Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Eurofighter Typhoon v/s Dassault Rafale - Analysis

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by jagjitnatt, Apr 29, 2011.

?

which aircraft do you prefer

  1. RAFALE

    177 vote(s)
    54.1%
  2. TYPHOON

    150 vote(s)
    45.9%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Scorpion82

    Scorpion82 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    326
    A factor of 1.4 would translate into a max g of 12.6. So 11 g is possible without destroying the airframe, but it would have severe consequences for airframe life time. If the Rafale was designed as a 11 g fighter you would read about it, over-geeing at some trade shows is not operational performance, let alone of a loaded aircraft or do you want to fly your aircraft clean in a fight?

    Typhoon's FCS features an emergency g-override function, but the overload factor has not been disclosed.
    "Fly-By-Wire system providing:

    * Stability and control augmentation
    * High agility
    * Full carefree handling and manoeuvring

    It is designed to enable the pilot to concentrate on the tactical tasks and to fly the aircraft 'head-up' in combination with the HOTAS (Hand-on-Throttle-and-Stick) concept applied to cockpit design. Emergency features have also been embodied in the system design to ensure maximum safety of operation.

    These include:

    * Low speed auto recovery
    * Emergency 'g' override
    * 'g' onset limitation
    * Dis-Orientation Recovery Capability (DORC)
    * Automatic reversion"


    Source?

    I was aiming at your claim about the canard vortices split on the wings as shown in the graphic from Mr. Tu. You said it would be the same on Typhoon arguing with the "low" position. Looking at it my self I found the design that claim applies too and that's the graphic I posted. Hardly a configuration resembling Typhoon! You are not going to prove THAT CLAIM (canard vortices split on the wings upper/lower) wrt Typhoon with this very source.

    How did I portrait it? The only thing related to turn rates I said was that thrust helps sustaining turns and that's it. Lift changes with speed that was another point I made, that speed doesn't matter for the calculation once you have the necessary data is true and I didn't said otherwise. So you should better start to learn reading my posts, instead of interpreting them!
     
  2. Scorpion82

    Scorpion82 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    326
    Agree. Every design reflects a choice of compromises. No design is perfect and uncompromised. There are alway trade-offs you have to accept in order to get gains, regardless how advanced and well integrated your aerodynamics and flight controls are. Advanced designs may lessen the extend of trade off, but they won't eliminate them completely.
     
  3. Dare2

    Dare2 Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    602
    Once again you write about what you do not know.

    Ultimately you can well pull as many G as the airframe will take before something important goes if the FCS let you do so.

    The point is that the Operational limit is 9.0 G and Typhoon structure is NOT designed to go over and meets is 6.000 h service life.

    Reason for the FCS to limit it to 9.0 G in the first place.


    What was I SAYING RIGHTLY AGAIN?

    What excactly the purpose of your post apart drawning this topic under tons of uneducated nonsenses?


    Well we DO actually, like the rest of it, the fact that you don't proves that you keep writing without knowing.

    Its ultimate G load is passed 1.85 and for your info, it was designed on the structural tolerence of the M variant, NOT the C, with this 11.0 G limit value included in a 7.000 hour lifespan.


    That's still 11.0 G vs 9.0 G and you still writing about what you do not know asusual, spinning, trolling and flaming.


    Nope it doesn't, it have been made Crystal CLEAR by Tarnished, it was fitted but was later retired from the front line aircrafts for obvious reasons, in particular Full carefree handling and manoeuvring.

    First his own comment as a demo Typhoon pilots was; "it was unclear as to weither the difference between 9.0 g and 11.0 G would save your skin during a nose dive at high speed" (or so a similar situation, topic Typhoon close call during a demo flight).

    Then Typhoon is already 1.000 h shorter in life span than Rafale which is the other reason why its FCS will not allow you to pull more than 9.0G.




    More totally irrelevant posting distracting from reality.


    All due to Typhoon structural and aerodynamic limits compared to Rafale and close-coupled canards:

    Departure at lower speed, not the necessary level of control authority in case of superstall.

    RESULTS:
    [​IMG]


    Actually i was wrong i thought 350 kt by memory, not 500 kt and 15.000 ft not 10.000 ft...
    [​IMG]
    This is better than i previously thought.

    Philippe Rebourg is one of the test-pilots, the article was by Alan Norht if i remember well, I can dig it for you but as always this source you IGNORED from long ago, when it was avilable, the very day i posted it on K-Pub like the rest of it... Oh yeah, i nearly forgot, on Pprune Tarnished gave Typhoon T1 Cornering speed at 360 kt... = SAME.

    Anyway Typhoon does also have the lift and thrust to do the SAME but as opposed to what you alleged, which was counterdicted in Pprune by Tarnished, RAF Typhoon DEMO pilot, Typhoon is FIRMLY limited to 9.0 G in FCS.


    Eugne L Tu explains CLEARLY HOW DOWNWASH occues and what its results are:

    Lower LIFT and DRAG.

    Considering that close-coupled canard are the only one to provide with extra vortex lift, the reason for Typhoon canard tip position is drag reduction.


    SAME downwash phenomenon and i keep repeating it and stick to what i write, as opposed to YOU i know what this means and it is clear to me.


    You did nothing of the sort.


    Blah-di-blah. same trolling ans spinning as always.

    WOPNGLY for a change.


    You mentioned speed as being a factor is is NOT V is only used to compute G, top figure a turn rate you can get rid of it if you know the value of G = Structural load..

    Irrelevant to compute a turn rate and it is proven, demonstrated together with your ignorance and spins.
    [​IMG]
    You don't solve the turn rate equation by stating the most obvious fact, you do it as i indicated from a proper aerodynamic authority.

    1) High Lift coefiscient.

    2) Low wingloading.

    3) High Maximum Load.

    4) Low altitude (high air densiity).
    http://www.indiandefence.com/forums/f7/eurofighter-typhoon-v-s-dassault-rafale-analysis-6127/index265.html#post107356

    You visibly have NO clue and have nothing substantial to make a single point.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2011
    1 person likes this.
  4. Scorpion82

    Scorpion82 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    326
    Almost unbelievable but I agree with you on this.

    Informing people about what's known and documented!

    For the benefit of the readers I quote the source you are referring to:
    "The Rafale static/fatigue air frame was fully representative of the real Naval version of the aircraft in terms of structural resistance. The test
    installation comprised 110 computer-controlled actuators and more than 3,000 parameters were recorded simultaneously by 3,000 strain gauges and
    50 displacement sensors. The comprehensive test programme initially concentrated on fatigue trials and two aircraft lives - equivalent to 2 x 5,000 flying hours and 2 x 3,500 flights - were ‘flown’ without sustaining major damage. The engineers’ attention then switched to the static trials during which the Rafale was tested up to 185 percent of design limit load before the airframe broke. Additionally, the static and fatigue strength of some crucial components was tested separately: windshield, canopy, wing attachments, fuselage main fittings, landing gear, canard foreplanes, engine mounts... Additional Finite Elements Computations have beeen performed whenever needed to demonstrate the strength of components that have not been tested.
    «Having completed all this substantiation process, we are fully confident that the airframe will prove problem-free for well over the planned service life,
    stresses Philippe Delaage, an aircraft engineer of the Rafale Management Team. Moreover, in-service aircraft are entirely monitored in real-time by a
    Health and Usage Monitoring System integrated into the mission computer, thus allowing the operator to precisely follow up the actual use of each aircraft through fatigue indexes.» French MoD initial design specifications for the Rafale are 5,000 flying hours/3,000 landings with a severe usage spectrum, but studies have shown that the expected economical life (that is without any major structure component replacement) is 7,000 hours and 5,300 landings."


    To cut it short no mentioning of 11 g at all. Design life was 5000 h, twice that was demonstrated and studies based on the results unveiled that the aircraft should last 7000 h with the specified mission profiles in mind.

    Another source you probably know about:
    "Thanks to her FBW the Rafale is extremely manoeuvrable. Depending on the configuration there are 2 flight domains : air-to-ground with heavy loads (5.5G max and 160°/s roll) or air combat (9G max and 280°/s roll rate) In emergency case the max load factor can reach 11G.
    During test flights for opening the flight envelope at very low speed the aircraft flew at an incidence of more than 100° and at negative speeds of '40 knots without loss of control.
    'We consider that firing after a brutal nose-up like a Cobra are risked during combat because weapon separation problems can arise and pilot can be in a very dangerous situation if he fails to destroy his opponent(s). We prefer to use a very agile weapon, like the MICA and a helmet mounted sight' says Jean Camus, test pilot and ex-manager of the EPNER 5french test pilot school) and former M2000 test pilot."


    11 g is emergency override as well, not standard max. load limit.

    Source:
    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_9.pdf

    Maybe, I don't know. I have looked for Tarnish's comments and couldn't found them already ages ago.

    That was part from the website I quoted...

    Departure is possible <50 kts but not very likely. Nonetheless ALSR to ensure that the unlikely event doesn't occur in a bad day.

    Would be fine...

    I didn't say the Typhoon isn't a 9 g fighter I pointed out that an emergency override function is available as per Eurofighter. There is nothing I alleged here, just pointing out what is reported. If the emergency g-override function is in fact eliminated then there is indeed no way of pulling more than 9 g and pilots won't do this anyway except in a serious dangerous situation. What you claim Tarnish said makes sense and I now remember something along the lines that the GPWS makes g-override more or less superfluous according a pilot. My memory is somewhat shaky on that, so people should consume this with care.

    That's true.

    Please restrain from claiming what I have done or not, because you don't know, I know. That's trollish at best to pretend to know better what someone has done than the person itself.
    Explain US what the model of Tu has in common with the Typhoon?

    I said:
    "It's both right air density and speed both affect lift and thus the turning performance."

    I'm right and you perfectly know this, but you don't want to see me being right on anything so you are shouting wrong or wrong turn what I said to shout wrong afterwards. The rest has been covered already and I agree that once we have the relevant data speed isn't required for the turn rate calculation. I wasn't talking about that calculation anyway and just pointed out that speed has a relevance for lift and thus turning performance.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. Dare2

    Dare2 Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    602
    You have no choice you only spin things you think you can go away with...


    Sure...

    = Ground Proximity Warning System.

    Replacing the override on operational aircraft.

    Now if this is not the case, how come that we never saw a Typhoon going over 9.0 G?

    Maximum Structural Load:

    French MoD initial design specifications for the Rafale are 5,000 flying hours/3,000 landings with a severe usage spectrum, but studies have shown that the expected economical life (that is without any major structure component replacement) is 7,000 hours and 5,300 landings.
    http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fileadmin/user_upload/redacteur/AUTRES_DOCS/Fox_three/FoxThree_N9.pdf

    So yes there are still those who disagree with this and they impose for furiously FUNNY conditions to their claim being anywhere to be correct:

    1) Dassault engineers didn't know what they were doing.

    2) They got their design so WRONG they designed with a too high Maximum Structural Limit.

    3) Structural Limit Margins are not the same for everyone.



    No it is NOT, you posted the reason why yourself, and AdlA shows it by allowing SQUADRON aircraft to pull more than 9.0 G in every single DEMO flight.

    There is NO over-ride "button" or "switch" in Rafale, only soft and hard limiters on stick:

    First The M version Maximum Load is in itself HIGHER than 1.5.

    Second Structural test are involving a 50% margin before failure at 1.5, that of Rafale is 35% over this value, that of Typhoon under it.

    Third It still have 7.000 hours service life with the 11.0 G load included, do your math, compareed to 9.0 G 35% leaves a confortable margin with 7.000 h.


    You don't look hard...



    Does it say that Typhoon actually have literally NO margin over the 1.4?

    It DID fail its first test at 1.4 and some wings spars (by memory) had to be redisigned for it to be able to comply even with the lowered standard... Even if it was 1.5 it still doesn't give you as margin over it.


    SAY WHO? YOU?


    It was; as Tarnished points our before GPWS was part of the baseline design.


    Half truth doesn't make it.


    Yeah sure, Typhoon FCS and structural G load are the equivalent of Rafale?

    That's a lower margin from 1.4 vs 35% over an undisclosed figure margin above 1.5 anyway.

    As for your basic knowledge base, i'm sorry to say.



    AGAIN: Tip canard vortex or leading edge canard vortex as he puts it inducing DOWNWASH.

    Crystal clear. How many times do i have to explain this to you?



    NO you are NOT, speed is only used to compute G (load), and it is CLEAR that once this value is known, V is eliminated from the equation, this makes you WRONG when it comes to compute turn rates.

    I'll pass the rest...
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2011
  6. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  7. Mahesh Alkunte

    Mahesh Alkunte 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    74
    Hello, brothers, countrymen, Indians
    Namaste;
    I ma just a beginner so aeronautical gurus please don’t grill me!!!
    Just had a opinion please correct me if I am wrong…
    From what I read I can say that EF is an excellent combat Jet in air to air combat but not a great ground attack AC compares to Rafale and on the other hand Rafale is an unmatched ground attacker but not a good combat AC when compared to EF both are the most desirable contenders in MMRCA.
    Now thing is in case of combat AC we already have a world class AC in form of SU30MKI which will be coming in for next few years and also would be upgraded on the other hand we lack a good ground attacking aircraft SpaceCats and MIGs are ageing.
    So if EF is not much offering in case of our need (i.e. ground attack) would it be nice to go with Rafale (if EF is not offering much benefit over SU 30MKI)
    Please guide me….
     
  8. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  9. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Sorry I cant help you. You must choose what you think is best.

    To me both are great jets. They both have advantages and disadvantages.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  11. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Do you want me to show more?
     
  12. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  13. Scorpion82

    Scorpion82 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    326
    Sampaix
    The discussion ends here. It's obvious that you aren't interested in any reasonable, civilised, fact based discussion and I'm sick of your misquoting and wrong turning of virtually all of my statements. I advise you to restrain from replying as I will report all further accusations and constant attacks to the mods here.
     
  14. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    What do think of some the findings?
     
  15. Scorpion82

    Scorpion82 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    326
    Could you please specify what findings you are referring to? If you mean the links there some good ones included, some already known. Have to check them out. Thanks for your effort.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page