F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5458
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post04 Aug 2017, 18:43

f-16adf wrote:It's great if the Rafale and Gripen flew to alphas above 80 or 90 degrees in tests. But with what we have seen (air show demos) ((and not by unverified internet diagrams)) their slow fight is not particularly impressive. Sure it's an improvement over the F-16. However, Flankers and Hornets can fly at higher alphas; and they have been doing it for years.

The F-14 Tomcat flew to very high alphas in testing, but that doesn't mean it was sanctioned for squadron service.
.


Yep, the Eagle broke 120 degrees AOA in early flight tests. Didn't see it doing any Cobras at airshows.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 741
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post04 Aug 2017, 20:34

Exactly, he insists that Rafale has the best ITR/STR ..... and my point is there are NO ACTUAL E/M diagrams presented to validate his argument.

I will say that Rafale has an extremely good ITR, the best that's debatable. STR, by the Video and even with other vids (black Rafale from the mid 1990's, and there are others) seems a little lacking. The only complete turning Rafale really has been doing is coupled with 4 rolls; and Ivan has been doing that since the late 1980's with the Mig-29.

I have seen EF Typhoon complete it in a little over 16 seconds, and baseline Su-27 in 14-15 seconds. All these jets were probably low if not very low on fuel (just like Rafale). Granted it's a difficult comparison because we don't know the AC (Density Altitude) of the comparing days. And you can't compare a demo of a jet that is flying near very low MSL elevations (many air bases in the UK and at Paris) to one that is flying at Hill or Nellis (you are already at 1500ft MSL and on the ground); that is just silly-

The internet is filled with garbage, so if we are not actual USAF/USN/FAF/RAF/RuAF/IAF pilots (and probably 99% of the posters here are not ((myself included))) then we really do not have much to go by. Nice to see actual real E/M stuff, but again that is very, very, very difficult to attain.


Lastly, from what I have witnessed, Rafale and Gripen high AOA flights are not very impressive. It goes against very logic to say a conventional jet post stall is better than a TVC jet post stall.

Ever stall a Cessna or an Archer? Once you are in full (post) stall if you do not recover, you fall like a rock. Your lifting surfaces (wing) obviously are not working any more.

The main impetus behind TVC was always that it was to fly you "technically" beyond the stall (when your other conventional controls are buffeting, rocking, becoming "mushy", and ceasing to work) and nose pointing....
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 741
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post04 Aug 2017, 20:58

For s*its and giggles; should we all start buying Block 10 small tails again, because if we go by this video ((it's at the very end)) it beats Rafale and most other canard delta jets in time- :bang:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u5IH04Qp2E
Offline

degrasse

Newbie

Newbie

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

Unread post04 Aug 2017, 22:07

f-16adf wrote:Exactly, he insists that Rafale has the best ITR/STR ..... and my point is there are NO ACTUAL E/M diagrams presented to validate his argument.

I will say that Rafale has an extremely good ITR, the best that's debatable. STR, by the Video and even with other vids (black Rafale from the mid 1990's, and there are others) seems a little lacking. The only complete turning Rafale really has been doing is coupled with 4 rolls; and Ivan has been doing that since the late 1980's with the Mig-29.

I have seen EF Typhoon complete it in a little over 16 seconds, and baseline Su-27 in 14-15 seconds. All these jets were probably low if not very low on fuel (just like Rafale). Granted it's a difficult comparison because we don't know the AC (Density Altitude) of the comparing days. And you can't compare a demo of a jet that is flying near very low MSL elevations (many air bases in the UK and at Paris) to one that is flying at Hill or Nellis (you are already at 1500ft MSL and on the ground); that is just silly-

The internet is filled with garbage, so if we are not actual USAF/USN/FAF/RAF/RuAF/IAF pilots (and probably 99% of the posters here are not ((myself included))) then we really do not have much to go by. Nice to see actual real E/M stuff, but again that is very, very, very difficult to attain.


Lastly, from what I have witnessed, Rafale and Gripen high AOA flights are not very impressive. It goes against very logic to say a conventional jet post stall is better than a TVC jet post stall.

Ever stall a Cessna or an Archer? Once you are in full (post) stall if you do not recover, you fall like a rock. Your lifting surfaces (wing) obviously are not working any more.

The main impetus behind TVC was always that it was to fly you "technically" beyond the stall (when your other conventional controls are buffeting, rocking, becoming "mushy", and ceasing to work) and nose pointing....


"HE" is not ME, if you're one of those freaking out about Picard...

Now allow me a few personal remarks on your post:

1) SOFRADIR is one of the companies at the top of IR technology, they bough one US company to establish themselves in the USA and equips the M1 Abraham for years among other things so they can't be that bad.

Then you seems to base your conclusions or at least impressions on Airtshow stunts, i doubt very much that one poster here comprehend what a Rafale demo display is about, it's FAR remote from the stunts thing to impress the public, instead they demonstrate TRUE, USEABLE combat capabilities.

Low speed:

a) It is NOT FCS limited, the sound alarm kicks in at 100kt but you could probably fly a low lower, as a matter of fact depending on the pilots, they do, in mock combat, controled flight was recorded at speed as low as 15kt.
Source: Rafale flight test manager himself.
http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/f ... en-vol.pdf

b) Max AoA, FCS limits it to 32* (some says 39*), depending on configuration (mainly heavy loads), the A-C is G limited but there is an extra 2.0g available to the pilot after the 9.0g stop, you just need to pull a little harder.

The airframe was designed with a higher ultimate structural load than the 1.5 international standard, at 1.85, mainly because they wanted to retain the same life-span for the Marine version and ALL airframes are derivated from it down to the anti-corosion coating, before the M receives its own specific structural strenghtening, so it CAN take 11.0g routinely.

The AoA limit is firmly there for operational purposes, AdlA and French DoD decided that those limits would allow every pilots (top and newbies alike) to fly it "careless" safely, they are NOT aerodynamic limits at all.

Same goes for Gripen, so if you expect a Cobra maneuver, you need to get an entry at a Flight test center for high AoA testing, they will load up a different AoA scale for the HUD and relax the FCS limits, IMHO, you have zero chances for this to happen but it is what it would take.

Depending on the pilot and his personal style, max g can differ; during the first year of the Rafale Demo Team, their pilot was pulling 10/10.5/11g at virtually every airshow, he says so himself during an interview at the Paris Airshow 2009.
https://youtu.be/x5O-vRXrgig

The pilot changes every new season, so does the display.

Now, since you sound like you know your turf, you figured that it obviously depends on MTO conditions, i dont think he would reach 11.0g in hot condition but the whole point being, when it comes to instantaneous turn rates, the higher the structural g load the higher the turn rate obtainable.

You compute turn rates using maximum structural load, some fighters can reach more than 9.0g some can't, being limited either structuraly either aerodynamicall of both, like the E-F which is firmly limited to 9.0g being already designed at a lower tultimate structural g than the international standard.

So i am not bothered on how people perceive Rafale from seing them at Airshows, from my experience i know that such displays are either representative or NOT of what an A-C can and need to do in a real combat situation and since i'm not interested in winning wee-wee contests in forums it matters more to me than Youtube videos.

The only complete turning Rafale really has been doing is coupled with 4 rolls; and Ivan has been doing that since the late 1980's with the Mig-29.


Sure thing, only they do not initiate the roll in the same direction nor as fast from 9.0g simply because they are aerodynamically limited, Typhoon did it too, but "ivan" fashion, not as hard to achieve, so you missed ther main purpose of the figure which is to demonstrate its capability to reverse-roll from a high g turn.

I think you easily could ask them more about their display by contacting them yourself, just try...
https://www.rafalesolodisplay.com/

Ever stall a Cessna or an Archer? Once you are in full (post) stall if you do not recover, you fall like a rock. Your lifting surfaces (wing) obviously are not working any more.


Those are not canard-deltas, i did stall and post stall myslef (basic acro) and obviously the aerodynamic configuration of an A-C makes a lot of difference, on some jets, you could enter a superstall too, from which you won't recover, on some acro A-C you can use the ailerons in the same fashion as that descibed for the Gripen, to initaie and stop a rotation in the yaw axis.

Post stall maneuvers were explored by Ministere de la Defense, they first got ONERA to simulated J and HERBST turns, then ehy probably were tested during the high AoA test campain of which we know nothing, the goal was to figure out their usefulness in combat.

The conclusion was that despite few advantages, overal the loss of energy was too high and such maneuvers could be easily countered by other maneuvers, such as vertical yo-yos, pilots were at higher risks of spacial disorientation so the decision was taken to limit the AoA.

The main impetus behind TVC was always that it was to fly you "technically" beyond the stall (when your other conventional controls are buffeting, rocking, becoming "mushy", and ceasing to work) and nose pointing...


True but even Hans Herbst conclusion differed after X-31 tests and E-F never was equiped with TVC while it was always intended to be by design, being a quasy conceptual copy of X-31, since designed by the same guy.

Dr. Wolfgang Herbst, designer of the X-31 and TFK-30 aka Eurofighter Typhoon:
Image
Image

Then i doubt very much that you will see a F-22 pilot do post-stall in mock combat, as i said, it's good for showing off, less for combat where you need energy management at a higher level.

if we are not actual USAF/USN/FAF/RAF/RuAF/IAF pilots (and probably 99% of the posters here are not ((myself included))) then we really do not have much to go by


You know what it takes to get to fly an A-C so allow me to disagree with what you are saying, because unless you specialise in flight testing, it is perfectly possible after passing your theoricals to know as much on the aerodymics of an A-C than a Squadron pilot who does not always spend this much time on this topic.

So sure, there is a LOT of gargabe online, the main reason being that most of what you can find there is not copy-righted, meaning the real stuff is not made available to you in the web, but when you get your minimum knowledge base, you can sort out the serious stuff from the idiot book series of "documentation" writen in diverse websites.

Sure pilot know their flight envelops, but so do i in the case of Rafale from leaked documentation among other things, other sources such as Dryden/NASA will give you that much details on other A-C, reason why i can guaranty you that what they say about canard-delta not suffering from transonic "bump" and not being g-limited even with assymetric loads in transonic is true, this is called damping, a close-coupled canard characteristic, and i equaly can tell you that it is not the case of a SU-27.

So there is a flyer/enthusiast culture there that distinguish them (including you and I to our respective levels) from your average keyboard warrior which only experience of flight would be Mircrosoft simulation, and you dont need to learn much theorical to fly that.
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post05 Aug 2017, 00:18

There's a point where arguing against someone should not be worth anymore.

This RafaleMasterRace guy is one of these points.

Btw, for the structural limit of the Typhoon i can respond.

Source, one of my pals is a pilot in Gioia del Colle, a Typhoon nest.

Its pretty much 11G for deep inspections, at 11.2G you can be sure u provoked small cracks over wings which means new pair of wings.

AFAIK he never mentioned any intentionally forced G-Limiters when patrolling or simply grinding their flight hours quota.

Also, he's not sure you can actually pulls it; he never tried as he always remind me that 7.5G is already VERY stressy, let alone 9G (and people talks about Gs like they're candies) but he witnessed people scolded for going close to 10 without a logical reason to do so.
Offline

degrasse

Newbie

Newbie

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

Unread post05 Aug 2017, 02:36

mixelflick wrote:Jesus.

I just spent over an hour reading all this. Can someone tell me who "won"? :)


Obviously it's way above you paygrade.

1) Who claims there were Eurofighters at Frisian Flag 2008, when there weren't


Not me pal, i claim that the photo given as "proof" a Rafale kill is a goof, it was taken the day of the arrival and the silouet of the Typhoon + mention "Rafale Eater" is due to the near-future transformation of the Squadron from F-4 to E-F, if you cant figure a Typhoon from a Rafale even with so little details, it's not my fault, i can.

2) Who claims X, Y, Z but doesn't bother to provide specific sources or links ?


You bunch, i provide plenty, it triggers collective nervous diarhea, temporary blindness and wee-wee contests...

3) Who posts a water tunnel test picture that's so well hidden deep inside the comment section of a specific The Aviationist article, a comment posted by Picard, a known fanboi whose "facts" have been debunked for years ?


Well actually it is only ONE of the ilustrations of the problems encountered by F-35, i didn't want to go on and on since it was just to illustrate what is NOT a steady airflow, but there have been a lot more of the kind, in particular when they figured what it was doing to the whole rear section of the airframe. I can dig it out for you but i'm afraid we're on for yet another round of your magic roundabout reality denial parties...

The comment says it all, "Something is "pulling" the lip vortex inwards; normally strakes vortexes progapage outward at a 10-20 degree angle". "Turbulent flow field Can couple w/Structural Modes."

READ: Same old issues from F-18 to F-35 through F-22, if that's a "proof" of aerodynamic excellency and the superiority of the twin tail configuration then you will have your washing machine pull 11.0 g turns easily.

They were expecting those vortexes to do a completely different thing than what they figured, i know WHY, you dont, the reason (why you guys doesn't figure out such things) is because you spend too much time doing your flame-bating thing rather than actually reading about what you write in forums.
Image
This picture perfectly illustrate unwanted unsteady vortex flow, on the other hand, the pic of F-22 shows only the result of the absense of forward vortex to energise the wing tips, not the result of a design fault but well as i said, a compromise made to stealth and it would be the same with any A-C with no canard tip vortexes.

The REAL problem here is always the same since F-18, aerodynamic bashing of the twin fins, not because of vortex "strength" (straight from the idiots books) but far from being optimal vortex positioning in regard to that of the fins.

