Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

5 years 1 month

Posts: 91


Said the guy who was proven wrong over 15 times in the last two page and have to result to lying

Pure delusion, hardly hide how little you know about the subject.

In Rafale spin departure test, the pilot have to disable some mode of FCS so he can put his aircraft in a departure
In F-35 spin departure test,the pilot have to twitch the FCS so he can put his aircraft in a departure
but in your fanboy world, it is not similar, of course unless it is a close couple canard like your pet Rafale, it must be not thing exceptional, i get your agenda

No agenda here, one has airflow characteristics of the close-coupled canard and is aerodynamically stall and spin resistant, the other is not, and L-M also never claim that it is, on the other hand, when they mention loss of control and vortex brake down at high AoA, you should logically pick up on this because it is a huge clue on A-C level of control, but not everyone has the right knowledge base to do that, granted you came back for more.

Sure you should go and educate the engineer at LM who think F-35 can maneuver in post stall regime and gain advantage in combat with that, they are clearly clueless unlike our friend thincankiller

Within AoA and spin testing, not PSM as such, and at this level EVERY single A-C which is put through those tests and come out of spins possesses those qualities to a degree, depending on the A-C, it doesn't make them "PSM capable" or else, a Jaguar would be, it means they have enough control in post stall to get out of a spin.

AGAIN: Increasing spin yaw rate, stopping it, using ailerons elevons and rudder, is not unusual, the reason why they don't use it operationally with some A-C is explained by the conclusion of the DRYDEN X-31 pilots, do you want to read it again?

Apply your logic, F-16 which can start a 120 degrees yaw and get out must have even better control ability at high AoA? that just show you know nothing about the topic.

F-16 doesn't "start" a 120* yaw, it departs out of control due to a forced entry in a flight regime and part of its flight envelop where it is prone to departure (transonic/asymetrical load), AGAIN, you still haven't got the meaning of the word control, or controlled flight, and yes, if it recover from it, at least it has the right level of control for it. btw, close-coupled canards also are more resistant to departure in this flight regime with asymmetrical load. Tada!

Pitch to very high AoA, aka Cobra maneuver and you can have momentary extreme low speed, hardly on the same level as Pedal turn or Herbst or Kulbit

Whatever, you can't even figure that you don't need to be post-stall to do that and more to the point that you need to be able to use the same controls to get out of a spin .

So Cobra, Pedal turn or else, I believe that you still can't understand the difference, here it never was about a Cobra but controllability needed to get out of a stall and spin, what control surfaces you need to use to get out of a yaw spin, since you have no clue, you can't figure all A-Cs which go through those tests successfully demonstrate the same level of controllability to an extend and in some case MORE, like demonstrated by the Gripen PSM, and no it has nothing to do with F-16 loss of control, it was a fully controlled PSM.

In short, after 3 pages of trolling, you can't prove a single claim you had made.

I don't try to prove anything, you do it well enough, you proved time and time again that you know too little about the subject to figure what is what and consistently mistake subject (loss of control, vs fully controlled PSM, high AoA vs PSM) to the point of confusion, therefore when one pilot tells you B.S in airshow, you swallow the little ostia, leave your capacity of being critical in the basement, don't ask what AoA did they turn? And then pop in Rafale topics spamming with documentation you haven't come anywhere close to comprehend, do we have to be impressed?

Let's see: Rafale can't be stalled, Rafale is M2.0 capable. Yeah.... Right.

I don't think that happened either given that you have been quite disingenuous in this thread


how about you go inside your aircraft ,fly and took a photo with a paper written thincankiller-keypublishing-2019, no need for your face.


Odd is you won't do that and claim you don't have time and don't have to prove anything, but the truth is you lied and got caught

Coming from you I take it as a compliment, at least he knows his ABC even if the most advanced stuff eludes him because apparently he haven't been through the same training than I have, including aerodynamics, but anyone who has can understand what I write, you don't, and I can tell why.

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 999

I thought monsieur Sampaix's troll time was over. Bit he is back and does what he has been doing for the past 15 years or so, flooding forums, derailling threads and prenzending to be the one and only person with a clue about aviation.

That sounds about right. If only we can group JSR, KGB, ActionJackson and ThincanKiller in one thread so they can't flood the forum with trash

Member for

6 years 1 month

Posts: 376

[USER="43812"]moon_light[/USER]

Can someone tell me whats wrong with ActionJackson(do not know much about JSR) or why users here have problems with him? Last posts I have seen from him was going into intricate details of aircraft design pertaining to stealth or not. He did have some good conversations with Jo Asakura(sucks I do not see this user alot either last time I saw him was the announcement of kinzhal for mig-31) back in the days when I was lurking these threads. Is it because he has this jinguistic approach that makes him appear he has a strong bias? Even if he does I dont think there is any faults I can find other than explaining his reasons for favoring US aircraft?

Member for

5 years 1 month

Posts: 91


so they can't flood the forum with trash

Am I? Trash would be defined by personal attacks, complete paranoia spreading, smear about some characters you knew once and spamming a topic with irrelevant B.S about another A-C, not to mention forum legends and other form of flaming B.S, I will have seen everything.

So, Picard, Sampax, this other guy toocool knew once, make up your mind. Hilarious, btw, explain to your pal the implication of making any canard delta using those surfaces in roll because even so he posed with a false GAF uniform in front of an E-F Typhoon it didn't look too good, I read the topic by curiosity, but this attracted my attention. LOL!

Member for

5 years 1 month

Posts: 91

[USER="43812"]moon_light[/USER]

Can someone tell me whats wrong with ActionJackson(do not know much about JSR) or why users here have problems with him? Last posts I have seen from him was going into intricate details of aircraft design pertaining to stealth or not. He did have some good conversations with Jo Asakura(sucks I do not see this user alot either last time I saw him was the announcement of kinzhal for mig-31) back in the days when I was lurking these threads. Is it because he has this jinguistic approach that makes him appear he has a strong bias? Even if he does I dont think there is any faults I can find other than explaining his reasons for favoring US aircraft?

You never know, if you visited the Indian Forum before it was closed, you'd understand this scorpion guys aversion for sampax, I believe that he never really recovered from being demonstratively proven wrong claiming Typhoon used canard in the roll axis, Picard, I don't know, but apparently everyone kicking the US/British fighter mafia in forums is considered as a threat.

Anyway, that's what happens when people run out of proper argument and i'm sorry to say but there are some guys who should really not be writing this stuff, because they understand zilth to it.

Member for

5 years 1 month

Posts: 91

ThincanKiller do you consider Cobra PSM?

It depends from my PoV, if the A-C pitch control surfaces triggers the recovery phase or if it just recovers by gravity of simply because the airframe "wants" to return into the airflow.

Think about what a maneuver involves, starting it, controlling it, stopping it; you don't have all 3, you don't have a maneuver as such, putting a F-16 out of its flight envelop by pulling like big foot on the stick (extreme example for illustrating what I am aiming at), doesn't mean you start a PSM, you only put it out of control, for this cobra thing it should be the same, less spectacular but nonetheless the same when it comes about levels of control.

In short, to call anything a maneuver, you need to retain full control over it.

I forgot to mention, loss of control (whatever axis) comes into the "Intentional loss of control" category when it is triggered, it does not implies PSM if the full level of control is not retained throughout the whole duration of the "maneuver".

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 999


You never know, if you visited the Indian Forum before it was closed, you'd understand this scorpion guys aversion for sampax, I believe that he never really recovered from being demonstratively proven wrong claiming Typhoon used canard in the roll axis, Picard, I don't know, but apparently everyone kicking the US/British fighter mafia in forums is considered as a threat.
Anyway, that's what happens when people run out of proper argument and i'm sorry to say but there are some guys who should really not be writing this stuff, because they understand zilth to it.

After witnessing what you did in this thread, i can imagine what your version of proven someone wrong is like: you flood the thread with trashs until your opponents are bored and ignore you. Picard, is not considered as threat, he is considered as a fool.

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 1,081

Pure delusion, hardly hide how little you know about the subject.

Said the guy who claimed fighter sustain G at Mach 0.8 ,15k ft will be affected by its ultimate structure limit


No agenda here, one has airflow characteristics of the close-coupled canard and is aerodynamically stall and spin resistant, the other is not, and L-M also never claim that it is, on the other hand, when they mention loss of control and vortex brake down at high AoA, you should logically pick up on this because it is a huge clue on A-C level of control, but not everyone has the right knowledge base to do that, granted you came back for more

They clearly said in high AoA test, they have to deal with the basic problem such as turbulence, low dynamic pressure but of course, as a liar you are, you claimed F-35 lost control at high AoA


Whatever, you can't even figure that you don't need to be post-stall to do that

So can Jaguar perform these maneuvers or not, simple yes/no question. If yes, show a video.


a controllability needed to get out of a stall and spin, what control surfaces you need to use to get out of a yaw spin, since you have no clue, you can't figure all A-Cs which go through those tests successfully demonstrate the same level of controllability to an extend and in some case MORE, like demonstrated by the Gripen PSM, and no it has nothing to do with F-16 loss of control, it was a fully controlled PSM

Nope, it wasn't, Gripen was an intentional departure test, where the aircraft was put into a spin and recover. That it, nothing more, not nothing less. Not even SAAB or any Gripen pilot claimed Gripen can perform post-stall maneuvers,not in airshow, not in mock combat, your fanboy lie can't change that.
For your information, a controlled departure is not the same as combat rated PSM, because to be able to utilize PSM, the accuracy of the yaw/pitch is important
This clearly shown in F-18E/F flight control development versus legacy F-18C
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"large","data-attachmentid":3852851}[/ATTACH]


Within AoA and spin testing, not PSM as such, and at this level EVERY single A-C which is put through those tests and come out of spins possesses those qualities to a degree, depending on the A-C, it doesn't make them "PSM capable" or else, a Jaguar would be, it means they have enough control in post stall to get out of a spin
I don't try to prove anything, you do it well enough, you proved time and time again that you know too little about the subject to figure what is what and consistently mistake subject (loss of control, vs fully controlled PSM, high AoA vs PSM) to the point of confusion, therefore when one pilot tells you B.S in airshow, you swallow the little ostia, leave your capacity of being critical in the basement, don't ask what AoA did they turn? And then pop in Rafale topics spamming with documentation you haven't come anywhere close to comprehend, do we have to be impressed?

I love how you are so desperately try to dismiss F-35's post stall capability, only to be shut down by fact and evidence.
​​​​
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","data-attachmentid":3852852}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","data-attachmentid":3852853}[/ATTACH]

According to you, LM sure use air show as an opportunities to test intentional departure, even though, like you claimed, F-35 has no control at high AoA.

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","data-attachmentid":3852854}[/ATTACH]


Coming from you I take it as a compliment, at least he knows his ABC even if the most advanced stuff eludes him because apparently he haven't been through the same training than I have, including aerodynamics, but anyone who has can understand what I write, you don't, and I can tell why.

In other words, you lied and got caught.
Attachments

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 4,461

What Talios pod give (integrated with new helmet).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-1Ju4liNmA&feature=youtu.be

Haven't seen any particular reference to the HMD in that video. Interesting is the direct overlay to the moving map, IIRC that's already done with SAR imagery right? Any hint on full color integration of the TV imagery with the F4 standard? Since when has the tablet been integrated on the Rafale?

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

Talios is an impressive example of newer targeting pods. I am curious if the newer generation of external pods have the same KCAS and G limits as previous external pods. No documentation I can find. Anyone?

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

There is no imagery in that helmet.

The new helmet is not in the video. Wait for PAS19. The integration of Talios with new helmet was announced during aeroindia.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

Haven't seen any particular reference to the HMD in that video. Interesting is the direct overlay to the moving map, IIRC that's already done with SAR imagery right? Any hint on full color integration of the TV imagery with the F4 standard? Since when has the tablet been integrated on the Rafale?

The tablet "decalco" isn't new, it is second generation one (first was a samsung) in service now. The helmet for AdA should be announced in Paris in june. i think F-35 have a similar fucntion with SAR imagery, but i dunno if they can directly zoom from nulerical "classic" map.

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 4,461

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

Member for

7 years 2 months

Posts: 29

Any news about CEC capabilities of Rafale?

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

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

According to an Istres test engineer from Istres i will of course ot cite, announcement should be done at PAS19. Most of the work is done.

Member for

5 years 1 month

Posts: 91

For your information, a controlled departure is not the same as combat rated PSM, because to be able to utilize PSM, the accuracy of the yaw/pitch is important

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

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\timage-260772.jpg Views:\t0 Size:\t177.2 KB ID:\t3853667","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"3853667","data-size":"full","title":"image-260772.jpg"}[/ATTACH]

Only 5th generation fighters like the F-35 and Lockheed martin F-22 Raptor can execute high AoA pedal turns

Smell commercial B.S by the bucket, first it doesn't say "but this is only because other A-F and Navies have chosen to limit their A-C AoA to 30* or 29* after testing the Operational usefulness of PSM".

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

Just a little reminder:

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

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


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

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

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

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

Attachments

Member for

5 years 1 month

Posts: 91

As seen in a French forum.

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

The new blades are expected to boost the M88’s thrust to nine tons compared to the present 7.5 tons.

https://sldinfo.com/2019/02/an-update-on-the-future-combat-air-systems-program-february-2019/

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

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