different.

There is nothing to add.

I said nothing of the sort.

AND i corrected innacuracies about Typhoon flight envelop, this is what matters.



No it ain't, Typhoon aerodynamic limits at high AoA and low speed remains the SAME, ALSR and Transonic Pitch-Up Mitigation are part of the developement ported to block 5.

If you "believe" the opposite then go and dig the sources saying this, i've been waiting for these "evidences" since the release of this famous block 5 software which is just a clearence at squadron level of a well known flight envelop.

No one came forward with them and the reason is they don't exist.

These are the FCS limitation in an area where Rafale, Gripen and even F/A-18 are clearely either less or not restricted at all, proven by flight testing in all case.

All you guys have been doing is assuming wrongly with no evidences of what you are saying.

Topic rules breached...

Practice what you preach TMor!



By end 2006 the whole of the A2A flight envelop opening had been compteted and it was for the Phase 4 software, NOT the Phase 5 software. The rest seems to have been ALSR and Transonic Pitch-up Mitigation as well as heavy load clearence i.e low speed and transonic testing.



The Italian Typhoon was most likely fully 9 g capable.

@Wingman,
due a browser problem my last reply got lost, as I don't have the time now to make an equally comprehensive one, just some short points without quoting.

1.) English isn't my first language and it might happen that I use improper terms. Feel free to correct them, but try to see the argmuent and don't hestitate to ask for the meaning if it appears unclear or misleading. Language issues can be resolved and I would be pleased if we can keep the discussion here on a polite and civilised level, which should be in the interest of everyone here.

2.) I have no intention to misinform people, but I know you have an agenda and question some of your "facts" as I have other information on some things and some of your so called facts you claim to be valid and confirmed, are infact not confirmed. The Rafale being more nimble than the F/A-18 is no prove for the Rafale being more nimble than the Typhoon. Note that I don't claim the Typhoon is more nimble than the Rafale before you try to insist it. Why does the MN pilot claim there is no big gap if the Rafale is "so superior" to the Typhoon, why not claiming the same things as they have done it when commenting on the F/A-18?

3.) I didn't imply (or at least didn't want to imply) that the phase 5 software improved the aircraft's aerodynamics, but that it in fact clears the full flight envelope within the limitations. Aircraft prior block 5 were not cleared for the full envelope. I stand corrected on the proper term, though my meaning was in fact what you refered to.

4.) I don't allege that the max. AoA limit, roll rate etc has changed with phase 5 on aerodynamic terms. I agree that except for the 9 g clearance there haven't been any other claims beside the manufacturer, just generalised claims such as "increased agility" and "cleared for the full flight" envelope. It might in fact just relate to the 9 g clearance. That is the reason why I contacted a first hand source and no its not the one who claimed asymetrical canard movement, this was a second hand source. I expect an answer next week so be patient and stay tuned.

5.) The comments from the JG 74 pilot was clearly pointed at the Rafale, not a generalised "we have a lot of thrust" claim.

6.) ALSR does not limit the AoA but minimum speed to avoid entering a speed where AoA measuring accuracy isn't accurate enough to fully ensure the FCS can limit the AoA properbly. The AoA limit exists regardless of ALSR or not, but at that speeds the FCS can't
guarantee proper reaction as the AoA measurement can be inaccurate, so there is the risk of depature. ALSR ensures the aircraft won't enter such unfavourable conditions.

7.) Good dogfighting performance was ever a requirement of the Typhoon and the aircraft wasn't supposed to exceed the MiG-29 or Su-27 just at M. 1.8+. Your problem is that you refer basically everything to the Rafale. The Typhoon was certainly NOT designed to counter Rafale. If the Typhoon would have been designed for high speed interception only, the aircraft would have certainly looked different.

8.) I well remember our heated discussion at AFM some years ago when you wrote countless posts filling forum pages to make us believe that the Rafale is a much better sustainer (30°/sec was a number you claimed) due its aerodynamics. You said facts, brought similar sources et al. Now you assume the Typhoon is the better sustainer due thrust? That's exactly the opposite! You were as convinced about being right as you are now.

9.) No the italian Typhoon was definitely NOT rated for 9g as it was a block 2 or 2B aircraft. The exercise was conducted on 15th and 16th February at that time no nlock 5 aircraft was delivered to any customer and you know that block 5 aircraft were the first to be cleared for 9 g.

good night

It proves that an agile aircraft with little or no AoA and low speed restrictions is not necessarly good enough to beat Rafale even using HMD and a similar agile IR AAM to that used with Typhoon.




Which limitations are higher than that of a close coupled canards at low speed AND high AoA by design and which test were already concluded, validated and released with Phase 4FCS for "maximum agility and carefree handling" end of 2006.




Yes it does.

You clearly dont undestand the relationship between speed and AoA and the role of a FCS.

The accuracy of the sensor have little to do with aerodynamic stall characteristics and in any case AoA measurement was causing a problem with Typhoon instrumentation not the Speed indicator, speed can be controled by unloading (reducing AoA).


The pilots would know which low speed not to go to but the innacuracy of the AoA sensor would mean that the FCS would eventually allow for departure due to excessive AoA.

The FACT that the aircraft CAN depart have nothing to do with either speed or AoA but aerodynamic characteristics of the wing/canard arrangement.

While THIS documentation demonstrates clearly that it IS low speed which causes the problem, Rafale demonstrated control flight at speeds as low as 18 kt, 100*+ AoA and - 40 kt airspeed.

It is airspeed which limit the amount of lift, not the sensor or directly AoA, and post-stall maneuvre doesn't depends on sensor accuracy either but aerodynamic characteristics.

These are also known FACTS that you keep implying doesn't apply to Typhoon when in FACT they DO.

The Typhoon aerodynamics allow for departure at lower speed, it is a well known characteristic of long moment harm canards while integrated canards doesn't, and BTW the term departute implies STALL and the problem of long moment harm is a form of STALL from which Typhoon canot recover due to lack of pitch control autorithy.

A problem it shares with X-31 for the very SAME reasons.

Close-coupled canard doesn't depart as SAAB DRYDEN and Dassault-Aviation points out in their respective studies, they also retaint full pitch (3-axis in the case of Rafale) control authority.

There is no point trying to allege time and time again that this are not a valid arguments or inproven allegations because the evidences are there for everyone to read with sources as diverse as SAAB, DRYDEN and Dassault-Aviation.





Even EAP descriptive is showing this, are you going to deny this now that Typhoon is no longer a close coupled canard design and that at the time a clear gain in lift was advertised by BAe?

The effects of these different design features were duely proven during High AoA and low speed test.


Now: Above the reasons why the canard were decoupled in Typhoon case, they ALSO didn't WORK with ventraly positioned inlets and cause loss of lift when the aircraft was getting close to 20* AoA as shown by the TFK-90 oil-tuneling test.


As Revelin-Falcoz was saying, the Dassault team clearly didn't agree on the long moment harm canard design, nor did NASA/DRYDEN and SAAB after their study on the subject...



HIGHLIGHTED TWICE:






You trying to explain how it wasn't the case is quiet funny and again you fail to bring any evidences of what you are saying while denying the validity of the sources i keep posting, or is this a language issue?




Your explaination IS misleading at the very least, there is no risk of departure with a Rafale or a Gripen because of the close coupled canard arrangement characeristics at high AoA and low speeds.




You dont READ people posts:

The Typhoon flight envelop and optimisation for M 1.8/2.0 results from the choice of leading edge sweep angle and resulting Critical Mach, the choice not to fit it with TVC reduces its turning performances accordingly to what EADS said, we even have the figures to prove our point from BOTH Dasa and DRYDEN i.e. TFK-90 studies and Typhoon.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... acked.html
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/X_31.html




WRONG: I refer to known characteristics of aerodynamic design points.

You visibly fail to comprehend Typhoon aerodynamics:

Its design "hyper-maneuvrability" was primarily a question of TVC which was never ported to the final Typhoon, nor was the close-coupled canard from the original design, even so the EAP had proven its superior performances at low speeds and high AoA.

The Hig AoA and low speed good characteristics of the close coupled canard arrangement doesn't exist in Typhoon design because these features aren't there anymore, you're hard pressed to deny this (but you keep doing it on a permanent basis).

We note that you keep ignoring this topic's rules and consistently fail to bring any evidences of what you allege.




A 53* leading edge swep is certainly not a dogfighter design feature.

It is a M 2.0 an interceptor aerodynamic design optimisation feature like the 58* of the Mirage 2000 is a Mach 2.2 feature.

YF-22 design was basicaly a 48* (SAME as Rafale) due to hyper-maneuvrability requierements and F-22 is now 42* swep angle.

The higher leading edge swep, the gigher the Critical Mach, the higher the airspeed at which the Max Lift coeffiscient will be picking...

FACT: Low speed characteristics are degraded by highly swept leading edge wing designs.

You canot deny known aerodynamic features characteristics simply because yourself are unaware of them or because Typhoon isn't designed the way you thaught it was or wishes it was.





PROVE it. I never changed my points, they always remained the SAME.

The aerodynamic laws haven't changed since, they are a constant and i keep insisting in the F-16 vs Mirage 2000 example from the very beggining, you are really confused, I am not and these rules applies to all aircrafts.

Read my post on Turning performances AGAIN.

A higt turn rate requiers:

High Cl.

High Air density.

High Load Factor.

Low wing loading.


For SUSTAINED turn performances you will have to add a LOW Drag Coeffiscient and HIGH TWR.



WRONG. Typhoon were cleared for 9.0 g long before the release of the block 5 software.




February 2006 issue of UpDate:


"while testing of the Phase 4FCS for maximum agility and carefree handling have been concluded"

This story of "Block 5" and 9.0 g clearence is just another story!

When the block 4 software was released end 2006 it was made available to be uploaded at squadron level, trying to imply that only Block 5 were cleared for 9.0 g is yet another "funny" story (of the kind we can read in AFM precisely) because ALL A2A envelop had been CLEARED with Phase 4FCS...

Next time a Typhoon get fraged by an "inferior" aircraft, what is the excuse for this to happen going to be exactly?

Now please put your money where your writing is and show us evidences of what you say, allege and implie because so far, none of the point you made were true or even less validated according to this topic rules.

Since April 2008, (date at which i first reposted all my findings in AFM), you consistently denied perfectly valid and demonstrated sources, FACTS or laws while refusing to show us all any evidences of the validity of your own comments.

Perhaps is it time to demonstrate, because this attitude is not only totally sterile it is also as unrespectful and boring as it possibly can.

OK.

LAST TIME.


NOW, all your arguments are here for everyone to show. I lock the thread. I'll unlock it if there is something worth posting here.

EDIT : if you have anything to say, send me a PM.