Good Typhoon/Rafale article

[Thinder]

The poster of this article have a have history of posting bogus, uninformed material and calling it "good", that's yet another example.

 

Rafale won literally EVERY single evaluation where Tyhoon was pitted against it, most notoriously the SWISS Air Force evaluation.

 

Now we read comment such as "I like Ates youtube channel but some of the comments in that interview were just silly."

 

Sure... Guys with no experience of fighter jets with below average knowledge in military aviation or aerodynamics can be taken more seriously than a Rafale pilot.

 

The French Bashers mafia is polluting DCS forums with their usual mediocrity, it took a leaked Dassault client document to shut them down about Rafale super-cruise capabilities in Anglo-American forums...

 

Here, a GENUINE Paris Air Show (client-only) Dassault-Aviation document, not a false flight envelop...

 

 

That's M 1.4, 6 X AAM and 1 X supersonic tank for you.

 

We still have to see a Typoon pulling more than 9.0G, that's routinely 11.0G for Rafale demo for you.

 

 

 

 

>>>>>>

 

 

So when do we start the debate on F-16 being prone to departure in transonic above 35.000 Ft?

 

 

"High subsonic above 35.000 Ft, this is an area in which the aircraft is prone to departure if mishandled". 1:26.

If we play by your book and get our way, you're gonna have to do a lot of jumping up and down on Mirage 2000 topics to get even.

 

Not gonna happen. RAZBAM aren't fooled by your methods and they know more about the 2000 than you know about F-16 or aviation in general, if it hasn't been the case, you wouldn't have posted a fake flight envelop in the first place.

 

So if I were you, I'd stop pretending and start leaning, trying to be a better flight sim pilot would be a good start.

 

 

 

but Eurofighter was designed as uncompromised air superiority. So EF may be better just in interception/dogfight than Rafale - due to EF lower wing loading, higher T/W ratio and different canards design

 

It's the opposite mate, long moment arm canards of the Typhoon doesn't contribute to lift, to achieve that you need close-coupled canards such as those seen on Gripen and Rafale, Eurofighter have tested a solution seen on Rafale, coupling the canards to LEX to try to fill the gap in terms of low-medium speed handling, Rafale is a 4 vortexes design from stock.

 

The difference at altitude is due to their designed role, M88 is not optimized for high altitude like is the EJ and their structural limits are also drastically different, which explains Typhoon relatively low weight, their respective flight envelop is reflecting their primary role, but at low to medium altitude, a Typhoon is not going to beat a Rafale in WVR, low speed handling and 11.0g make sure of that.

 

At high altitude the Typhoon is better, naturally it is what it was optimized for, this plus higher supercruise speed makes it a more capable interceptor.

 

Just to clarify, Hans Herbst the E-F designer never envisaged hyper-maneuverability like Dassault did with aerodynamics only, instead he relied on the use of TVC and post-stall maneuvers, very much the same way than X-31, a project in which Herbts have been involved as well.

 

This is why Typhoon canards are rooted so forward, to beneficiate from long moment arm in order to assist TVCs in post stall state in pitch authority, plus their tips vortexes provide with a downwash effect at low AoA due to anhedral which reduce lift but also the associated induced drag, meaning better acceleration at low AoA.

 

On the other hand, close coupled canards triggers the appearance of vortex lift lower in the AoA scale, which reduces induced drag.

 

......

Edited October 10, 2020 by Thinder

[Etirion]

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:

Edited October 10, 2020 by Etirion

[Thinder]

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:

 

Document says 11.0G got a problem with that? Where does it say 11.0G in Typhoon adverts?

 

 

We still have to see a Typoon pulling more than 9.0G, that's routinely 11.0G for Rafale demo for you.

And yes it is done routinely by Rafale pilots in demo, want the videos?

 

Here you go again, same uninformed B.S.

 

It's not IF, long moment arm doesn't increase lift and this is FACTUAL:

 

 

Just to clarify, Hans Herbst the E-F designer never envisaged hyper-maneuverability like Dassault did with aerodynamics only, instead he relied on the use of TVC and post-stall maneuvers, very much the same way than X-31, a project in which Herbts have been involved as well.

They don't think post stall maneuvers work? Doesn't change the reason for the choice of long moment arm. FACT: TVC were part of the original design, reason for the long moment arm.

 

Before replying go and read NASA reports on the effects of close coupled canard on a delta wing, the X-31 program, PSM and revise your basics on Eurofighter Typhoon Politico-Industrial history.

 

You just proved you know nothing of Typhoon.

 

 

Note: You can't explain the difference in conceptual design to someone who want his cake and think he'll still have it after eating it. Rafale and Typhoon are responding to two different requirements, hence different capabilities even if Typhoon fan don't like it, it's not level with Rafale when it comes to maneuverability, I explained the reasons why in my previous post.

 

We have the documents that proves that Rafale inlets were conceived for M 2.0, we're not trying to make up a Mach 2 capability but instead explain the nature of the aircraft Mach limitation, which is the opposite of what F-16 and Typhoon fans does for theirs btw, check out RAF Typhoon page and tell me what the Mach limit is. https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/typhoon-fgr4/

 

I'll leave it at that, there is no reason to try to provide with good information, waste of time...

 

......

Edited October 10, 2020 by Thinder

[Etirion]

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

Edited October 10, 2020 by Etirion

[Hummingbird]

Christ, Thinder is at it again.......

 

 

Just so it's clear for everyone, the EF features strakes to strengthen its vortices. That said vortices = lift & drag, they don't lower induced drag, that is just nonsense. Hence increased vortice production via canards is great for high AoA & instantaneous rate, NOT for sustained rate. There is no free lunch in aero.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

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

 

Well would you look at that, zero mention of TVC having any influence on the foreplane design at all. Who woulda guessed :music_whistling:

[Thinder]

Yes, I'd love to see a Video of a Rafale pulling 11g "routinely". Once again, your document states IN AN EMERGENCY.

 

 

Really? So who decide what an emergency is, the FCS? You have no case arguing over those words, reality = Rafale is 11.0G capable, not Typhoon.

 

 

I also don't get why you're once again trying to turn this into a "Rafale so good, typhoon sucks" argument

That's your false interpretation of what I wrote, of course you have nothing else, everyone can see that I described each aircraft characteristics, not you.

 

 

I've never argued that it was a more than 9g Fighter.

But you try to make up that Rafale can only pull 11.0 G "in case of emergency".

 

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.

No there isn't, vortexes woks like sprockets in a gear box, either they interact or they don't that's what coupled means, and you clearly haven't been doing your homework on the subject.

 

The whole point of the close coupled canards is to trigger vortex lift from LOWER AoA so as to reduce induced drag for the same amount of lift, not when the delta wing already acts like an airbrake. You got it completely backward.

 

 

Yes, the TVCs were part of the original Design, still they're not there anymore

Case closed. I was right and your little spinning doesn't change anything, they don't consider post stall as essential after the conclusion of the X-31 program, so NO TVC, if you knew Typhoon you'd not even be asking the question.

 

I've also read and watched plenty of stuff about the X-31 and such, not sure how exactly any of this matters here.

What was I saying. Herbst, long moment arm delta, TVC, Post Stall, none of it matters of course, when in fact the Typhoon designer advocated the design and worked on X-31 with NASA to validate the post stall maneuvers in air combat nearly 3 and half years before Typhoon first flight.

 

 

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.

DONE, you trying to imply that the 11.0G capability can't be used otherwise than "in case of emergency".

 

Here is what the demo team "Alpha" says of it:

 

Jusqu'a + 11.0 G en presentation Alpha

Up to + 11.0 G in Alpha presentation

 

 

Cedric Ruet First Rafale demo pilot 2009: @3:08' 10.0, 10.5, 11.0 G

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5O-vRXrgig

Cedric Ruet Dubai Airshow '09 "Everything you see here during the airshow, we're able to do during combat"

 

There are many quotes from Rafale pilots that prove you wrong, spinning a few words doesn't make your case.

 

 

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.

I said something about that to show that we don't invent ourselves capabilities or try to rewrite aerodynamic laws like you just did.

 

RAF limited Typhoon to M 1.8 due to high frequencies vibration in the inlet, still unresolved, as for external store, NO A2G weapon is cleared for M 1,8 and A2A would be cleared for the whole of its flight envelop.

 

You clearly have no idea what you write about and get some more serious sources, Try MoD NAO reports for the inlet related Mach limit.

 

 

From my archives:

 

 

Eurofighter: Aerodynamics within a Multi-Disciplinary Design environment.

Keith McKay British Aerospace.

 

 

Pretty clear they weren't looking for exta lift at high AoA but as I said, improved control authority in the pitch axis, now compare this to the X-31 configuration.

 

 

......

Edited October 10, 2020 by Thinder

[Hummingbird]

I wouldn't waste anymore time on him Etirion, the guy is litterally making stuff up as he goes.

 

Careful study was done as to the proper placement of the canards on the EF:

"Further, at the level of instability chosen for the aircraft, there was little effect on maximum lift of either position, whilst for a less unstable aircraft, a high aft foreplane does provide some benefit on lift.

Further, the low forward foreplane is more effective as a control surface, with consequent benefit for nosewheel lift, trim and manoeuvre capability.

This increase in effectiveness is maintained, even at high angle of attack, where the effect is to provide more pitch recovery capability for high angle of attack recovery."

 

In short the long coupled configuration was chosen as the short/close coupled one didnt provide any advantage in lift at level of instability chosen for the aircraft, whilst the long coupled configuration added increased controllability.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Hummingbird

[Thinder]

I wouldn't waste anymore time on him Etirion, the guy is litterally making stuff up as he goes.

 

Careful study was done as to the proper placement of the canards on the EF:

"Further, at the level of instability chosen for the aircraft, there was little effect on maximum lift of either position, whilst for a less unstable aircraft, a high aft foreplane does provide some benefit on lift.

Further, the low forward foreplane is more effective as a control surface, with consequent benefit for nosewheel lift, trim and manoeuvre capability.

This increase in effectiveness is maintained, even at high angle of attack, where the effect is to provide more pitch recovery capability for high angle of attack recovery."

 

In short the long coupled configuration was chosen as the short/close coupled one didnt provide any advantage in lift with at level of instability chosen for the aircraft, whilst the long coupled configuration added increased controllability.

 

 

Another faker opens it.

 

Sorry due, you can't have it either way, first of all, their level of instability is different, that of Typhoon was chosen for the use of TVC on the basis of the studies conducted in the frame of the X-31 program, second Rafale canards are not coupled to the wing but to the LEX.

 

Do you know what this mean? Longer moment arm than the previous generation of close coupled canards and an extra source of vortexes.

 

So this document conclusions doesn't apply to it, and it says exactly what I explained about the reason for the positioning of the Typhoon canards, with the addition of its level of instability.

 

 

Just to clarify, Hans Herbst the E-F designer never envisaged hyper-maneuverability like Dassault did with aerodynamics only, instead he relied on the use of TVC and post-stall maneuvers, very much the same way than X-31, a project in which Herbts have been involved as well.

 

This is why Typhoon canards are rooted so forward, to beneficiate from long moment arm in order to assist TVCs in post stall state in pitch authority, plus their tips vortexes provide with a downwash effect at low AoA due to anhedral which reduce lift but also the associated induced drag, meaning better acceleration at low AoA.

 

On the other hand, close coupled canards triggers the appearance of vortex lift lower in the AoA scale, which reduces induced drag.

The fact that ignorant are projecting their own defects is more and more obvious with geezers posting false documents like you did to try to get RAZBAM to nerf the Mirage 2000, and I wont mention inventing extra lift at high AoA for Typhoon long moment arm configuration, you two are fun....

 

Come back when you know your subject, you already proven how much you're lacking at this level.

 

 

......

Edited October 10, 2020 by Thinder

[Hummingbird]

It's hilarious how you clearly didn't understand a word of what Keith McKay wrote :lol:

[Thinder]

Now a little history course for the two fun guys:

 

The original project for the Typhoon was the TFK-90.

 

"a fighter design that would eventually become the Eurofighter Typhoon"

NASA Aeronautics Book series.

 

Flying Beyond the Stall.

 

 

In West Germany, Dr. Wolfgang Herbst of Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm (MBB) aggressively touted the advantages of post-stall technology (PST) for increased effectiveness during close-in air combat.

 

Herbst�s conclusions were based on wind-tunnel tests of a German advanced canard fighter configuration known as the TKF-90 and piloted simulator studies during which the application of simulated thrust vectoring resulted in rapid directional turns at high angles of attack had increased the turn rate by over 30 percent.

 

Technical discussions between the Rockwell SNAKE Program managers and Herbst were initiated in 1983, and planning for a mutual program on PST ensued. Discussions with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) were very positive. When funding for collaborative international activities became available from the U.S. (the Nunn-Quayle research and development initiative in 1986) and West German governments, the technical expertise of Rockwell and MBB were joined under DARPA sponsorship in the X-31 Program.

 

In view of Langley�s extensive experience in high-angle-of-attack technology, unique test facilities, and contributions to the Rockwell SNAKE Program, DARPA requested in 1986 that Langley become a participant in the X-31 development program.

Find this article at:

https://www.456fis.org/ROCKWELL_X-31.htm

Eurojet 200 with TVC.

 

 

 

OMG I was WRONG! I called him Hans instead of Wolfgang.

 

......

Edited October 10, 2020 by Thinder

[Hummingbird]

As I thought, Thinder has nothing to substantiate his nonsense.

 

In summary the EF was not designed to be reliant on TVC, and the placement of the foreplane and choice in level of instability was not determined by it either, on the contrary it was the level of instability chosen which dictated the placement of the foreplane/canards. What earlier ideas there may have been in regards to TVC before even the prototype fighter started to materialize had no influence on the design of the final aircraft and is therefore irrelevant. Anyone with just a tad of reading comprehension can read it for themselves in the material provided by Etirion.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Hummingbird

[Etirion]

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.

[Thinder]

OK, I'm gonna conclude by highlighting the points I made earlier:

 

So NO 11.0G for Typhoon but....

 

Faster acceleration at low AoA thanks to steeper wing sweep, drag reducing canard tips (downwash effect) and higher TWR, the choice of designing a lighter airframe has its advantages too.

 

Higher Critical Mach although Rafale features a large wing-fuselage karman optimized for transonic, it still will be draggier in supersonic due to its sweep wing angle.

 

9.0G is correct and sufficient in most situation, about 0.2 M advantage in supercruise over Rafale for all the reasons quoted too.

 

Higher service ceiling, better high altitude performances, for the same reasons which makes it the most capable interceptor of the two on the basis of performances only (not taking systems into account).

 

On the other hand, Rafale has the edge when it comes to maneuverability from low to medium altitude and that's aerodynamics talking, not fanboyism.

 

It is also more tolerant than most (F-16/Su-27) to off-Cg and asymmetric load, resistant to spin, can recover from superstall (qualities of the close-coupled canard).

 

Without TVC, there is little advantages in the long moment arm formula, the best example is the roll rate, way lower than that of Rafale especially at high AoA due to the lack on interaction between the canard tips and the region around the ailerons.

 

When people say "TVC is not needed", they mean in a normal scenario, not low speed/high AoA, reason for Eurofighter to test LEX, extra lift with reduced induced drag is better (close-coupled canard) in this region of their flight envelop.

 

Rafale is better suited to air-to-ground and carrier operation (Typhoon was totally un-navalizeable despite what was said, by design) Typhoon for high altitude cruise and interception.

 

 

......

[Hummingbird]

I admire your patience Etirion.... a shame you're wasting it on this self proclaimed expert though.

[Thinder]

No one ever argued...

 

 

Blah.you invented new aerodynamic laws debunked by BAe, you keep trying to imply that the conception and design by the same team has no relationship despite all the evidences from, NASA/MBB down to the TVC developed by Eurojet for the purpose.

 

In short, you're a waste of forum space. Bye bye, don't fill this topic with your fantasist interpretation of realty, we already seen enough.

 

 

 

 

I admire your patience Etirion.... a shame you're wasting it on this self proclaimed expert though.

 

When you're done getting ridiculed let us know, I proved your points wrong and as usual all you have left is personal attacks, you're mediocre at best.

 

 

 

 

......

Edited October 10, 2020 by Thinder

[Hummingbird]

Can't wait to see Thinder arguing with the TrueGrit developers:

 

Thinder: "DCS Eurofighter waaay too good! Real Eurofighter BAAD! Close couple canards BEST!"

 

:megalol::megalol:

[Thinder]

Can't wait to see Thinder arguing with the TrueGrit developers:

 

Thinder: "DCS Eurofighter waaay too good! Real Eurofighter BAAD! Close couple canards BEST!"

 

:megalol::megalol:

 

 

You really think that mediocrity and intellectual dishonesty is a standard do you?

 

Look at you, you've get the spanking of the decade on subject you pretend to know but visibly haven't studied at all, you don't even know your beloved F-16. Hilarious.

 

All I wrote here was visible on the original Eurofighter Typhoon website, not that you would know since your specialty is bashing.

 

You made me laugh. A lot.

 

 

......

[Etirion]

I admire your patience Etirion.... a shame you're wasting it on this self proclaimed expert though.

 

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.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Etirion

[Thinder]

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.

 

 

Excuse me but YOU are the one doing the insulting here, do you want me to refer you to your insults?

 

First, nowhere in the Eurofighter original documentation Typhoon canard are mentioned as providing with lift because they doesn't concern its configuration, they compare it to close-coupled canards.

 

In the link you provided there is no mention of lift enhancement by the canard or foreplanes in the specific case of Typhoon.

 

Second, the canard when coupled are meant to provide higher levels of lift from LOWER AoA, another point you seems not to comprehend, here they are looking for high AoA gains in pitch control.

 

If canards works so only from higher AoA they won't limit damage caused by induced drag of the delta wing, they do so with close-coupled canards.

 

THIRD, the document I posted comes from BAe and is specifically on the subject of Typhoon and WHY they chose the position of the canards, it has nothing to do with lift enhancement.

 

It says clearly that the long moment arm does NOT provide extra lift, the pic you posted refers to close coupled canard and the "idea" in mind to use Typhoon configuration for additional pitch control "In addition to the high lift device benefits like on the well known short coupled concept".

 

Nice idea, only it doesn't work this way as numerous NASA studies have proven before and as the BAE document proves, not only this but Typhoon low speed performances shows this very well.

 

 

 

Otherwise said, you take ONE piece out of context and try to pass it for the conclusion you want, but the conclusion of BAe from a document two years younger is this one:

 

Further, at the level of instability chosen for the aircraft, there was little effect on maximum lift of either position.

 

Eurofighter: Aerodynamics within a Multi-Disciplinary Design environment.

Keith McKay British Aerospace.

 

Now what close-coupled canards really do which is not showing on Typhoon:

 

Appearance of vortex lift at lower AoA:

 

Low speed characteristics but also improved handling throughout the entire AoA range.

 

Typhoon maximum AoA in testing was 70° like X31, Gripen reached 90°, Rafale passed 100° and 40 Kt negative speed.

 

Canard root vortexes feeds the fuselage boundary layer and energize the airflow around the fin, increasing yaw stability at high AoA; no need for Typhoon strakes which does a similar job to that of the Mirage 2000.

 

On Gripen, the lack of depth of the fuselage required a compromise, strakes and Dihedral so as to obtain the same effect than in the case of Rafale where the designers could chose an optimum position.

 

Since one of the drawback of the close coupled canard was a lower level of picth authority than long moment arm, LEX were added to the serie Rafale to decouple the canards from the wing, increase moment arm and take advantage of the vortex flow of the LEX to increase lift further.

 

Note that Dassault Aviation experimented with long moment arm canards as early as first tests in 1968.

 

Rafale system is now 4 vortexes: Canard root. LEX root. Junction LEX wing. Canards tip. That's the number of fully interacting vortexes from those surfaces only, the fuselage itself uses compression/extension of the airflow to energize the canard root vortexes.

 

Canard tip vortexes energize the area of the wing around the ailerons increasing their efficiency in particular at high AoA/low speed the fact that they are further away from the wing that on the previous generation doesn't matter, reduced wing sweep means that hey still are sucked in by the wing boundary layer as they are properly separated vertically and can expend without pressure loss.

 

On Typhoon you have none of that. Vortexes are decoupled longitudinally and vertically, reason for the presence of the strakes but also lower roll rate and overall performances at low speed/high AoA.

 

The fact that Typhoon possess a steeper wing sweep increases the difference with Rafale but it has a positive effect on induced drag at low AoA with the canard tips creating the downwash effect because of their anhedral.

 

In short, Typhoon is FAR from having the characteristics of a close coupled canard as was the "idea" of your document but the primary design goal, to increase pitch control is confirmed by the BAe document dated 2000 vs 1998 for yours.

 

BAe study was meant to improve the capabilities for computing aerodynamics, something they didn't really know about at the time.

 

They had no tool for "extraction of flight data" and they couldn't "cope with an aircraft with a high level of basic instability combined with aerodynamic non-linary".

 

Those were their conclusion from their experience with EAP when Dassault were already working on Rafale C.

 

So wishful thinking combined with lack of experience with close-coupled canards and lack of tools to fine tune their aerodynamics explains why a 1988 document can suggest that Typhoon has a level of lift enhancement it doesn't show in flight.

 

It is to be noted that the most of this particular design optimization was performed from an experimental data base using empirical techniques, as adequate capabilities to fully model all of the aerodynamic did not exist within the CFD modeling capabilities in use at the time. (Choice of foreplane location).

On the other hand, Dassault-Aviation already developed CATIA with Dassault-System, and designed the Mirage 2000 this way, Rafale was fully designed with the tools needed for this purpose including fluid dynamic, precisely what BAe and MBB in particular couldn't cope with.

 

Comparative experience in the field of canard-delta design:

Dassault-Aviation:

 

Mirage 5J n°2 27th Sept 1968.

 

Mirage III R n° 344 24th May 1969.

 

Mirage 4000 9th March 1979. (Unstable electric FBW)

 

Mirage IIING 27th May 1981. (Mirage 2000 systems including FBW).

 

Rafale A 4th July 1986. (Unstable electric FBW)

 

 

>>>>>>

 

MBB/BAe:

 

EAP 8th August 1986. (Unstable electric FBW)

 

X-31 11th October 1990. (Unstable electric FBW)

 

 

......

Edited October 11, 2020 by Thinder

[Hummingbird]

I'll just ignore you from now on, for my own sanity.

 

:thumbup:

[Thinder]

:thumbup:

 

 

Sure. keep denying reality, this way you can keep posting false info and make false interpretation of otherwise very clear articles:

 

 

MBB 1988:

 

The canard greatly contribute to increased aircraft maneuverability etc (generality while describing the effects of close-coupled when you know what they are) "with the idea in mind to use it for additional pitch control" (what I was saying) "in addition to the high lift device benefits like on the well known short coupled canards".

You post it as proof that they wrote about Typhoon long moment arm actually doing just that, they never do, they mention delta wing, canards, delta canard configuration all separately on page 4.

 

THEN their "idea in mind" on page 5 where you also can find this...

 

 

I said it didn't work didn't I? If you had read NASA studies on the subject you'd know why, funny you missed this one no? Same page of their "idea in mind" of mixing the qualities of both long moment arm and close-coupled canard, what those non linear issues might well be to be quoted 2 years later by BAe?

 

 

2 years later BAe:

 

Further, at the level of instability chosen for the aircraft, there was little effect on maximum lift of either position.

 

It is to be noted that the most of this particular design optimization was performed from an experimental data base using empirical techniques, as adequate capabilities to fully model all of the aerodynamic did not exist within the CFD modeling capabilities in use at the time. (Choice of foreplane location).

Otherwise said: They never said that Typhoon configuration achieved their "idea" and all their positioning optimization was done with experimental data using empirical techniques with high probability of error.

 

Reason for being corrected by BAe document 2 years later. I guess it's going to take you a lot longer to digest this one.

 

No wonder you two can't put 2 and two together, you can't read documents properly and keep posting false info or false interpretation of what is said, so learn your basics, this way you'll be able to spot this kind of cook up, if their "idea" had been correct, Typhoon would out-turm Rafale at low speed by virtue of a lower wing load and higher TWR, it's the opposite way around...

 

 

Here is one of the US studies. I'll dig more for you if necessary.

 

 

P4 (most forward) has the lowest value of maximum lift, exactly the conclusion of BAe.

 

David W Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center Department of the Navy.

 

I guess MBB were a little out of their league trying to equal aerodynamicists such as those in the USA and Dassault with near ZERO experience and no proper tool to work with.

 

 

 

@ the emo poster, that's all you can do, your basic knowledge is so mediocre, so you and your pal complementing each other in misinforming us is not surprising...

 

I got plenty of amo for you funnies, as reality strike... Bye, don't forget to make yourself sparse.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4520196&postcount=49

......

Edited October 11, 2020 by Thinder

[4NGRY]

Okay. Wow.

 

I just went through six pages of some very interesting data about the Rafale and the Typhoon, including the predecessor (test)airframes. Thanks for everyone’s enthusiasm for military aviation.

 

 

Sadly, to get to the interesting discussions, all parties (seriously) involved used unnecessary means of slander.

 

Consider for a second, what if you would meet in a local pub and meet face to face (as they say) and have a lively and gracious discussion about the topics? Would you seriously be talking like that or would you rather negotiate your opinions on another round of beer? (With or without %)

 

 

What I know: The typhoon is a lovely Maschine to fly. It tells you every moment that it belongs in the air to air fight regime.

It’s amazing to fight your way towards a target with bombs on the Hardpoints, release them all in quick succession onto the target and then take on opposing fighters.

 

I Have no personal experience with the Rafale, it is an absolutely beautiful airplane that has a great Pilot-Vehicle-Interface and is a blast to see what it can perform on an air show.

The interesting part would be implementing the two on operations or on exercise, as they would be a perfect team with strengths and weaknesses.

 

Usually we talk about + and - in the planning rooms and the Sqd bar.

 

Ok... I’m not a moderator but seriously consider maybe using the Private Messaging before continuing.

 

Check Six

 

 

angry

[BIGNEWY]

A reminder for all in this thread.

 

Read the forum rules, treat each other with respect. If you can not do not post.

 

thank you

[Hummingbird]

Okay. Wow.

 

I just went through six pages of some very interesting data about the Rafale and the Typhoon, including the predecessor (test)airframes. Thanks for everyone’s enthusiasm for military aviation.

 

 

Sadly, to get to the interesting discussions, all parties (seriously) involved used unnecessary means of slander.

 

Consider for a second, what if you would meet in a local pub and meet face to face (as they say) and have a lively and gracious discussion about the topics? Would you seriously be talking like that or would you rather negotiate your opinions on another round of beer? (With or without %)

 

 

What I know: The typhoon is a lovely Maschine to fly. It tells you every moment that it belongs in the air to air fight regime.

It’s amazing to fight your way towards a target with bombs on the Hardpoints, release them all in quick succession onto the target and then take on opposing fighters.

 

I Have no personal experience with the Rafale, it is an absolutely beautiful airplane that has a great Pilot-Vehicle-Interface and is a blast to see what it can perform on an air show.

The interesting part would be implementing the two on operations or on exercise, as they would be a perfect team with strengths and weaknesses.

 

Usually we talk about + and - in the planning rooms and the Sqd bar.

 

Ok... I’m not a moderator but seriously consider maybe using the Private Messaging before continuing.

 

Check Six

 

 

angry

 

Glad you got something out of it 4NGRY, the material originally referenced by Etirion is definitely a good read:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120311142044/http://icas-proceedings.net/ICAS1998/PAPERS/04.PDF

https://web.archive.org/web/20120303185841/http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-035///MP-035-01.pdf

 

 

To sum up the aerodynamic design of the EF it was from the beginning of the prototype stage designed to be very unstable in pitch in the subsonic flight regime so as to increase maneuverability and reduce trim drag, improving agility & sustained performance. This 8% m.a.c. instability in turn dictated the placement of the foreplanes/canards, as a high & close coupled design such as found on the Rafale provided no benefits at such levels of instability but would instead be lacking in the amount of pitch force needed to prevent the aircraft from departing at high AoA. Hence the lower and further forward position was chosen, providing the highest amount of controllability for the lowest amount of drag at that level of designed instability.

 

The Rafale by comparison is likely more stable in the pitch axis, and thus a high & close coupled canard placement is of benefit in terms of lift production here. This in conjunction with the extra allowable AoA the Rafale enjoys is what should theoretically allow it a higher ITR than the EF, where'as the EF's layout is better suited for optimum STR.

 

In short I'd expect the Rafale to be better in one circle fights, whilst the EF is the better sustained two circle machine.