The end result were the structural issues which forced the redesign of the F-22 trailing edge and change of material of the fins forward beams, after Dryden concluded it would fix the problem, but i'm confused here, you guys are supposed to be the US A-C specialist and know ZILTH about them.

4) Who claims to be a professional yet cannot make a picture at the same scale on both sides, or doesn't even know the standard symbol for degree, as in a 90-degree turn, as you've certainly noticed in his posts ?


A professional? LOL! Nope, who make claims about people by puting words in their mouth? You, and there is no need for it to be of the same side, i tried, it doesn't help, take my word for it, they both have a <> 70* LEX and 48* leading edge sweep.

After answering these questions, you know who "lost".


Yes, you.


Or even better ; let [s]Picard[/s] degrasse use the equations shown here, the very ones he's quoted :

Image

Then see which numbers he gets after plugging in realistic numbers, showing every step of the computation ; chances are he won't get realistic ones, for reasons known to anyone with a minimum knowledge of science...


Really and WHY that? And which science would it be? Trolling or accute paranoia?

Who was spot-on about Typhoon ultimate structural load and why did i need to post this equation to show that it matters a lot in the final result of computing a turn rate, unless you're such a genius and can get your washing machine to pull 11.0g, you're wrong again. Trolling doesn't make for good reads.

What is amazing is that aerodynamic laws applies to everyone but your favourite A-Cs, it's patholigic methink, and it's not ME who wrote all the articles on the subject but guys which names you dont even dare mentioning because the only trick you have left is personal attacks on those who post the info, pathetic. Talk about plugging in figures and ask for links after that.

nutshell wrote:There's a point where arguing against someone should not be worth anymore.

This RafaleMasterRace guy is one of these points.


That's what your collective problem is, it's a Rafale and not an F-something or an E.F, too bad your enthusiasm for aviation is so limited but this is something i can't help you with.

>>>

nutshell

Btw, for the structural limit of the Typhoon i can respond.

Source, one of my pals is a pilot in Gioia del Colle, a Typhoon nest.


So we can take your word for that, yes? I'm no troll, so i wont ask you for a link, a pretty picture or Youtube video, i've done my home work.


Its pretty much 11G for deep inspections, at 11.2G you can be sure u provoked small cracks over wings which means new pair of wings.

AFAIK he never mentioned any intentionally forced G-Limiters when patrolling or simply grinding their flight hours quota.

Also, he's not sure you can actually pulls it; he never tried as he always remind me that 7.5G is already VERY stressy, let alone 9G (and people talks about Gs like they're candies) but he witnessed people scolded for going close to 10 without a logical reason to do so.


Well, you see, i do not need to have a pal flying E-F in Gioia del Colle to know that, and it must have been some times since he told you that since they went from a stick-mounted switch for the limiter to a FCS limiter...

To conduct a proper analysis you first have to do some research work on the A-C history, funny thing, many documents are classified only AFTER the A-C receives its MoD stamp of aproval and many documents got deleted from the manufaturer website from then on.

Most of the conceptual details have already been made public, how stupid can this system be?

Points; none of those who replied (especially not the specialist in funny interpretation of pretty videos/pictures) have managed to debunk the conclusions of the aerodynamicists who designed those A-C, but what is showing red hot is that they do not want to aknowledge FACTS.

Like this E-F ultimate structural limits or, the importance of steady airflow in the performances of an A-C.

The end result is this jumping up and down about to explain that "undisclosed" AoA is a factor to prove how little it matters when F-22 vortexes breaks down before reaching the wing tips or F-35 vortexes are not doing what they are supposed to do or Dryden tests on F-18 are not a proof of lack of a efficiency.

AoA doesn't matter at all, it wouldn't be out of normal foreseen flight envelop anyway, what matters is that those vortexes doesn't stay steady when expected to, that it shows in normal flight conditions with resulting structural issues where there shoudn't be any.

When something is not broken, you do not need Dryden to fix it for you.

To finish i have to say that i read aviation topics from nay different countries just out of interrest and didn't post for years (so end this Picard paranoia, he must be laughing), and more and more, this community is loosing its marble and aura of a serious source of GOOD information, you don't want to know what the "retards" from other forums thinks of this one today.

One doesn't inform with comments such as "anybody with some knowledge of physics or science"-blah, one provide with proper counter arguments and demonstrates.

So far none have been able to do just that simply because there is NO arguments against those of the guys who wrote those studies or designed those A-C, even less against their history and when it comes to issues with vortex flow, it is a well known fact that since F-16, ALL US designs have encountered the same issues, namely F-18, F-22 and now F-35.

Not good, but nothing to do with me.

Now what have we seen here as "proofs"?

Wee-poor atempts at trying to demonstrate the opposite of what designers, engineers, aerodynamicicts such as Herbst or U. Claréus write on the subject, complete reality denial and rewriting of the book basics trying to "prove" that a twin tail is a must when in fact, those guys says clearly that it only applies when fin size have to be reduced (now for lower RCS) and even went as far as using X-31 for testing this possibility.

Oh yeah, the USAF FS 27 are "amateurs" flying exclusively A2A missions from 1944 to today and one English speaking posted CANT get any information from the French MoD on the 1/7 role, man considering the knowledge base of some, wikipedia is already too complicated a read.

So if you have something to say on the subject, you have the choice, join the wee-wee contest and troling party or actually add something worth reading about it, THIS makes the difference between a good, serious forum and what some contributors are making of this one.
Last edited by degrasse on 05 Aug 2017, 14:39, edited 3 times in total.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 741
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post05 Aug 2017, 02:46

I think Rafale's wedge, re-energizes the airflow over the wings. Because, once airflow starts to break up near the back of the wing, the elevons effectiveness for pitching decreases.

The elevons are hinged to the wing, where as a stab leading edge (like on the F-18) can more freely bite into the wind. And I have yet to see any of the euro-canards match or exceed the Hornet in high AOA nose pointing.


I love Rafale, it's an absolutely beautiful machine. It is extremely agile and elegant. However, it is not the best at everything.



In the real world a Rafale will go into ACM with external stores (probably 4 AAM, and EFT pylons (unless they go with the tank), an F-22 has all of that internal. We must not forget that-
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1732
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post05 Aug 2017, 05:13

degrasse wrote:Iam very LOUD mouthed for someone who doesn't know how turn rates are computed LOL! The pathetic troll feast.

fixed it for you

degrasse wrote:My source were the French AdlA on French MoD website, and the 1/7 pilots in charge at the time, plus 1/7 is still today a multirole Squadron, years after this ATLC which took place when the Squadron was implementing weapon, systems and tactics for the A2G role at first, no need for a "source" to know this, you write and write and blah-di-blah but know little about it all.

In short, you can't provide any evident to back up your point, so you try to mislead others by more babling nonsense



degrasse wrote:Oh, is see, ultra-p"""d because India didn't fall for your "superior" A-C and chosed instead to buy Rafale are we?

