F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 223
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post11 Mar 2019, 17:12

optimist wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
f4u7_corsair wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xua3049KJg

31:20 for supercruise capability.

He didn't mention the configuration, though.

1.4sc and 1.8ab ..it really has to work hard to get the extra 0.4. It takes a 50% increase in power and 2-3 times the gas.

wiki. Maximum thrust: 50 kN (11,200 lbf) and 75 kN (16,900 lbf) (with afterburner)
Fuel consumption: 3,977 kg/h and 12,695 kg/h (with afterburner)
Specific fuel consumption: 22.14 g/kNs and 47.11 g/kNs (with afterburner)
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 5.68:1 (dry) and 8.52:1 (with afterburner)

Far be it for me to say 'it aint so' but it would be nice to have someone else confirm this. Like official dassault, french gov. and FMS customers, comps or evals? "One of the reasons we chose the Rafale, was because it could super cruise at mach 1.4"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale. http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/f ... t-2011.jpg
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3339
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post11 Mar 2019, 21:22

A range and payload configuration would he nice. M1.4 with 6 AAMs and EFTs, or clean? 50nm? 200nm?
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post11 Mar 2019, 21:31

1 centerline and 2-4 AAM as far as I heard.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post11 Mar 2019, 23:40

Come on guys it's not that hard, something official from one of the foreign customers or a competition/evaluation. or Dassault or the french gov.

link 1 wiki lead me to 26 (14 and 28 were unavailable, a page from something) https://web.archive.org/web/20120902171 ... ale_fr.htm
It gave me a nice history but without any reference to 1.4sc or the actual content of the wiki entry. I would be happy for someone show it.
the wiki entry, with what seemed to be stuck in front of what is sourced?
"It was not until May 1990 when the M88 replaced the port F404 in the demonstrator to enable the aircraft to reach Mach 1.4 and demonstrate supercruise, or sustained supersonic flight without use of afterburners. After 865 flights with four pilots, Rafale A was retired in January 1994.[14][26][28]"

Link 2
A 2011 airshow sheet of unknown origin.

I think I found where it started?.. 2007 fox 3 quoting one of two 'unnamed' pilots. Still no 1.4sc and nothing official.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071122095 ... e_nr_8.pdf
«The Rafale is ideal for the job, stresses one of the two duty pilots.
It can climb to 40,000 feet in under two minutes
(I think in this thread it has been shortened to 1 minute taking off from a runway, but no matter)
and accelerate very rapidly to supersonic speed. More significantly, it can supercruise in dry power, even with four missiles and a belly drop tank. (The speed, alt and if level flight would help)
Aussie fanboy
Offline

herciv

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 08:24

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 08:49

http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/f ... t-2011.jpg
This document is made by Dassault to be used by the official airshow speaker at le bourget. It is written :
"The snecma m-88 engine in the rafale develops 11 250 lb of dry thurst and 16 900 with afterburner.
They allow it to supercruise at mach 1.4 with four missiles and a 1 250 litters belly drop tank.
The naval version can supercruise up to mach 1.4 while carrying six air-to-air missiles (MBDA MICA).
"
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 14:36

The Rafale M version is heavier than the Rafale C. You would expect the C to SC faster than the M. The empty weight according to this doc is 22,000lbs for the C, I'd expect the M to be nearly 23,500-24,000lbs or more empty.
Offline

herciv

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 08:24

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 14:57

I'm not a specialist but perhaps SC with external weapon has Something to do with the structure ? The more reinforced the structure is the more supercruise with weapon is possible ?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4545
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 15:16

All that statement is saying is that the drag of two pylon mounted MICAs is the same as the drag of one belly tank. Weight has almost no bearing on top speed.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 15:16

M88 thrust is listed at 16,535lbs in full reheat according to this document. At the bottom it says thrust is 16,900lbs. Which is it? And are there any plans to have increased thrust engines in the near future; Would they have to enlarge the intakes?
Last edited by f-16adf on 12 Mar 2019, 15:19, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 15:18

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:All that statement is saying is that the drag of two pylon mounted MICAs is the same as the drag of one belly tank. Weight has almost no bearing on top speed.

One supersonic* belly tank to be exact (RPL 711, 330 US. gal.)
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 15:20

f-16adf wrote:M88 thrust is listed at 16,535lbs in full reheat according to this document. Are there any plans to have increased thrust engines in the near future; Would they have to enlarge the intakes?

It is possible to increase the thrust to some extent without redesigning the inlets.
Current AB thrust is 75 kN, I believe it has been discussed an increase to about 80-85 kN without redesign. 90+ kN increase could imply an inlet redesign.

Either way (with or without redesign), a thrust increase is in the works.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1115
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 17:25

Trust is like a 2 edged knife.

One can always get more trust but at what fuel/range cost?

To get more trust but with the same fuel burn, you need a redesign or newer engine materials.
Offline

operaaperta

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2017, 21:42

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 21:44

herciv wrote:http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/files/fiche-rafale-le-bourget-2011.jpg
This document is made by Dassault to be used by the official airshow speaker at le bourget. It is written :
"The snecma m-88 engine in the rafale develops 11 250 lb of dry thurst and 16 900 with afterburner.
They allow it to supercruise at mach 1.4 with four missiles and a 1 250 litters belly drop tank.
The naval version can supercruise up to mach 1.4 while carrying six air-to-air missiles (MBDA MICA).
"


The actual document doesn’t mention Mach 1.4 in the first statement, only supercruise with AAMs and centreline tank. Mach 1.4 is only mentioned in second statement, but here droptank reference is removed.

My interpretation is that it can supercruise (C model, no mention of Mach number) with AAMs and drop tank, and supercruise at Mach 1.4 with AAMs but no droptank (Naval version)
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 22:12

operaaperta wrote:My interpretation is that it can supercruise (C model, no mention of Mach number) with AAMs and drop tank, and supercruise at Mach 1.4 with AAMs but no droptank (Naval version)


If your interpretation is correct than this would most likely be a configuration with 4 under-fuselage mounted MICAs plus 2 wingtip mounted MICAs which would mean no wing mounted pylons and weapons and no external fuel tanks - such configuration would be the one with least drag (with 6 air-to-air MICA missiles that is).

Or something like this but without the wing mounted pylons and ordinance:
Image
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 22:28

herciv wrote:http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/files/fiche-rafale-le-bourget-2011.jpg
This document is made by Dassault to be used by the official airshow speaker at le bourget. It is written :
"The snecma m-88 engine in the rafale develops 11 250 lb of dry thurst and 16 900 with afterburner.
They allow it to supercruise at mach 1.4 with four missiles and a 1 250 litters belly drop tank.
The naval version can supercruise up to mach 1.4 while carrying six air-to-air missiles (MBDA MICA).
"

Where does it show that it is a dassault document. If this is official, where is it repeated on the dassault web site and such? This smells like the active cancellation myth.
Last edited by optimist on 12 Mar 2019, 22:29, edited 1 time in total.
Aussie fanboy
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests