Etirion

We all love aviation, gotta be able to find a common ground somewhere. Thinder, I appreciate the much better tone and attempt to find a common point. Only thing I disagree with is that there is little advantage in the long moment arm control surfaces without TVC, although I don't disagree that those 2 things would work together very well as shown on the X-31. The high instability of the Typhoons design really needs a lot of force to get its nose back down at higher AoA, which could either be achieved through the long moment arm canards or much bigger/higher deflection of close-coupled ones which would result in increased induced drag when maneuvering and higher parasitic drag when flying straight due to the bigger size. This previously linked article also states that the Canard Vortex does interact with the wing: https://web.archive.org/web/20120311142044/http://icas-proceedings.net/ICAS1998/PAPERS/04.PDF Due to the higher distance and different position it will obviously not be as strong and only really come into effect at larger AoA values, I'd think that the Typhoons designers paid attention to making sure the vortex couples with that of the wing, but not as its primary function. Although as the AMK shows theres quite a bit of performance still left on the table, really hope someone goes for that. As you said particularly the roll rate is lacking (I think double the roll rate at high AoA it was for the AMK?) Edit: Well at least in that one post there was better tone, guess this post was in vain as you've resorted to insults again. I'll just ignore you from now on, for my own sanity.

No one ever argued against what you just posted. The TKF-90 or X-31 are not the Eurofighter, yes its design is based on it/influenced by its research, but the whole post-stall maneuvering thing, as you've said yourself didnt end up in it and its Pilots still praise it for its great agility in the air. Still the Nose-mounted canards didnt get moved backwards, for reasons that I've already linked the research to. As you yourself seem so well versed on the "Politico-Industrial History" you will know that the Typhoon is now a very different aircraft compared to what Herbst and his colleagues conceived as the TKF90. Although, yes it still has a Delta (but now with a straight leading edge, instead of cranked) and nose-mounted canards. But no TVC (although like I previously and now you have said they were developed) a single Vertical Fin, higher weight, etc. Just because the initial vision was to have a highly agile aircraft in the post-stall regime, that doesn't mean that the canards are in that specific spot only because of that, I've linked you the sources of why they are still where they are and you at least seem to agree to them being an important control surface as is stated there. There are plenty of benefits to the Eurofighters design and also some compromises compared to conventional close-coupled canards like that of the Rafale or Gripen, of course there are. I hope you can start to see what I'm trying to say because I'm honestly starting to feel like you're spinning this argument in your head around to make it sound like we're trying to tell you that the Eurofighters design is the end all be all when we never did. Yet here you are trying to talk us down like a bully about how I'm not supposed to talk on an aviation forum, because you think I don't know anything about aviation, when I've never refuted any of your claims about how aerodynamics work. All I simply did was point to some things that didn't line up with the articles I've read and then linked you those articles. Still kind of laughing at how you underlined the 11g emergency bit and then said I made it up. Thats the issue I have with you here, a lot of what you say just does not make sense to me, not in terms of aerodynamics and physics but simply in how you argue. Your tone is consistently toxic (and yes calling you a troll wasn't that nice of me either, but at that point I just couldnt help but keep laughing at the previously mentioned 11g bit) and your initial points were filled with claims about how the Rafales design has insane performance and how the Typhoon can't do that, making it sound like you're trying to talk it down and lift the Rafale up into some kind of aerodynamic gods-creation (exaggerating a little bit here). You're honestly coming across as someone who wants to desperately fight for recognition of your favorite planes. I don't have a problem if you like the Rafale or Dassault airplanes, they're brilliant, no doubt about that. But then please stop coming to a Eurofighter sub-forum trying to tell people how they know nothing and have absolutely 0 credibility compared to you, it just makes you sound arrogant. Now please lets either leave this where it is or continue this as a discussion and not some kind of hate filled argument about "whats better", I enjoy talking about aerodynamic design and engineering, those are some of my favorite topics. So if you think there's something that I'm getting wrong please point it out, but then actually read what I wrote. Because like I've said before, I've never argued against the benefit of close-coupled canards or that TVCs would bring forward great post-stall maneuverability and that this was part of the initial TKF90 and later X-31 Design. In which the Typhoon has its roots.

Yes, I'd love to see a Video of a Rafale pulling 11g "routinely". Once again, your document states IN AN EMERGENCY. I also don't get why you're once again trying to turn this into a "Rafale so good, typhoon sucks" argument, it sometimes really seems like you're hellbent on trying to tell everyone that the typhoons design sucks compared to the rafale, at least thats what your aggressive tone and constant Top-Trumping gets across. Why are you quoting yourself in your post? I've read what you wrote, you saying that doesn't prove anything. And yeah, I don't care if we've not seen Typhoon do more than 9g, I've never argued that it was a more than 9g Fighter. I've also never argued that a Nose-mounted Canard isn't as beneficial to Lift as a close-coupled one, although there is still an effect at higher angles of attack. Yes, the TVCs were part of the original Design, still they're not there anymore, why would they be removed if they were so integral. Sure not having them saves cost and weight and cost was something that the EF-Program constantly had to fight with, ultimately resulting in increased cost with all the delays and political turmoil, I don't need to "revise my basics on Eurofighter Typhoon Politico-Industrial History", but it's still praised by its pilots for its excellent maneuverability, even without the TVCs. I've also read and watched plenty of stuff about the X-31 and such, not sure how exactly any of this matters here. You don't need to explain the difference in conceptual design to me, I know perfectly well that the Rafale and Typhoon weren't designed for the same purpose and therefor ended up with different capabilities, I challenge you to find any post of mine where I refute that. Why exactly does Rafale Inlet design matter now, I've never said anything about that? IIRC from the Fighter Pilot Podcast, the Mach1.8 Limit on the Typhoon is due external Stores, the Engines would happily push it above Mach 2. For some reading yourself: https://web.archive.org/web/20120303185841/http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-035///MP-035-01.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120311142044/http://icas-proceedings.net/ICAS1998/PAPERS/04.PDF

Here we go again... Right, the document says "...11G can be reached in case of emergency", I don't quite understand how an emergency becomes "routinely". If TVCs were so important to the Eurofighters design then they would've been fitted, they've been developed and tested and as Gero said in the GR Interview he doesn't really see them as necessary:

We already have the IRIS-T confirmed as our primary Fox2 weapon, so thats a non-american one already. The cockpit is going to be a little different and how its operated as well.

Jap die Standardlisten sind auch unter "Default Threat Table" gelistet.

UFC muss nur benutzt werden, wenn man auf Radare schießen möchte die nicht schon standardgemäß in den listen drin sind. Für diese gibts die tolle tabelle hier: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p77yaLQJaUMbAIKJDKX5iMN5N5qm_Qqt_dJNyJjLQtw/edit#gid=0

The datalink switch in our Viper does nothing, instead the Datalink is enabled through the MIDS rotary knob, looks like and is pretty much next to the INS knob, with this set to on the datalink should work. If this isnt the issue a short track replay of how you start the jet would help.

Keep in mind that there will also be cost for spares, training and modifications needed to the airbase (hangars need to be able to fit the plane for instance)

Looks fine on my side. Can't really make too much out on your very zoomed out screenshot, but are you sure you're not just looking at your own aircraft there?

This is what TITS (TrueGrit2) had to say to someone asking a similar question: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4449308#post4449308

about the F18 Like True Grit have said, they'll do their best to get it as accurate as possible, engineering it from the data they can get and airshow performance/public sims and so on, and then use their large experience with the real thing to get it to feel right. Just wait and see, its a while out anyways, once you gotta put some money down, I'm sure we'll know much more about the flight model.

I think you're expecting a bit much from a desktop sim here. None of the models in DCS are completely perfect in every regard, neither in any other sim. Iirc the hornets AoA capabilities have some limitations too. It's the closest thing to flying the real thing we can get to as civilians, but its not the real thing, always keep that in mind. Study sim also means operating the systems in a large regard.

Thanks Gero, really enjoyed reading that!

Laut ED Discord ist multicrew noch in arbeit, haben aber immoment nochimmer probleme damit. "no not in next patch, we are closer but testing found some issues that need to be resolved first." Zu deutsch: "Nein nicht im nächsten patch, wir sind näher dran, aber tests haben noch einige probleme aufgezeigt, die erstmal gelöst werden müssen" Das war Bignewy's letztes update vom 11.9.

Yet he calles the typhoon a joke and how its very easy to shoot. And only later says they're silly to compare, that entire interview didnt make much sense to me, I like Ates youtube channel but some of the comments in that interview were just silly.

2.2 looks too washed out for me, 1.8 is the sweet spot. But in the end this depends on your monitor (settings) and personal preference.

Yep, same thing for me! Fortunately it's mentioned here as in development: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4440440#post4440440

Ah yes, the bumping about due to the stores being loaded messes it up.

You don't need to confirm the coordinates with a stored alignment, and it has a maximum quality of 10. Confirming and 6 is only for the regular alignment. For the OP it would probably best to record a short track and attach it here.

You gotta click them repeatedly, cant just hold them down.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4229005&postcount=38

The EF doesn't use harpoons or JDAMS, as far as I know none of the weapons used are made by boeing.

Keep in mind that even the military sims are also never 100% accurate, because real life is always just a little bit more random. With truegrits resume I dont doubt that it'll be the most realistic eurofighter sim thats available.

Are you sure that your own radar sees them and its not just datalink tracks?