No, because Indiandefence is pretty much the only place where you can start the babling nonsense and don't get shutdown :mrgreen:


degrasse wrote:This mean exatly what i wrote, at the time NONE of the 1/7 pilots came from Air Superiority Squadrons but transformed from Jaguar or Mirage 2000D which as everyone know but you are Strikers, NOT air superiority fighters, you know what?

Does that mean all F-22 pilots are better than all Rafale pilots? nope

degrasse wrote:Trolls always asko for sources and links, enthusiats find them.They transformed to F-22 mid-January 2006, while the 1/7 were transforming from Jaguars to Rafale a few mont later, before deploying to Af'stan, having been on hold without their Jaguars for an entire year, not much Air superiority there either. and certainly not hard to figure which Squadron was the most trained in A2A.

How convenient, of course, anyone who dare to ask for your source are trolls, "enthusiats" are people that just buying your BS isn't it?. So where is the link Mr expert?

degrasse wrote:s for the 27 FS, certainly NO "amateurs" there, but pure A2A specialists with Air Superiority as sole mission all the way from 1942, flew F-86, F-89, F-94, F-102, F-106, F-4, were the FIRST to fly F-15 in 1976, not much pound for air to ground here, you're sh*t out of luck.

Nice try, but as usual , full of sh*t
F-102, F-106 are interceptor
F-4 is multirole but hardly the best in dogfight
F-15 is air superiority fighter but hardly the best in dogfight either, repeatedly beaten by F-16, it is not known for post stall agility either





degrasse wrote:Again this photo was taken on arrival at the exercise, anyone aware would know but you (meamning those who actually were there), it doesn't take much time to paint this on an A-C side, and you keep taking your case for a world standard, not everyone is that clueless.
If this F-4 killed a Rafale, it might well have been in BVR when the Squadron Rafales didn't have what it takes to take them on at long range, true, at this stage of their evoution, they were more often used as plastron in BVR but this have changed with AESA radar, SECTRA and now Meteor upgrades.

First, it was " drawing before any encounter taken place". Then after i pulled up the photos, it changed to "F-4 may have killed Rafale from BVR" as if that will make thing any better.According to our friend degrasse here, Rafale, a 4.5 generation fighter with PESA and low RCS was beaten by F-4 equipped with AIM-7, using mechanical radar from BVR. Not just one but at least 5 time. F-4 pilots are not the best of the bunch when it comes to dogfighting either


degrasse wrote:And NO definitively the silouete is NOT that of a Rafale, there are enough distinctive features on it to figure this one out as well so this let much questions unanswered, like how can anyone confuse this for a Rafale or consider for one second that GAF F-4 never crossed GAF Typhoon in actual exercises at home even during this exercise, or that it is just the silouet of the A-C they were about to transform to?... And you keep caling people fanboyz?

The drawing may look more like Typhoon, but the writing clearly say " frisian flag" and "Rafale eater" , sorry mate but you sh*t out of luck trying to deny this one


degrasse wrote: Rafale's airfoil is clasified as is that of every Dassault fighter since a good while, that of F-22 is a supercritical designed by Dryden, i believe developed under the NASA SCW technology program. How come you dont know this already?

Nice try, but once again, you exposed your own BS
you are the one who said their wing are the same thickness, now you said that they are classified, basically mean you have no information about them but decided to babling anyway


degrasse wrote: You mean you delude yourself into thinking you are doing it while posting w.h.a.t.e.v.e.r together with completely false assumptions and ignoring reality, sure...

keep telling yourself that if it help you heal the burn :wink:


degrasse wrote: None of the picture you post actually made your false points, aerodynamicist such as those i quoted does make the point for me, so does the Dryden doc about F-18 vortex "efficiency", as opposed to your funny interpretation of basic aerodynamics, your bunch clearly dont know what you're writing about and prefer reality denial to actual technical debate...

Nice try denying
F-22 contour at unknown specific AoA and speed make your point how?
F-35 tunnel photo at unknow specific AoA and speed make your point how?
How exactly the chart about canard effect on delta making a point about comparing canard-delta and wing-aft tail configuration?
Where is the contour and wind tunnel photo of Rafale in the same exact situation to compare?
Seem like F-35 vortex does expand and quite stable :wink:
Image
Image

degrasse wrote:Absolutely, since they work the exact same way as LEX only on a larger scare and are wider

Yet you fail to realize that while higher swept have easier time generate vortex, they also have less steep lift curve
Image

degrasse wrote:As i said, delta wings generates their own main vortexes at their root with or without LEX/canard, that's precisely the characteristics of delta plans, vortex lift and it's NOT only happening at high AoA, especially with close coupled canards and/or moderately swept deltas like F-22 or Rafale, not even on Mirage IIIs which is something you totaly failed to notice after the results graphs of the IIIS flight test were posted to you.

Ability to generate vortex and ability generate higher lift are not the same
Image
Image

degrasse wrote:You like pretty pictures it seems.
Image

Here special MTO conditions i keep mentioning, allows the wing root vortex to be visible, which they wouldn't without the amount of moisture in the air, they are those which are nearest to their departure point as well (low speed, + AoA) although a long way from it.

Any sharp, moderate swept wing can generate vortex at AoA, so what?, does that mean a delta have higher CL than a moderate swept wing at the same AoA, nope.
Btw, since you like small wing vortex so much, this is the photo of F-35 in a dry day.
Image
this is the photo of F-35 in a wet day
Image

degrasse wrote:Now, the most important are those you do NOT see, canard root and tip vortexes, and those of the LEX. If that's not clear enough for you, like the rest of it, it's due to some deficiency from your side...

You mean like this ? :wink:
Image

Sacarsm on OMFG 3 three different sources of vortex, best aerodynamic evarrrrr "Sacarsm off

degrasse wrote:I Knowing nothing about it, having such a low sense of obervation, why do ikeep spaming the forumn pages with ignorant B.S instead of learning my basics?

Fixed that for you :wink: and i think the answear is that you are a fan boy



degrasse wrote:Sorry, YOU meant to say that YOU dont understand what LEX are or does, or what vortex lift is, that's a clear fact by now, and they are NOT called LERX but LEX as named by their inventors, ask Dryden/NASA, they knows tons more than you do.

More babbling, keep repeating Dryden/NASA while completely ignored the charts provided :wink: i like your tactic alot


degrasse wrote:What a bag of bulls, so according to you genius, Rafale rotates at high AoA during take off? :bang:

No, but vortex is what slow down flow detachment at high AoA => the reason that delta can stall later compared to a straight wing. But at low AoA, the vortex lift+ wing lift of delta still interior to moderately swept wing. FYI, even the F-35 can produce loads of vortex at similar AoA as the Rafale
Image

degrasse wrote:You can't even read a Mirage IIIS graph with lift and Aoa given to you, such Delta wings vortex are the sole source of their lift as early as they take a moderate AoA using canards only trigger the appearence of vortex lift at even lower AoA, therefore reduced induced drag.

Firstly, your CL- AoA charts have zero value on them. What are the exact AoA ? what are the CL ?
Secondly, delta are not known for their high CL- AoA either

degrasse wrote:Now; conclusion of the Mirage IIIS tests: "The canard produces two additional vortices which combine with the vortices on the delta wing.
This gives an extension of controlled airflow [b]up to a higher AoA
and an unshielded fin and rudder.

The question is up to what exact AoA? how does it compare to wing- aft tail configuration. Up to higher AoA alone is not sufficient, up to how much? 10 AoA ? 20 degrees AoA or 30 degrees AoA ?

degrasse wrote:The vortex lift starts earlier, which results in reduced drag at a given lift[/b] (see Fig 1).At a given AoA, the canard configuration gives more lift and less drag than the canardless delta configuration.
The improved yaw stability permits higher AoA, and therefore lift and drag are
approximately doubled with the canards
".

This is actually quite funny:
Lift AND drag are double with canard ???? what, i don't think you want to increase drag mate


degrasse wrote:And THIS is with a old 58* swept Mirage III, not a 48* + LEX canard like that of Rafale note that there is no question of "can generate vortex at high AoA" but up to higher AoA, and vortex lift starting earlier, not

58 degrees swept will have less CL/Alpha than 48 degrees swept so once again, the improvement from canard on Mirage III cannot be translated to the same % to the improvement from canard on Rafale


degrasse wrote: your disneylandish version of reality graph plus report = you proven completly our of your league. Again.

What ? you posted an article about Mirage with and without canard with absolutely zero information about value of CL, zero information about F-22, F-35, Eurofighter aerodynamic and you think that mean you are out of my league ? :drool: staying in Indiandefence for so long much have caused some deficiency in your brain :wink:

degrasse wrote:So what were you saying about F-16/18 sweep angles and LEX? Close coupled canards achieve the SAME, add LEX to them and you get MORE lift than simple LEX/wing configuration regardless of sweep angle, with added benefits such as more natural damping

Nice try, but no
delta by natural have much less steep lift curve compared to moderately swept wing such as those on F-16, F-18, strakes or LERX will help improve the lift curve, same for canard.
Question is : will Delta wing + canard + LERX able to generate equal CL to moderate swept wing + LERX, knowing that normal moderate swept wing has higher CL than Delta wing at the same AoA. That the question that you can not and will not be able to answer without specific tunnel test or CFD simulation of both airframe.
Another benefit of aft tail aircraft is their horizontal stabilizers can add in lift if the aircraft are negative stable.

degrasse wrote:What does "an extension of controlled airflow up to a higher AoA and an unshielded fin and rudder" and "improved yaw stability permits higher AoA" to you? A great need for a second fin?

It depends on what AoA you are talking about

degrasse wrote:If you look at the graph, it shows the appearance of vortex lift way before reaching a third of its Max AoA, which is moderate since it is only a Mirage III with 58* swept delta, vortex lift will appear much earlier on both F-22 and Rafale, even without the canards.

No, lower swept can have higher CL/alpha but higher swept, lower aspect ratio will generate vortex sooner that why LERX are all narrow and have strong swept angle
Image


degrasse wrote:Well it's bound to do just that by sheer mechanical logic, since delta plans are simply larger in surface for equal weight, offer more internal volume for fuel, drag less in transonic and supersonic while being larger, offering a lower wing load

Nice try ignoring the main drag back of delta which is lower CL for the same AoA



degrasse wrote:As for F-18 it is notoriously dragy because of its LEX size and generates more drag by simple virtue of insteady vortex

What a loads of nonsense
F-18 is draggy because of 2 reasons:
Firstly, it has very low swept wing, this generates more lift at subsonic but also more drag through transonic and supersonic
Secondly, F-18 pylon are canted outward
Image

F-16 has a massive LERX, yet remain one of the best acceleration and sustain turn rate

degrasse wrote:so revise your copy on turn rates and control authority because Dryden who tested this A-C flight envelop disagree with your bunch of bulls

Oh really, did he disagree with me or it is your babbling nonsense again?


degrasse wrote:Again you completely missed the points here as usual, their sweep angle is moderate for a delta at 48*, both Rafale and F-22 doesn't have the sort of issue both F-16 and F-18 have, (bar the vortex breakdown in the ailerons area in the case of F-22), they combine BOTH the characteristics of the delta and straighter wings by just being moderate in swep, use LEX, and being larger in surface than if they used swept wings, plus canards on Rafale.
The delta plan offers MORE surface for LOWER structural weight, equals more lift for lower drag, so your theory falls flat on this basis only.

Firstly, straighter wing can also uses LERX, in case of arts tail they can uses horizontal tails to add in lift as well.
Secondly, you still haven't provide anything to shows that Rafale vortex doesn't break down in ailerons area, you haven't provided the study or the specific conditions ( AoA - Speed) where F-22 contour was taken either.
Thirdly, being bigger in wing area does not improve CL-AoA which is the factor affecting sustained turn rate. Look at the F-16 vs Mirage.
F-16 has LERX while Mirage has strakes for vortex
Image

the delta wing of Mirage can generate vortex lift too and then Mirage also has significantly more wing area=> lower wing loading => follow your logic then Mirage is better in all aspects

yet in reality F-16 has better-sustained turn rate by over 2 degrees/sec
Image
Image

Before they stalled F-16 moderate swept wing will generate more lift at the same AoA than Mirage delta wing even with vortex lift=> F-16 can use less AoA to turn => less drag => better sustained


degrasse wrote:Now if one take into account the drag generated by F-18 LEX while Rafale is optimised for a much higher lift/drag ratio

Here we go again with the so called optimum lift/drag of Rafale without absolutely zero number to back up



degrasse wrote:Actually no, it doesn't works quiet just like that in real life either, it's a tad more complext than your little pictures and fantasist interpretations would let us believe for the many good reasons i already demonstrated: Quote someone who knows his subject, as opposed to you:

"The close coupled delta canard configuration’s primary feature, its stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack, meaning high maximum lift coefficient, had lately been realized by the Americans, instead using large strakes as forward wing root extensions together with conventional tail arrangement, as found on the F-16 and F-17/18".


As i expected, you don't know what is maximum lift coefficient either.
maximum lift coefficient or CLmax is the lift coefficient achieved right before aircraft stall, because LERX and Canard both raised the stalling AoA, which means the maximum Clmax will also increase. That what he talked about but it goes right over your head.
Image
But it is not related to what i mentioned earlier which is Lift-AoA, aka the comparison of lift curve steepness between delta and moderate sweep wing. Of course, vortex will also improve lift before CLmax but too bad for you, you chosen the wrong quote to post, which is understandable for someone who doesn't know anything about aerodynamic

Image


degrasse wrote:So according to the designer of Gripen, which can eat any F-16/18 for breakfast in WVR U. Claréus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace.

You mean the aircraft that was less than satisfactory in Swiss evaluation?, weak aircraft performance
Image

degrasse wrote: the reason WHY US designers used LEX on both the A-C you mentioned is to obtain stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack, which is THE particularity of a close coupled delta canard, is that what you call the aerodynamic bashing encoutered on F-18 or vorteexes breakdwon on F-22 wings? It proves that you have absolutely NO idea whatstodever how vortexes works.

Firstly, the vortex only break down at the end of the wing and even though a break down vortex will have less improvement than a strong full vortex, your contour shows that it still help decrease pressure => lift
Secondly, vortex flow changed with speed and AoA, what is the AoA and the speed taken for F-35 and F-22 contour? how do you know Rafale vortex is any better in the same condition?
Thirdly, aero bashing happened because the vortex hit the stabs, stable or not is not the reason for the crack, but the increase of the airflow there help yaw authority.
I can easily give you contour of F-35 with vortex fully stable
Image


degrasse wrote:You had the answer from a master aerodynamicist

hahahahahahahahahahahah funny joke mate, you are a master of aerodynamicist then iam probably the designer of PAK-FA or F-22

degrasse wrote:F-18 have aerodynamic bashing inducing drag yep, it drags way more than any of those other A-C,

most of its drag came from the wing swept and pylon angle

degrasse wrote:F-16 is well known for its AoA limitations (risks of superstall) AND not being tolerent to assymetric load in the transonic regime where it would DEPART when the pilot pulls a small amount of G with only one AAM attached to its wingtip rails, so much for aerodynamic excellency.

yes because it has only single vertical stabilizer



degrasse wrote: you like your little Youtube newbies feeders? Enjoy:

https://youtu.be/Rv9YC-gaNYo

funny how you repost what i posted earlier when you asked what is the different between reach high AoA and having high AoA control lol, oh so where is the video of Rafale rolling faster than X-31 in post stall ?

degrasse wrote:THIS is completely unknown to the Delta canards, they are a lot more tolerant to assymetric load due to natural damping, yet another little detail you know nothing about,
Close-coupled canard does NOT depart, not in assymetric loads either, and have little of the transonic issues known by conventional configuration A-Cs.

Oh really? Opps awkward


degrasse wrote:As for confirmation from Gripen designer on the subject of how easy it is to obtain the same results from a conventional design, here, a little picture for you.

Did he say it is impossible ? no. So another fallacy from you



degrasse wrote:Considering what you do of the sources one can pass on to you it's like feeding a goldfish with four stars Russian caviar hoping for it to get smart enough to get a Nobel Price in quantum mechanics, every single serious source on the subject conterdict you, enuff said.

In short, you have no sources or number to back up your fanboy theory, how typical of you Picard :mrgreen:



degrasse wrote:What? A pressure zone simulation of F-22 vortex breakout and departure from Dryden an a$$ pull??

The contour itself is fine, but you keep avoiding these main question:
1- what is the AoA and Mach number in the simulation?
2- where is the Rafale contour in the same situation?
3- where are the Cl/Cd chart for Rafale and F-22 ?
without those, your fanboi theory about the Supreme optimum efficiency of Rafale compare to F-22 is nothing more than a$$ pull


degrasse wrote:It's all good if you forget induced drag, lower lift and control surface authority due to unsteady vortexes and the rest of it and consider vortex brakedown as efficient as stable vortex flow, which goes some way to demonstrate how little you guys have comprehended the subject in the first place...

*sarcasm on exactly mate keep throwing some more terminologies and you sure will convince people even without any numbers and sources *sacasm off

degrasse wrote:Sums you up doesn't it, posting a F-16 departure due to lack of control and damping in the transonic regime and come up as proof of possible recovery (I'd be worried if it havent been able to recover) from high AoA post stall maneuver takes some doing

May be you dont understand the word " sarcasm"
let me help
Image

degrasse wrote:same for the F-18 and F-35 aerodynamic bashing, that's a proof of good airflow is it, uncontroled departed spins and controled flight be it post-stall are thew same?

Actually, both F-18 , F-35 , F-22 are documented to be able to do post stall maneuver and they have demonstrated that many times. On the otherhand, despite your fanboi theory, your beloved Rafale is limited to around 30 degrees AoA in combat and never once shows post stall maneuver in airshow.
Hey where are the video of Rafale rolling faster than X-31 in post stall ?



degrasse wrote:So it's just yet another Dryden educated document you havent managed to read or get your head around, as usual, being vulgar, agressive and taking on "what's his name? Picard" with personal attacks doesn't make your point but make you look like a complete freaked out ignorant with no argument at all.
Get the PDF and learn your basics, then perhasps if you comprehended what it says we can talk aerodynamics, in a few years, if ever.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a245152.pdf

hahahaha that quite funny, because you know what? i actually saw Picard posted that exact document in the comment section in one of his blog post. What are the chance and yes, i have read that document ages ago, too bad for you, it is the comparision between with/without canard of delta , and long arm vs close coupled canard but not the comparison between canard and aft tail aircraft, just like others have said


degrasse wrote:i always make sure i checked what i post and can prove it with proper sources as i just did several time over

Prove with proper sources? I must have missed that when you posted the Cl/Cd curve between Rafale and F-22. Let me check, Opps you didn't. How strange.
Let see the Rafale contour and wind tunnel test at the same AoA and Mach number as the F-22 then, opps you didn't post that either.
Hmm how about their respective EM diagram, opps you provided none

degrasse wrote:Quoting U. Claréus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace.

"In the high AOA and spin tests that has taken place since 1996 and recently concluded successfully, the normal tactic was to initiate the tests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA up to extreme angles, and the aircraft could then be “parked” at 70 to 80 degrees of alpha.

When giving adverse aileron input there, a flat spin with up to a maximum of 90 degrees per second of yaw rotation started and could then be stopped by pro aileron input. Recovery followed, whenever commanded".

That's post-stall maneuver for you and 90*/sec yaw

Hahahah you considered a spin-recovery test as post stall fighting capabilities? Why do you think they talked about recovery?
*Sarcasm on Hey look F-16 with fuel tank reach 110°degrees/second yaw rate, super awesome post stall maneuver *Sarcasm off

There are F-14, F-35 spin recovery test too


degrasse wrote:i can only speculate based on KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED FACTS on what does what at which AoA passed the FCS 32* AoA limit:

So here goes: Close coupled canards are MORE efficients than long arm/decoupled ones or conventional designs at every levels
Image


Not so quick there buddy, the wing-body configuration in that study is a delta wing platform. So their conclusion is that delta+ canard is better than delta alone. Nothing relates to a a moderate swept wing - aft tail configuration. Don't get ahead of yourself
Image

For comparison, lift improvement from LERX:
Image
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1732
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post05 Aug 2017, 14:45

degrasse wrote: Not me pal, i claim that the photo given as "proof" a Rafale kill is a goof, it was taken the day of the arrival

Funny that another photo of that same F-4 in the start of exercise has nothing on the body, here is something to trigger your nervous diarrhea even more.Jaguar also defeated Rafale in exercise before.

degrasse wrote: You bunch, i provide plenty

Oh really.? So where are the sources again? What was the AoA and Mach number simulated in F-22 contour and F-35 tunnel photos? Where are the photos and contour of Rafale in the same condition for comparison? Where are the Cl/Cd charts? Where are the Em diagrams? Funny that you made so many claims yet can only provide source comparisons of delta with and without canard, not a single Cl/cd chart of delta canard vs trapezoid aft tail configuration.

degrasse wrote:They were expecting those vortexes to do a completely different thing than what they figured, i know WHY, you dont,

Sure you do Mr expert. :wink:


degrasse wrote:That's what your collective problem is, it's a Rafale and not an F-something or an E.F, too bad your enthusiasm for aviation is so limited but this is something i can't help you with.

No darling, the problem is that you talk out of your a$$ so much and yet provide no evidence for anyone to take your words. People here have no problem accepting that Su-27, PAK-FA have good aerodynamic, so why they have problems with your optimum supreme efficiency theory? may be they don't buy fanboy bs

degrasse wrote: I'm no troll, so i wont ask you for a link, a pretty picture or Youtube video, i've done my home work.

That what troll say when they don't want people to ask for evidence of their babbling nonsense.

degrasse wrote:Points; none of those who replied (especially not the specialist in funny interpretation of pretty videos/pictures) have managed to debunk the conclusions of the aerodynamicists who designed those A-C

and did the aerodynamicist designed those aircraft made any comparison between F-22, F-35, F-16 and Rafale? Opps no they didn't, they only talked about benefits of canard on delta, not even a comparison with aft tail aircraft, the rest is just your fanboy babbling nonsense as usual.


degrasse wrote:Low speed:
a) It is NOT FCS limited, the sound alarm kicks in at 100kt but you could probably fly a low lower, as a matter of fact depending on the pilots, they do, in mock combat, controled flight was recorded at speed as low as 15kt.
Source: Rafale flight test manager himself.
http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/f ... en-vol.pdf

Able to momentarily stay at very low speed is not equal to high post stall agility, let alone better post stall agility than TVC aircraft.
This F-35 stay at near zero airspeed at the top of the tail slide, but that doesn't mean it will be able to compete with a F-22 in post stall.
From last page, TVC can double control power at high AoA
Image

degrasse wrote:b) Max AoA, FCS limits it to 32* (some says 39*), depending on configuration (mainly heavy loads), the A-C is G limited but there is an extra 2.0g available to the pilot after the 9.0g stop, you just need to pull a little harder

:doh: plane doesn't use max AoA to pull maximum G

degrasse wrote:The airframe was designed with a higher ultimate structural load than the 1.5 international standard, at 1.85, mainly because they wanted to retain the same life-span for the Marine version and ALL airframes are derivated from it down to the anti-corosion coating, before the M receives its own specific structural strenghtening, so it CAN take 11.0g routinely.

Funny that Picard say exactly the same thing, yet absolutely no source :mrgreen:
Where are the links for absolute structure limit of F-22 and Rafale?

degrasse wrote:The AoA limit is firmly there for operational purposes, AdlA and French DoD decided that those limits would allow every pilots (top and newbies alike) to fly it "careless" safely, they are NOT aerodynamic limits at all.

Sure, Rafale can reach higher AoA, it just has high risk of getting into a deep stall and pilot has to eject.


degrasse wrote:Now, since you sound like you know your turf, you figured that it obviously depends on MTO conditions, i dont think he would reach 11.0g in hot condition but the whole point being, when it comes to instantaneous turn rates, the higher the structural g load the higher the turn rate obtainable.

For most altitude, instantaneous turn rate depends on your CLmax, not maximum structure G load

degrasse wrote:You compute turn rates using maximum structural load

Nope, you compute instantaneous turn rate by calculate
total lift at specific altitude and speed/weight => G that can be pulled.



degrasse wrote:Those are not canard-deltas, i did stall and post stall myslef (basic acro) and obviously the aerodynamic configuration of an A-C makes a lot of difference, on some jets, you could enter a superstall too, from which you won't recover, on some acro A-C you can use the ailerons in the same fashion as that descibed for the Gripen, to initaie and stop a rotation in the yaw axis.

Wing aft tail aircraft can also use ailerons to start and stop a rotation in yaw axis, they can aldo use their horizontal stabs for that purpose



degrasse wrote:True but even Hans Herbst conclusion differed after X-31 tests and E-F never was equiped with TVC while it was always intended to be by design, being a quasy conceptual copy of X-31, since designed by the same guy.

Different requirements => different designs



degrasse wrote:Sure pilot know their flight envelops, but so do i in the case of Rafale from leaked documentation among other things, other sources such as Dryden/NASA will give you that much details on other A-C

Sureeee, so where is the leaked document? Or is it so super secret so you can't share? Let me guess, not only an aerodynamic guy, you are a spy as well? :mrgreen:

degrasse wrote:canard-delta not being g-limited even with assymetric loads in transonic is true.

Here we go again with the supreme aerodynamic and structure effeciency of canard delta with no g limit whatsoever

degrasse wrote:All of that nonsense and funny, innacurate interpretation of stuff you don't even start to comprehend as "proof" that unseady aiflow is as efficient as a steady airflow?

Did i said a word about efficiency? Nope, you are the one who keep repeating aerodynamic efficiency of Rafale get give absolutely zero Cl/Cd charts for any aircraft. I talked about strength, pressure and lift. More lift doesn't necessarily mean more efficient. For example, upto stall point higher AoA can generate higher amounts of lift, but at the same time more drag.



degrasse wrote:One doesn't inform with comments such as "anybody with some knowledge of physics or science"-blah, one provide with proper counter arguments and demonstrates.

Damm, such big words.
Where are the Cd/Cl charts of any aircraft mentioned?
So where are the EM diagrams of these aircraft?
Where are the contour of Rafale in same conditions as F-22?
Where are the evidence that Rafale can roll faster than X-31 at high AoA again? Or you still think a spin test is the same as performing controlled post stall maneuver? :doh: *sarcasm on F-16 spin at 110°/sec wow even better post stall than PAK-FA *sarcasm off
Last edited by eloise on 05 Aug 2017, 16:37, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 741
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post05 Aug 2017, 14:48

Degrasse,


You missed a couple of my points:

1. REAL Fighter pilots have access to CLASSIFIED MATERIAL that you and I (and everybody else here) do not. That is what matters, not BS charts (from wanna-be AE) of lift curves that I have seen 4K times. :D


2. Everybody on these sites, thinks they are an Aerospace Engineer with a PhD. Quite frankly I could care less if they are or not. Once again, I am tired of all the BS unverifiable diagrams and nonsensical babbling, etc.....

3. I never said a Cessna or an Archer was a Canard-Delta, I was just trying to give an example of what slow flight and stall entry is ACTUALLY LIKE IN THE REAL WORLD. It is not the same as playing mock dogfights on DCS in mommy and daddy's basement.

4. The Russians and pretty much everybody else display maneuvers (if impressive) on video. Do you remember the jaw dropping stunts that their aircraft (Mig-29 and Su-27) performed FOR THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE nearly 30 years ago?? So "if" the Rafale and Gripen are hiding some super-duper AOA flight, I sure would like to see it? We have seen the Finns do extreme AOA flight on their stock Hornets? Why not on Rafale, Gripen, or EF. Probably because they can't :D


5. Close-coupled canards are better than long moment canards (like on EF). I do not think anyone is disagreeing with you here. And again, from what we have seen. (Until I see Rafale doing 14 second turns like a 1987 model Su-27 then I will change my mind) But Rafale's complete turns are 3 seconds short of the Flanker's. 3 seconds is alot- It sure seems that the eurocanards cannot match tailed aircraft in STR and time.

Rafale gets out turned by a 1987 Su-27 and a 1979 model F-16A (BTW, which are tailed aircraft). If Rafale can turn faster, then please, please, please, please someone show me an actual E/M diagram or vid displaying otherwise. Not just because they "think" it can.



6. If the Rafale had simulated kills on a Raptor, (then good for them, ONCE AGAIN I COULD GIVE A S*IT LESS). ACM is all about pilot skill.
Example: https://ibb.co/f0OLNv

But the Rafale is NOT the best at everything as you wrongly keep inferring. It will go into the fight with external stores, the F-22 will be fighting CLEAN.


From the photo dare we deduce that the F-4E Phantom II is a better performer than the F-16A? No, because it is all about who is in the cockpit. Rafale is a good enough plane to have simulated kills on anything. It is illogical that people are blowing a nut over it. In fact, some Block 30's had simulated kills on Rafale and EF. Dare I say the Block 30 is a better jet than them, no I'm not.

7. "The AoA limit is firmly there for operational purposes, AdlA and French DoD decided that those limits would allow every pilots (top and newbies alike) to fly it "careless" safely, they are NOT aerodynamic limits at all."

And that translates into: A LIMIT IS A LIMIT..... :bang:

So its "carefree handling (AOA)" for FAF is still less than F-18 "carefree handling" for the USN and the Finns. AND: its carefree handling up until a point it reaches a (its) limit.



All jets have their positive and negative attributes. The maturity, or lack of it, on these discussion boards says otherwise.
Last edited by f-16adf on 05 Aug 2017, 18:36, edited 4 times in total.
Offline

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 271
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post05 Aug 2017, 16:53

degrasse wrote:
Really and WHY that? And which science would it be? Trolling or accute paranoia?




Hum, some nice ad hominem without providing the proof of your basic knowledge of science. So professional.

Now show us you can do basic Newtonian physics and that you quote stuff you actually understand...

Since your fields are "aerodynamics and research", let's make it more worthy of your education since you can certainly solve the following problem ; take your equations again : http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/sam ... NA==/?ref=

A plane is flying at 17,000ft MSL, 20°C hotter than on a standard day, and is starting a 9G horizontal turn.

Let's say V(t) = 395+5t kts CAS, t being the time in seconds. Integrate dPsi/dt to find Psi between t=0 and t=48.72s. Give the value of Psi and its physical meaning.

Also tell where I intentionally made a pretty unrealistic assumption in the problem.

I can say with utmost confidence people who know their basics about aerodynamics can solve that in 5-15 minutes correctly.
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

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

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 834
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post06 Aug 2017, 17:08

degrasse wrote:The parralel i make between F-22 and Rafale at this level is still perfectly valid when you compare their respective plan form, in particular LEX and leading edge angles, considering the purpose of the vortex sources and what they are doing for the airframe airflow as a whole.
My field are aerodynamics and researche, and i always make sure i checked what i post and can prove it with proper sources as i just did several time over, forum legends does reality no good and are easily debunked, so i equally can easily see how you managed to get your wires so badly crossed and are unable to comprehend how a Rafale can beat a F-22 in a drag race.

Which brings us back to the topic's subject, how? Simple, more lift, less drag, low speed, now study the provided doc, it's not here for bashing but educational purposes

As open mind as iam, i still have to say that it is near impossible to compare aircraft without their data. Nevertheless, because you said aerodynamic is your field, IMHO your words will have more impact if you can solve some aerodynamic math problems:
a) Airfoil A has aspect ratio AR of 7.5, taper ratio of 0.33, the sweep angle at 25% MAC is 39, root thickness to chord ratio of 15%
Airfoil B has aspect ratio AR of 6.8, taped ratio of 0.35, the sweep angle is 42, root thickness to chord ratio of 10%
Plots lift coefficient versus alpha of 2 airfoils at Re = 9*10^5 and Re = 4.2*10^4

b) Determine and plot the lift distribution for the aircraft X at cruising flight. The characteristics of this aircraft are given below. Then determine the lift coefficient at AoA of 24.
Wing area is 28 m2, max take off weight is 3734 kg, Crusing velocity is 233 knot (at 24500 ft), Taper ratio = 0.7, AR = 8.6, Twist angle = -2.6 deg, incident angle = 3 degrees, airfoil section: NACA 23018 (root), NACA 23015 (tip)

viper12 wrote: Give the value of Psi and its physical meaning

Correct me if iam wrong but Isn't it Ps instead of Psi
Offline

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 271
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post06 Aug 2017, 17:42

@garrya : You're so mean. I love it ! :mrgreen:

No, it's Psi, the Greek letter, in the equation he's shown. Ps would be way above what he can compute. Maybe "physical meaning" isn't the best way to phrase it ; "explain in layman's terms the significance of the Psi value you get" would be better I think.

P.S. : Don't write what's actually Psi ; I'm not even sure he knows what it is despite quoting it with a picture.
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

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

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post07 Aug 2017, 00:31

Dunno what's wrong with this french fanboy, considering i always made my opinion clear on the Rafale, as the best 4+ gen fighter (to me, strictly my opinion) available right now. Yes, fanboy, i think the Rafale is actually superior to any flanker derivative as well.

Besides, i really can't understand your point on my Typhoon stance. I'm just reporting what a guy who fly on that bird told me once.
Offline

klearhos

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2017, 11:21

Unread post08 Aug 2017, 11:04

Well, that F-22 pilot was lucky cuz he/she/other had the opportunity in this exercise to see his/her/other future in actual combat.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests