F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post22 Nov 2015, 00:24

Extending 28 deg/sec at 20k to 51 deg/sec at sea level based only on air density is hilarious. I usually try not to make comments belittling others, but I just could not help myself this time. Apologies to eloise. Altitude or air density is only one of many factors which determine sustained turn rate capability, so it is not possible to make such a simple comparison.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1705
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post22 Nov 2015, 00:43

johnwill wrote:Extending 28 deg/sec at 20k to 51 deg/sec at sea level based only on air density is hilarious. I usually try not to make comments belittling others, but I just could not help myself this time. Apologies to eloise. Altitude or air density is only one of many factors which determine sustained turn rate capability, so it is not possible to make such a simple comparison.

:mrgreen: It alright , i dont mind at all , i do agree that my estimation is over simplify .
Still i have really hard time to believe that F-22 can sustained 28 degree/second at 20K ft , i haven't heard of others fighter pull off that feat even at sea level :roll: so what is your opinion on the matter ? could that be possible ? If it possible what would be the likely hypothetical situation ?
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1705
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post22 Nov 2015, 00:48

zero-one wrote:
Well its one thing to look at it and say "hey that doesn't sound right" and another thing to actually fly it and see that it can.

Even F-15 drivers claim that the Raptor can do the 28 deg/sec turn. We are in no position to dispute their claims

I was thinking may be the pilot it a little bit may be ? ?
I mean we heard Dassault engineer claim Rafale have RCS of a sparrow , Russian claim their aircraft will have plasma stealth , ..etc and we know they exaggerated , so why cant the same thing happened with F-15 pilot ?
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2143
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post23 Nov 2015, 10:24

eloise wrote:I was thinking may be the pilot it a little bit may be ? ?
I mean we heard Dassault engineer claim Rafale have RCS of a sparrow , Russian claim their aircraft will have plasma stealth , ..etc and we know they exaggerated , so why cant the same thing happened with F-15 pilot ?


Well the Rafale has a reduced RCS and from a certain angle, with nothing attached, thats a possibility. A sparrow is still much bigger than the Golf ball sized RCS of the F-35 or the small metal marble sized RCS of the F-22.

Still with attachments, that Sparrow sized RCS will balloon exponentially
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1705
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post23 Nov 2015, 12:23

zero-one wrote:Well the Rafale has a reduced RCS and from a certain angle, with nothing attached, thats a possibility. A sparrow is still much bigger than the Golf ball sized RCS of the F-35 or the small metal marble sized RCS of the F-22.

Still with attachments, that Sparrow sized RCS will balloon exponentially

no a sparrow and a metal gold ball would have similar RCS
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UIH ... m2&f=false
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1705
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post25 Nov 2015, 14:50

How the heck does the guy advertising pp doesn't get banned?
Offline

degrasse

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2017, 08:36

Unread post02 Aug 2017, 09:44

checksixx wrote:LoL...the video in which the Rafale pilot is pre or post stall the entire time? Yeah, a good watch, but in reality another jet would have had him while he tried to maneuver against the other. This was training specifically to teach. You have to teach with what you have. Its not always about watching a 5th gen jet destroy everything. Its about using your asset to teach defeat tactics to 4th gen pilots as there are non-friendly countries developing these capabilities.

I wonder how much more than those fact you guys have missed so far:

A) The 1/7 at the time was composed of mud movers (Green), coming ether from the Jaguar or the Mirage 2000D community, meaning they spent most of their time doing their ground attack thing and probably flying less hours/year than the Raptor pilots who trained almost exclusively in A2A (Blue).

B) For a group of forum of enthusiats, you're completely beside the point: Both aircrafts were engaged in vertical yo-yo in which theorically, the F-22 would have been superior thanks to a superior TWR and use of TVC and yet, the Rafale managed to outfly it. Did you ever asked yourself the question; how come? It was a drag race and the Rafale won it.

Somethig else, there still arent ANY specialised A2A squaron in operation if the AdlA today, says a lot about what the French are training to do with their Rafale, energy management is not their primary training mission.

C) Where the anglo-American community shows a sheer ignorance of the Rafale, (and a tendency to swallow all the British Typhoon mafia nationalistic manure on Both A-C debunked a thousand times since), you completly fail to take notice of one clear FACT: The Rafale pilot doesn't hesitate to roll at speeds as low as 80kt, which a Typhoon can only dream of and clearly the F-22 canot counter even using TVC, (and this was not to put the Raptor in the IR lock designator but the gun piper on it, which he managed to before calling the kill, "Request terminate").

The explaination to that is known, looking at both F-22 and Rafale wing plans, very similar if you havent noticed: 48* leading edge sweep angle and <> 70* LEX sweep angle, but there is a fundamental difference between the two and it's called vortexes lift, 3 sources on F-22, 4 on Rafale plus a few refinements for increasing airflow at the canard roots as well, just have a look at the design then think airflow compression and expension and what they do.

Those technical bits have been very well documented by Dryden in both their flight test results and recommendation for the YF-22 (cranked wing trailing edge due to aerodynamic bashing of the ailerons), and the benefits of close-coupled canards (effects of canard tip vortexes on the outer parts of the wings energising the airflow at high AoA) several times over, i wonder how you managed to miss those studies, since you in the US of A had X-29 and X-31 programs to help understanding those basics.

If you have had any interrest on the subject you would also know the importance of optimising the position of the canard (not the case of box X A-Cs btw), meaning a Rafale can spiral at max AoA faster than a X-31 turns with TVC and managed a higher AoA by 35%+ during testing.
A mention of Gripen stalling at 90% AoA, then starting and stoping a yaw rotation with ailerons. How about that?

In short, only looking at the Rafale HUD should have been enough to the true enthusiast, it demonstrates the aerodynamic capabilities and the way the aircraft can compensate for a lower TWR and absense of TVC.

Yes, a Rafale generates vortex lift at lower AOA than both F-22 and Typhoon, therefore drag less for the same AoA, looses less energy and can accelerate comparatively faster with less thrust instaled out of a turn, until the equation drag vs thrust kicks in and it's some way from 9.0g or 110kt in most cases.

Yes, it retains a high level of control authority where a Typhoon will not only be AoA limited but also have a much lover roll rate, already lower at 1g, as for the Raptor, well, there is only so much thrust and TVC can do for you.

NO F-22 TVC doesn't allow for a full compensation of its deliberate (stealth obliges) design choices which limits it aerodynamically, it is a compromise, and everyone must recognise it, the Raptor is awesome, just not the best dogfighter by design.

F-22 wing airflow around the ailerons brakes up at high AoA and it looses roll control authority where a Rafale still can roll as demonstrated by this video, but of course it never happened since you've been told so by the Brits which btw, didn't design a single front line fighter on their own since the Harrier, oh, i forgot, a firmly subsonic A-C.

Now if you believe that a Typhoon can compete with that thinks again:

It is firmly limited to 9.0g, Rafale is stressed for 11.0g and will pull those at every airshow where MTO allows it, in any case it will out-turn both F-22 and Typhoon in instantaneous and sustained turn rates from low speed to high subsonic.

So "pre or post stall the entire time", you're way beside the design point of one if not two of those A-C, a Rafale or a Gripen are FCS limited but what you see is WAY off their aerodynamic capabilities, and you better get over this fact, they both were designed with post-stall maneuvers in mind (very much like X-29 only more developed aerodynamically, especially in the case of Rafale), only limited in FCS for operational purposes, not aerodymically, which is the opposite in the case of both F-22 and Typhoon.

Now that's a good subject for further studies and it would be even better to get into a debate where forum legends are not the basis of claims which have little to do with reality.

"Its about using your asset to teach defeat tactics to 4th gen pilot" Really? The 1/7 pilots had a hard time understanding WHY those "superior scores" claims were made and for them it was about testing the capabilities of their Rafales, which in any case are not 4th gen fighters, that would be the Mirage 2000 for you.

As it happens the video was not to be made public but some of us got their hands on it and we hold it until the 1/7 commander gave his clearence to post it, just to put a few dots on some Typhoon fanboys Is. The score was EQUAL vs F-22 and vs Typhonn, well it was mostly a bashing in WVR, and not in favour of the Eurofighter product, there again aerodynamics excellence doesn't lie, not in the real world anyway.

Have a good day gentlemen.

:mrgreen:
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1705
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post02 Aug 2017, 13:11

degrasse wrote:A) The 1/7 at the time was composed of mud movers (Green), coming ether from the Jaguar or the Mirage 2000D community

Source?

degrasse wrote:B) For a group of forum of enthusiats, you're completely beside the point: Both aircrafts were engaged in vertical yo-yo in which theorically, the F-22 would have been superior thanks to a superior TWR and use of TVC and yet, the Rafale managed to outfly it. Did you ever asked yourself the question; how come

Not all pilot have equal skill, and the skill of pilot are of great important, even F-4 with good pilot managed to out fly Rafale in dogfight
Image
Image
Before you claim that a drawing of Eurofighter, there was no Eurofighter in Frisian flag, but there were many Rafale

degrasse wrote:you completly fail to take notice of one clear FACT: The Rafale pilot doesn't hesitate to roll at speeds as low as 80kt, which a Typhoon can only dream of and clearly the F-22 canot counter even using TVC

Rafale has no TVC, and so torque to roll will have to depend on its aerodynamic force, slower speed result in smaller aerodynamic force, so it is impossible for Rafale to roll at speed slower than a F-22 with TVC

degrasse wrote:The explaination to that is known, looking at both F-22 and Rafale wing plans, very similar if you havent noticed: 48* leading edge sweep angle and <> 70* LEX sweep angle

So what are their respective wing thickness?

degrasse wrote:but there is a fundamental difference between the two and it's called vortexes lift, 3 sources on F-22, 4 on Rafale

Rafale has LERX and canard to generate vortex, F-22 uses strake and LERX, no more. Even if one aircraft has more vortex generating devices that doesn't automatically mean it can create stronger vortex. Not all LERX are created equal.
F-16 and F-18 only uses LERX for vortex generation but their vortex are stronger than most if not all others
Image



degrasse wrote:plus a few refinements for increasing airflow at the canard roots as well

So?

degrasse wrote:just have a look at the design then think airflow compression and expension and what they do.

Throw some terminologies here and there doesn't make you an expert. If you want to demonstrate Rafale is better than F-22 in dogfight, give exact number.

degrasse wrote:effects of canard tip vortexes on the outer parts of the wings energising the airflow at high AoA

Vortex generated by LERX will also energies airflow at high AoA


degrasse wrote:meaning a Rafale can spiral at max AoA faster than a X-31 turns with TVC

No it cannot. Unless you can give number that is utter nonsense.

degrasse wrote: and managed a higher AoA by 35%+ during testing.

Firstly, Rafale doesn't have higher AoA by 35% than an X-31 with TVC
Secondly, able to pull high AoA and able to have high control authority at high AoA are entirely different thing.
Rafale at high AoA cannot point its nose around like an airplane with TVC can. In fact, it will not even have the level of control authority at high AoA like any aircraft with twin V tails. Because at high AoA the control surfaces on the tail are blocked from airflow by the fuselage. Modern fighters have leading edge devices that can generate strong vortices. Twin tail aircraft can still maintain control at very high AoA even without TVC due to the tails. Single vertical stabilizer aircraft lose yaw control when the tail does not interact with the vortices. That why F-18 and F-35 have much better high AoA capabilities than F-16 eventhough neither have TVC. Same is true with the stabilator though many modern fighter use large horizontal stabs so they they do not lose pitch authority at higher AoA.
You see the F-18 at high alpha with vortex coming of leading edge hitting the vertical stabs:
Image
Here is an F-16 at high alpha (notice the tail and vortex coming of leading edge):
Image
Rafale with its massive delta wing and single vertical tail will be at deep stall at high AoA, that why the maximum AoA was limited to 35° despite the higher AoA it reached in testing, because it cannot make use of high AoA capability (no nose pointing)
Image

degrasse wrote:A mention of Gripen stalling at 90% AoA, then starting and stoping a yaw rotation with ailerons. How about that?

That something that even F-35 can do
https://youtu.be/aWji8AcOYGA

degrasse wrote:Yes, a Rafale generates vortex lift at lower AOA than both F-22 and Typhoon

Do you have any numbers to back that up, because that sounds like nonsense.

degrasse wrote:Yes, it retains a high level of control authority where a Typhoon will not only be AoA limited but also have a much lover roll rate, already lower at 1g, as for the Raptor, well, there is only so much thrust and TVC can do for you

It is physically impossible for a Rafale with single vertical tail and no TVC to have higher level of control authority at high AoA than any aircraft with TVC and twin vertical stabs that includes Su-35, PAK-FA and F-22. In fact, it will not even have better control authority at high AoA than F-35 and F-18



degrasse wrote:F-22 wing airflow around the ailerons brakes up at high AoA and it looses roll control authority where a Rafale still can roll as demonstrated by this video

Find me a single video of Rafale performing the pedal turn like F-35, F-22, PAK-FA then we talk about control authority at high AoA


degrasse wrote:It is firmly limited to 9.0g, Rafale is stressed for 11.0g and will pull those at every airshow where MTO allows it in any case it will out-turn both F-22 and Typhoon in instantaneous and sustained turn rates from low speed to subsonic.

You are so full of sh*t, absolute structure G limits doesn't have anything to do with instantaneous or sustain G at high altitude where aircraft are limited by lift rather than structure. To claim Rafale can always out turn F-22 and Typhoon based on structure G limit is simply ignorance. Without knowing their Cd/Cl and dynamic thrust, there is no way you can determine their sustain G.
While we are discussing this, there are video of F-35 doing 180° loop in 6 seconds, do you have anything better coming from Rafale with its 11G structure G limit?
Image

degrasse wrote:Rafale, Gripen they both were designed with post-stall maneuvers in mind

No they aren't, given that both have single vertical tail and no TVC, they are domed to have inferior post stall capabilities

degrasse wrote:As it happens the video was not to be made public but some of us got their hands on it and we hold it until the 1/7 commander gave his clearence to post it, just to put a few dots on some Typhoon fanboys Is. The score was EQUAL vs F-22 and vs Typhonn, well it was mostly a bashing in WVR, and not in favour of the Eurofighter product, there again aerodynamics excellence doesn't lie, not in the real world anyway.

Stop trying to appear to authorities, you are not fooling anyone here by throwing some terminologies around
Offline

degrasse

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2017, 08:36

Unread post02 Aug 2017, 20:21

Source?


AdlA and Ministere of Defense. Do your home work, i did mine, which explains the difference between us.

Not all pilot have equal skill, and the skill of pilot are of great important, even F-4 with good pilot managed to out fly Rafale in dogfight


Is that right? Funny i started by mentioning the origins and roles of the 1/7, which never was an Air Defense Squadron but transformation and gound attack. It's on the AdlA defense site together with the role of ALL AdlA squadrons.

The primary role of the 1/7 was pilot transformation on the type and to implement integration of the first operational weapons at Squadron levels and at the time, it's NOT Meteor but bombs, cruise missiles and assotiated systems.

Before you claim that a drawing of Eurofighter, there was no Eurofighter in Frisian flag, but there were many Rafale


This picture was taken at the F-4 arrival to Frisian Flag, BEFORE any encounter had taken place, and NO it is NOT a Rafale but an E-F, if your A-C recognition skills are so low, you shouldn't be writing on a forum but learning your basics fist.

Rafale has no TVC, and so torque to roll will have to depend on its aerodynamic force, slower speed result in smaller aerodynamic force, so it is impossible for Rafale to roll at speed slower than a F-22 with TVC


Really? So you're the aerodynamics specialist here and are going to explain to us how the Rafale pilote manage to do it repeatedly at every altitude pick during his yo-yo maneuvers, reality denial doesnt' work...


So what are their respective wing thickness?


Very similar as well in the neighbouring of 5% chord, what is more and more appearent is that you have NO CLUE what you are writing about, posting pretty pictures doesnt cut it.

What matters here are the interactions bewteen a forward vortex and a wing root wortex, and more importantly the fact that F-22 like Rafale generates vortex lift because they are both Delta plans, so to energise both LEX and wing root vortex you need a properly positioned vortex source, meaning longitudinal AND vertical separation to the wing plans.

De facto, you missed the most important factor and comparing the other A-Cs to them proves my points.

Rafale has LERX and canard to generate vortex, F-22 uses strake and LERX, no more.


WRONG. Vortex sources are 3 in the case of F-22, strakes vortexes mostly covers the boundary layer on the fuselage and energises LEX-root vortexes, other main votex sources are LEX and wing root, as it is a delta wing plan even if you don't like the idea.

Rafale has the same number of surface root vortexes plus that of its canard tips, those are called primary vortexes, the difference being that F-22 is NOT designed with aerodynamics optimacy in mind but stealth, while the Rafale has its canard surfaces rooted where its vortexes are the most efficient and provide other surfaces, including the fuselage and fin, with the most energy, making your point below yet another topic you have no knowledge of.

There was a real good european Study on NATO website on the subject, which validated Rafale aerodynamic formula, but before it, that of the IAI Kfir and Mirage IIIS, in short you need to have canard slightly forward of the main wing and about 3/4th og the canard length in vertical separation.

DRYDEN study validates this too, they tested the efficiency of low, mid, and high canard position, that's valid for the canard tips when they have any degree of ANHEDRAL or DIHEDRAL or not.

In short; if your forward vortexes are too close to the wing chord, you suffer from wingwash and/or downwash, because part of the airflow deflected by the canard surfaces will go on the LOWER SURFACE, the opposite of what you want to achieve in order to increase vortex lift.

Results, you cannot use the canard full range of deflection, which is the case of all non-coupled canard.

Coupled means aerodynamically optimised in this case, NOT their exact position on the airframe, it means how they interact aerodynamically with the rest of the airframe: In the case of Rafale they used a more forward canard position interacting with that of the LEX with two advantages compared to KFIR and Mirage IIIS.

First forward canards plus LEX increases the efficiency of the root vortex over the fuselage, important for yaw stability at high AoA, second, it has the same effect on the wing and ailerons, having more room to expend outward, which is NOT the case of F-22 strakes vortexes.


Even if one aircraft has more vortex generating devices that doesn't automatically mean it can create stronger vortex.


First of all it doesn't depends on what you see but mostly what you do not see, when you see a vortex it can often mean that they loosed their efficiency, other than that MTO conditions can help seeing them too but it matters little since it is their interaction with the rest of the airframe which matters, reason why they use pressure measurments and not little pictures or Youtube videos to figure them out.


Not all LERX are created equal.


Sure thing, that of F-18 were the cause of much trouble, excessive drag and aerodynamic bashing of the vertical fins, they departed (stalled) from the aiframe boundary layer at high AoA and that's NOT a sign of efficiency, quiet the opposite. READ Dryden conclusion on the subject, the fix were the two dorsal strakes added later, another topic you missed. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/ ... -DFRC.html

Image

On the F-22, the strake vortexes barealy interact with that of the LEX, they are not vertically separated from the main wing plan chord, so their efficiency is limited when it comes to interacting with the wing vortexes, their primary role is Yaw stability, NOT increased roll control auythority, that's the job of adequately positions canard tip vortexes. Image

Then it is pretty obvious that the F-22 strakes do not prevent wing tip airflow stall at high AoA simply because there are NOT vortexes there to help.


F-16 and F-18 only uses LERX for vortex generation but their vortex are stronger than most if not all others


If "Vortexes strength" and how they look in pictures is all you know about it, no wonder you keep getting it wrong on all topics.


Throw some terminologies here and there doesn't make you an expert. If you want to demonstrate Rafale is better than F-22 in dogfight, give exact number.


At least i know what i am talking about, me not being an expert makes you what exactly? :mrgreen:

Vortex generated by LERX will also energies airflow at high AoA


Yes but only on a limited part of the wing, as demonstrated by the Dryden studies on F-18/22 and F-35, AND the only relevant picture here, that of F-22 pressure tests at high AoA that proves it.


No it cannot. Unless you can give number that is utter nonsense.


Yes it CAN, not only i saw it do so at Franborough at the hands of Yve Kerherve and timed it, but i also had the pleasure to read some leaked report on early flight testing, not your literature since everything remotely complex seems to elude you, let me explain; 100* AoA and negative speed, control flight during mock combat vs Mirage 2000 down to 18 kt (by memory). In fact ALL good design should be able to rotate on the YAW axis using ailerons at extreme high AoA in departed flight, if you flew anything else than a surf in your bathroom you'd know it.

Then, you not being aware or not knowing about things doesn't make them impossible, it just make you waste forum space, being unaware and lacking basic knowledge.

Firstly, Rafale doesn't have higher AoA by 35% than an X-31 with TVC


Yes it does, being FCS limited to 100 kt and <> 32* for operational reaons doesn't mean it is its aerodynamics envelop limits, you obviously do not comprehend the difference between the two.

Secondly, able to pull high AoA and able to have high control authority at high AoA are entirely different thing.


And how so? When you learn to stall an A-C the first tyhing you know is that you loose aileron control authority and MUST use rudder to compensate, but obviously you dont know about this topic ether, even less that in a stall at extreme AoA, the yaw axis can be controled by the use of ailerons.

Rafale at high AoA cannot point its nose around like an airplane with TVC can.


SAY WHO? The guy who got it wrong from A up to now?

A thigh AoA your control in the YAW axis will depend on much more than the number of fins you have, Dryden studies on F-18 and following A-C demonstrated this vividely.

It will mostly rely on the quality of the airflow over the fuselage, hence the importance of vortex position relative to those surfaces.

It appears that bar looking at photos, you do not comprehend what vortexes are in the first place, for your info they are pressure zones, and seing them is not necessarily the sign of their efficiency, often the opposite as they become more visible AFTER departure.

To obtain a higher degree of yaw control at high AoA, IAI and the Swiss used small strakes on the nose, at the pitot tube root, you dont see the resulting vortexes but they certainly work just fine, all they need to do is generate the right amount of energy at the right place.
Image

Here are the results of the Swiss Defense Dpt flight test on the effects of MirageIIIS canards and nose strakes. In short, the typcal delta wing vortex lift appears ealier in the AoA scale, you got lower drag for the same AoA, more ailerons authority AND the strakes increases YAW control and stability.

Only they are NOT causing the same issues than on the US A-C since the pressure zones are properly situated and there is no departure from boundary layer or aerodynamic bashing because those vortex have departed.

It's btw also an issue US designers encountered with both F-22 and F-35 and for the same reasons, on F-22 they had to change the forward fin beam to a more radar reflective one to keep airframe structural integrity within the required limits.

On F-35 they lost the benefit of the vortex expension due to a very basic design fault, since they did not foresee the interaction between the strakes vortexes and the zone of lower pressure behind the cockpit, the vortexes does NOT expend outward and does NOT energise that of the wing, but they cause the SAME structural issues than both F-18 and F-22 before it.

This provesd my point again, you don't need "stronger" vortexes, or "larger" LEX, you need the right vortez at the right spot in the first place.


Err, this mate, is a little arrogant, you not only proved that you did not comprehend what vortex does and how they work you also managed to bring more points against yourself, for a start you demonstrated how little you know about those A-Cs.


In fact, it will not even have the level of control authority at high AoA like any aircraft with twin V tails. Because at high AoA the control surfaces on the tail are blocked from airflow by the fuselage.
etc etc etc.

What a genius. I'll let you rewrite the book for beginers, and demonstrate how little you know your subject.

Image

So F-35 vortexes helps do they? So far, they only were caused of a similar structural issue to that of F-18 and F-22 before it, certainly not helping lower drag or increasing lift or Yaw control authority, in fact, they did not what they were supposed to do at all.

Modern fighters have leading edge devices that can generate strong vortices.



Rafale with its massive delta wing and single vertical tail will be at deep stall at high AoA, that why the maximum AoA was limited to 35° despite the higher AoA it reached in testing, because it cannot make use of high AoA capability (no nose pointing)


What a bag of bulls, especially when talking about low speed and/or post stall capabilities. Do your home worke befopre posting.


That something that even F-35 can do


Certainly not, "move the nose around from side to side" at high AoA is not the the same thing, but eh, considering that you managed to mix up literally every single point here i'll forgive you.


Do you have any numbers to back that up, because that sounds like nonsense.


To ignorants everything sounds like nonsense, especially reality.


It is physically impossible for a Rafale with single vertical tail and no TVC to have higher level of control authority at high AoA than any aircraft with TVC and twin vertical stabs that includes Su-35, PAK-FA and F-22. In fact, it will not even have better control authority at high AoA than F-35 and F-18


No it is not, quiet the opposite, you do not need a twin tail you need good airflow around the aiframe, and none of those A-Cs are optimised comparatively.



Find me a single video of Rafale performing the pedal turn like F-35, F-22, PAK-FA then we talk about control authority at high AoA


You don't need a video, all you need is a proper aerodynamic knowledge and comprehension of what does what, this way you'll be able to figure and sort out forum legends like those you propagate and reality, best example is comparing post stall control of F-35 with that of a close-coupled canard.


You are so full of sh*t, absolute structure G limits doesn't have anything to do with instantaneous or sustain G at high altitude where aircraft are limited by lift rather than structure.


Am I? What were the speed brackets during those mock up fights? And it's NOT lift which is going to make a difference at high altitude but thrust, plus, in BOTH case, Rafale have a higher lift/drag ration than those, another moot point.


To claim Rafale can always out turn F-22 and Typhoon based on structure G limit is simply ignorance.


Speak for yourself, i just remind you that maximum turn rates INCLUDES maximum g loads in the equation, plus you need to twist my words since i didn't use the word "always" but instead specified a particular part of its flight envelop.

So within it, Air Density and payload allowing, by virtue of a higher Lift coefiscient, lower wing load, lower drag resulting from its canard-delta formula, what do you expect?

Image

For sustain turn rates, just add thrust vs drag and you have pretty much the same results until the performances of the engines makes the difference, that means Rafale would eat a Typhoon alive below 35.00 ft on the basis of lift/drag ratio, and comfortably live with F-22 at up to a lower altitude for this very reason.

Rafale is not designed for operations at the same altitudes but it will manage very well inside its own flight envelop, as i said, it was a drag race, it won and its pilot is certainly not THE specialist of drag management a F-22 pilot is supposed to be.


Without knowing their Cd/Cl and dynamic thrust, there is no way you can determine their sustain G.


What we know for sure is what i wrote, Rafale aerodynamic optmisation allows for a higher lift/drag ratio, and its boundary layer and vortex control is way more developed, we know how and why, we also know why it is not the case for the A-C you compared it with = end of debate.


While we are discussing this, there are video of F-35 doing 180° loop in 6 seconds, do you have anything better coming from Rafale with its 11G structure G limit?


While you're showing photos and posting little videos you forget the most important thing here, energy management, in real life, this fanboyz favourite airshow stunts doesn't work, and more to the point they are the reasons why both SAAB and Dassault aviation did NOT relax the operational limitation of their airframe to reach the aerodynamic limits.

Instead they focused on what is useable in combat, lower drag at high AoA, higher surfaces control at high AoA, instantaneous turn rates, low speed capabilities etc.

The opposite of what F-35 is doing at airshows, it is more limited in ALL aspects but the two others demonstrates REAL combat capabilities, not airshow stunts with relaxed FCS, write this page and go over it.


No they aren't, given that both have single vertical tail and no TVC, they are domed to have inferior post stall capabilities


You really do not comprehend the simplest thing about high AoA do you? Again, you do NOT need a twin fin, you need good roll and YAW control which are both reliants on airflow, and fuselage boundary layer control, which is better than that of the A-C you quoted in the case of Rafale. We just demonstrated that the US aircrafts were not top on this topic, Dryden studies as evidences but eh, i doubt very much that reality is your friend on this one, better forum legends and aerodynamics for beginers.

Those F-18/F-22 and F-35 aerodynamic issues, ALL related to boundary layer departure and vortex bashing the fins are well documented, i would advise you to do your home work, this way i will not need to rub your nose with
MORE of the original Dryden documentation and perhap, with a lot of luck you might actually learn something.

Stop trying to appear to authorities, you are not fooling anyone here by throwing some terminologies around


You know what? It would not take too much to fool you, just writing B.S about Typhoon or F-22 saying the opposite of reality and i'm sure it works wonder, that's the price you pay for not knowing your ABC on the subject.

So let's see which topic you need to study before coming back at me with the same amount of errr, how should i put it?..

About basic aerodynamics first? How LIFT is created? Vortex Lift? Wing plans? Before we start talking LEX and canard, and see you rewriting the books in the most simplistyic maneer, there is nothing simple about it.
Last edited by degrasse on 02 Aug 2017, 21:51, edited 5 times in total.
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post02 Aug 2017, 20:59

And for your Entertainment, Picard..... enough said.

One question, what control surface is the Rafale using to control yaw rate above 35 degrees AoA?
Offline

degrasse

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2017, 08:36

Unread post02 Aug 2017, 21:10

fbw wrote:And for your Entertainment, Picard..... enough said.

One question, what control surface is the Rafael using to control yaw rate above 35 degrees AoA?


I'm not Picard, i'm much less popular, especially within the Anglo-American forum communities, since i managed to debunk all those B-S about how superior their favourite A-C were.

I can see the same old tricks are used today, it's a pitty to see someone coming up with that stuff and not knowing the elementary basics or anything remotely technical about the A-C they write about, reason why i didn't visit such a forum for ages.

About your question; it would still be the ailerons, but 35* AoA is not that high for such a design, by virtue of its natural tendency to keep its boundary layer and wing airflow from departing, they never managed to stall it, it's more when you reach 50* that it can start to be an issue and then i do not have any figure on that specific obviously, so when ailerosn takes over rudder, i do not know.

What we know for sure is that those A-C (Gripen and Rafale) stay fully controlabe in post departure flight with relaxed FCS, it was proven during flight testing and it is the result of the design being developed for the purpose, which is logical, the more of it you have, the more efficient the airframe within its FCS limited flight envelop.
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post02 Aug 2017, 21:17

degrasse wrote:
fbw wrote:And for your Entertainment, Picard..... enough said.

One question, what control surface is the Rafael using to control yaw rate above 35 degrees AoA?


I'm not Picard, i'm much less popular, especially within the Anglo-American forum communities, since i managed to debunk all those B-S about how superior their favourite A-C were.

I can see the same old tricks are used today, it's a pitty to see someone coming up with that stuff and not knowing the elementary bbasics or anything remotely technical about the A-C they write about, reason why i didn't visit such a forum for ages.

About your question; it would still be the ailerons, 35* AoA is not that high for such a design, by virtue of its natural tendency to keep its boundary layer and wing airflow from departing, they never managed to stall it, it's more when you reach 50* that it can start to be an issue and then i do not have any figure on that specific obviously.

What we know for sure is that those A-C (Gripen and Rafale) stay fully controlabe in post departure flight with relaxed FCS, it was proven during flight testing and it is the result of the design being developed for the purpose, which is logical, the more of it you have, the more efficient the airframe within its FCS limited flight envelop.




Wrong, differential deflection of the canards. The problem with that is in a canard-single vertical stab configuration there are three issues:
Vortex coming off the deflected canards interact with the vertical stab.(edit- on one side, which is an issue.)
The yaw rate is insufficient to control directional instability as AoA increases
The use of the canards to control yaw limits pitch rate- ironically the very thing you were bragging was superior on the Rafale.

No Picard I'm not visiting your blog to drive up revenue. I think the previous posters suggestion of YouTube should be your target audience.
Offline

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post02 Aug 2017, 22:45

Ah yes, it's Picard...

There's a wonderful thing called "image reverse search", and guess who's the only guy who used that water tunnel picture hosted on that exact URL on Photobucket :

http://imgur.com/a/LbrCi
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5334
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post02 Aug 2017, 23:32

degrasse wrote:I'm not Picard, i'm much less popular, especially within the Anglo-American forum communities, since i managed to debunk all those B-S about how superior their favourite A-C were.


LOL, quite the crusader you are.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1705
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post03 Aug 2017, 07:13

degrasse wrote:AdlA and Ministere of Defense. Do your home work, i did mine, which explains the difference between us.

You dont seem to understand, i asked for a source, if you actually have the source then post the link here :wink: let me guess : the source is some super secret document that only you have access to ? or did it came from some "expert" on forum ? how convenient :slap:
Sorry mate but this is not Indiadefence where almost everyone are retarded and just believes every single word you say without demanding evidence. The different between us is: you are a fanboy with limited knowledge but like to appeal to authority, and iam not




degrasse wrote:Is that right? Funny i started by mentioning the origins and roles of the 1/7, which never was an Air Defense Squadron but transformation and gound attack. It's on the AdlA defense site together with the role of ALL AdlA squadrons.

So that mean all pilots from 1/7 are of equal skill ? and there are no amateur F-22 pilot ?what a joke


degrasse wrote:This picture was taken at the F-4 arrival to Frisian Flag, BEFORE any encounter had taken place, and NO it is NOT a Rafale but an E-F, if your A-C recognition skills are so low, you shouldn't be writing on a forum but learning your basics fist.

Nice try, but as usual you are so full of sh*t
This is the F-4 in exercise before any engagement take place
Image
Image

This is the same F-4 after the exercise (look at the number on body)
Image
Image

They even go as far as writing Frisian flag 2008 and Rafale eater on it LOL. The truth must be so hard for a fanboy like you to swallow, and no there wasn't any Eurofighter in Frisian flag 2008



degrasse wrote:
Really? So you're the aerodynamics specialist here and are going to explain to us how the Rafale pilote manage to do it repeatedly at every altitude pick during his yo-yo maneuvers, reality denial doesnt' work...

How do you know if F-22 pilot also want to roll ? or do you think the counter to one maneuver is to do exactly the same ? :doh:


degrasse wrote:Very similar as well in the neighbouring of 5% chord

Oh really? mind giving me the exact name of their airfoil ?

degrasse wrote:more appearent is that you have NO CLUE what you are writing about, posting pretty pictures doesnt cut it.

you are the one without any clues here but of course you don't want me to post any picture because it will just destroy your argument



degrasse wrote:WRONG. Vortex sources are 3 in the case of F-22, strakes vortexes mostly covers the boundary layer on the fuselage and energises LEX-root vortexes, other main votex sources are LEX and wing root, as it is a delta wing plan even if you don't like the idea.
Rafale has the same number of surface root vortexes plus that of its canard tips, those are called primary vortexes

You group the characteristics of the main wing with vortex generating devices?
so you don't even understand why they put LERX on F-16, F-18 in the first place
follow your logic all aircraft should have delta wing and LERX and Canard since more vortex creating devices = better.
Nope, delta wing can generate vortex at high AoA, that what give them higher max AoA than a normal straight or low swept wing.Because the vortex stops flow separation. But that does not mean delta can generate higher total lift/unit area than a straight or low swept wing at similar AoA, its lift curve is far less steep.
Image

Higher the sweep angle, the less steep the lift curve would be.
Image
Image
Many aircraft have LERX, yet retain their low swept wing because that help them combine the benefit of both delta and low swept
Delta = higher AoA
Low swept = higher lift at the same AoA
Image



degrasse wrote:the difference being that F-22 is NOT designed with aerodynamics optimacy in mind but stealth, while the Rafale has its canard surfaces rooted where its vortexes are the most efficient and provide other surfaces, including the fuselage and fin, with the most energy

So where are the actual numbers to back up this point? or is this another a$$ pull of your?
degrasse wrote:making your point below yet another topic you have no knowledge of

said the troll who pull everything out of his a$$ without any sources or number

degrasse wrote:There was a real good european Study on NATO website on the subject, which validated Rafale aerodynamic formula, but before it, that of the IAI Kfir and Mirage IIIS, in short you need to have canard slightly forward of the main wing and about 3/4th og the canard length in vertical separation.
DRYDEN study validates this too, they tested the efficiency of low, mid, and high canard position, that's valid for the canard tips when they have any degree of ANHEDRAL or DIHEDRAL or not.

In short; if your forward vortexes are too close to the wing chord, you suffer from wingwash and/or downwash, because part of the airflow deflected by the canard surfaces will go on the LOWER SURFACE, the opposite of what you want to achieve in order to increase vortex lift.

Results, you cannot use the canard full range of deflection, which is the case of all non-coupled canard.

Coupled means aerodynamically optimised in this case, NOT their exact position on the airframe, it means how they interact aerodynamically with the rest of the airframe: In the case of Rafale they used a more forward canard position interacting with that of the LEX with two advantages compared to KFIR and Mirage IIIS.

First forward canards plus LEX increases the efficiency of the root vortex over the fuselage, important for yaw stability at high AoA, second, it has the same effect on the wing and ailerons, having more room to expend outward, which is NOT the case of F-22 strakes vortexes.

All talk but not a single source or actual number for comparison between Rafale and F-22 and Btw, wing tail configuration with negative stability will have their horizontal tail add up to the total lift, something canard cannot achieve
Last edited by eloise on 03 Aug 2017, 12:07, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests