Good Typhoon/Rafale article

[4NGRY]

Thanks @Hummingbird!

 

I guess when a HMSS is inbound for the Rafale it’s gonna be lethal as hell

[Hummingbird]

Thanks @Hummingbird!

 

I guess when a HMSS is inbound for the Rafale it’s gonna be lethal as hell

 

No doubt about that, it's already very lethal as is. I definitely don't think you'd want to challenge a Rafale to any form of scissors. In the EF you'd most likely be much better off trying to force a sustained two circle fight, where I doubt the Rafale will be able to keep up the same rate as the EF. (This is assuming a guns only scenario)

 

With heaters, well the EF has the obvious advantage for now due to its HMD & IRIS-T combo :)

 

PS: By the time the Rafale gets an HMD the EF might get the vaunted AMK upgrade, and then I can't think of an area, in terms of BFM, where the EF would be at a disadvantage anymore.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Hummingbird

[Steph21]

 

I guess when a HMSS is inbound for the Rafale it’s gonna be lethal as hell

 

It should be introduced with the new incoming F4 standard

[Thinder]

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

 

 

LOL! You should have seen the Mirage 2000 topic...

[Thinder]

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

Sorry NO. I provided with the 2000/BAe document and it shows that the 1998/MBB studies were most likely to result in wrong conclusions.

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).

That's pretty significant when it comes to pointing this MBB document as a valid source, especially when one had read NASA studies on the subject of canard deltas and the result of their researches with the X-31, if it had been the case for Rafale I wouldn't even bother posting it.

 

>>>>>>

 

 

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.

All the benefits quoted in page 4 are that of a close-coupled canard.

 

They mention, delta wing, foreplane, canard delta as a generality on page 4, not the results of their studies, those are only mentioned on page 5 as "an idea in mind" with NO mention of results btw but that they hit a hiccup.

 

BAe document highlights the issues encountered and was published 2 years later to try to asses the design situation, and find a solution.

 

 

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.

First of all it's 16% and again you are taking the topic out of its context:

 

MBB design based on TFK-90 was highly unstable, low mounted long moment arm canard, that's all they knew up to 1986 and what Typhoon design is today.

 

That's the politico-industrial context.

 

Then again, they weren't part of EAP which was nothing like their design, level of instability and position of the canard were already frozen at the time, they had little data on real delta canard until 1990 and no tools to process those they had with a reasonable level of accuracy, not the case of NASA or Dassault-Aviation.

 

They encountered issues and tried to find a way out of them by experimenting with different configurations, both document mentions this.

 

What they were looking for from the start like pretty much everyone else was hyper maneuverability based on their TFK-90, that why Herbst joined NASA in the X-31 study.

 

High level of instability, long moment arm AND TVC. That's the military context.

 

Dassault was on the ball as well with wind tunneling tests of more than 200 different configuration some resembling HIMAT, none of what you quoted has to do with trim drag or induced drag reduction solution they were looking for later.

 

HIMAt (LEFT). Dassault wind tunnel models (RIGHT).

 

 

MBB had a design based on TFK-90, went on to validate with X-31, stood by the design, but its high level of instability was there from stock with TVC in mind, little to do with drag reduction later on.

 

NASA studies shows that low canard associated with long moment arm doesn't provide with what MBB/BAe were trying to achieve which is a more linear airflow throughout the entire AoA range, a close coupled canard has this characteristic as an inherent quality and that's fully part of the Cl/Cd equation.

 

 

the amount of pitch force needed to prevent the aircraft from departing at high AoA

That's a novelty, considering that the original design was conceived for PSM, departure was certainly not the concern, what they were looking for was what I highlighted from the start, a higher level of pitch authority to assist TVC, at AoA where the aircraft had already departed, in order to retain control, the high level of instability had the same purpose, helping TVC in their operation.

 

Now, as I recall, even with TVC and long moment arm canard, X-31 was lacking in pitch authority, to the point they had to fit strakes to the lower rear fuselage, I haven't checked the details but at the time it was obvious that even in this configuration, it was more limited than a close coupled canard.

 

By comparison, a Gripen could be departed at 90° AoA in a vertical climb, full roll control applied to start a rotation in the yaw axis at up to 90°/sec rate, then stopped with appliance of opposite roll control, that's full PSM on aerodynamics only.

 

 

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.

Based on the lack of information on both aircrafts:

 

"Likely" more stable doesn't fit anywhere in a proper analysis, especially because we know that Typhoon high level of instability is inherited from Herbst PSM fighter concept.

 

Now, how exactly is the Rafale comparable to what MBB (and you now) knew of a close coupled canard exatly?

 

They didn't know about the serie Rafale configuration either so let me sum it up for you:

 

First: Rafale in its current form has little to do with the A or any close-coupled canard before it, the canards are not coupled with the wing but the LEX.

 

Second: At the time they chose the close-coupled configuration, they pointed out the need for carrier operation as one of the reasons for their choice but lift enhancement is only one reason:

 

In landing configuration Rafale displays the use of flow induction with canard surfaces "blowing" the wings, this is associated with higher level of pitch control at high AoA on top of extra lift.

 

This plus the fact that the canard surfaces of the Rafale provides with a longer moment arm than the previous generation of close coupled canard, makes comparisons a lot more complex than the simplification we're given as good read.

 

The result: Rafale achieved an AoA 30° above that reached by Typhoon and X-31 during testing. Typhoon tested LEX decades later.

 

Obviously someone missed a chapter here, and that's what BAe document highlights.

 

In short: If the document provided by MBB was accurate in any way, which it is not according to BAe, Typhoon would out turn Rafale at low speed.

 

The opposite is true, we're coming to that.

 

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

Based on incomplete/false data and complete lack of proper information. Dismissal of politico-industrial and military context of the design...

 

In short you also completely skip the real advantage of a close-coupled canard which is not lift enhancement but the fact that it triggers the appearance of vortex lift at a much lower AoA,that's even before taking their respective wing sweep into account.

 

Simplifying things to the extreme works only in flight sims where mediocre data can be used, in reality, one or two circles would matters little.

 

At 450 Kt, Rafale would pull 11.0 G and still win a drag race vs Typhoon simply because it will always drag less for an equivalent amount of lift in this part of their flight envelop.

 

The only reason for Typhoon to be able accelerate faster would be to go down to 1.0G and never pull more G above the point where vortex lift of its wing kicks-in.

 

Acceleration a low G load is a quality mentioned by Typhoon display pilots such as Tarnished in Pprune btw but it wont be of much help in a drag race vs a Rafale.

 

I refer you to my previous post, I quoted some of the few qualities provided by the close-coupled canards but the list is far from being complete.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4520196&postcount=47

 

 

......

Edited October 12, 2020 by Thinder

[Hummingbird]

God give me strength....

 

As usual lot's of claims yet again without evidence.

 

First of all it's 16% and again you are taking the topic out of its context:

 

No, it's not.

 

What Keith McKay actually says on the matter (with nothing taken out of context):

Edited October 12, 2020 by Hummingbird

[Thinder]

God give me strength....

 

As usual lot's of claims yet again without evidence.

 

 

 

No, it's not.

 

What Keith McKay actually says on the matter (with nothing taken out of context):

 

 

Quote:

 

"The minimum induced drag occurs with a level of instability equivalent to about 16% of the mean aerodynamic chord".

 

Do you know how long they worked on the FCS to achieve this?

 

That's 18 month before the Typhoon DA1 and DA2 were allowed to fly (27th Marsh 1994) and although I don't have the details in mind i'm pretty sure they worked on this topic for a number of years after first flight.

 

 

 

Here are some details:

 

On the FCS only, from Marsh 1994 to October 1997 you had at least two more airframes (DA6 and DA5 in order of flight date) dedicated to sorting those issues with 450 flight testing hours.

 

From memory, Typhoon wasn't released for service with a full flight envelop from day 1, they had several updates for FCS while they were working on improving their digital tool for better accuracy.

 

Their goal was 16% from day one, naturally, to get the minimum drag as possible, as for the volume of foreplane in question, in 1999 it was already designed, fitted, tested and put into service.

 

What really matter here, is that they realized that their data was simply not accurate enough to fine tune the airplane and that they needed to asses and correct that.

 

So you can't use the 1998 document as an evidence of whatever one is trying to prove, that's established.

 

Keith Mc Kay paper is meant to "examine the requirements placed upon these disciplines in the light of the multi-disciplinary design optimization process that took place on the Eurofighter project".

 

Now, her comment is not directly linked to what Typhoon really is, if you read Tarnished comments in Pprune, you'll see that even at low speed, the canards have a pronounced negative incidence.

 

That's not indicative of a moderate level of instability for a long moment arm, 8% mean aerodynamic chord is not the actual level of instability of Typhoon, the 16% figure given later by other sources is much more likely to be accurate since it was their goal.

 

(Source Jane's world Aircraft for the Typhoon flight testing of FCS).

 

 

Eurofighter Completes Carefree Handling Trials

(Source : BAE Systems ; issued July 23, 2002)

 

The Eurofighter Typhoon Single Seat Development Aircraft (DA2), based at BAE Systems Warton has successfully completed a series of high-risk, asymmetric carefree handling flight trials.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/11019/eurofighter-completes-high-risk-trials-(july-24).html

ps God probably would like to be left out of it, what you need is a lot of reading and studying on the subject, it's gonna take time, and then some...

 

......

Edited October 12, 2020 by Thinder

[Hummingbird]

Here are some details:

 

On the FCS only, from Marsh 1994 to October 1997 you had at least two more airframes (DA6 and DA5 in order of flight date) dedicated to sorting those issues with 450 flight testing hours.

 

From memory, Typhoon wasn't released for service with a full flight envelop from day 1, they had several updates for FCS while they were working on improving their digital tool for better accuracy.

 

Their goal was 16% from day one, naturally, to get the minimum drag as possible, as for the volume of foreplane in question, in 1999 it was already designed, fitted, tested and put into service.

 

What really matter here, is that they realized that their data was simply not accurate enough to fine tune the airplane and that they needed to asses and correct that.

 

So you can't use the 1998 document as an evidence of whatever one is trying to prove, that's established.

 

Keith Mc Kay paper is meant to "examine the requirements placed upon these disciplines in the light of the multi-disciplinary design optimization process that took place on the Eurofighter project".

 

Now, her comment is not directly linked to what Typhoon really is, if you read Tarnished comments in Pprune, you'll see that even at low speed, the canards have a pronounced negative incidence.

 

That's not indicative of a moderate level of instability for a long moment arm, 8% mean aerodynamic chord is not the actual level of instability of Typhoon, the 16% figure given later by other sources is much more likely to be accurate since it was their goal.

 

(Source Jane's world Aircraft for the Typhoon flight testing of FCS).

......

 

Will you ever stop making claims without providing anything to substantiate them?

 

You're litterally arguing against every single expert on the subject we've referenced so far, pulling phrases out of context, misinterpreting them and assigning your own outlandish explanations to them. Can't be taken serious...

 

Finally, Keith McKay is not a she. (2nd time you've refered to him as "her" now)

[Thinder]

Will you ever stop making claims without providing anything to substantiate them?

 

You're litterally arguing against every single expert on the subject we've referenced so far, pulling phrases out of context, misinterpreting them and assigning your own outlandish explanations to them. Can't be taken serious...

 

Finally, Keith McKay is not a she. (2nd time you've refered to him as "her" now)

 

Excuse ME. This is not a "claim" that's your tricks with false flight envelops for the Mirage 2000 when you want RAZBAM to nerf it, I leave those methods to you and your pal.

 

Whatever, she he, is not the point here, you're proven consistently wrong and lacking in the most basic understanding of the subject.

 

FCS ground and flight testing went through from Oct 1992 to July 23, 2002 (116 month 23 days if we start from 31rst Oct 1992) with no less than 4 different airframe involved and that's ONLY for the carefree handling part.

 

The long moment arm characteristics on the topic of heavy load caused them more issues from the time they started to develop Air-to-ground capabilities with heavy load.

 

Here is a snap shot of Jane's world aircraft, just to direct you to where you should be, studying your subject before writing.

 

 

So according to your "logical" mind, they're not looking to get the minimum drag of the airframe don't they?

 

 

You should stop polluting this topic if all you have are personal attacks...

 

 

......

Edited October 12, 2020 by Thinder

[Thinder]

https://www.pprune.org/1990755-post107.html

 

Can't beat the real thing...

 

[Top Jockey]

...

 

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.

 

...

 

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.

 

......

 

You mean "ammo" ?

 

Why ? Did you notice that this is an internet forum, not a battlefield ?

[Hummingbird]

https://www.pprune.org/1990755-post107.html

 

Can't beat the real thing...

 

 

You do realize he at no point supports any of your theories, right?

 

Further I don't think you actually know what a personal insult is, because you've been throwing them around like candy since your very first posts on this forum the moment someone questioned your claims.

 

 

Finally I'll leave you with this qoute from Martin Friemer (technical director of the EF project):

"We aimed for 15% early on, but settled for 8%"

 

So there we go, a third expert who directly disputes your claim. (not that it seemingly matters to you)

[Thinder]

You do realize he at no point supports any of your theories, right?

 

Further I don't think you actually know what a personal insult is, because you've been throwing them around like candy since your very first posts on this forum the moment someone questioned your claims.

 

Finally I'll leave you with this quote from Martin Friemer (technical director of the EF project):

"We aimed for 15% early on, but settled for 8%"

 

So there we go, a third expert who directly disputes your claim. (not that it seemingly matters to you)

 

 

I'm well aware of the quotes attributed to Martin Friemer, well in the line of the 1998 document btw, the qualities of the close-coupled canard were quoted for the Typhoon as one of his comments.

 

Laughable, considering their data were a mess and they had no tool to figure them out, for your info, that's precisely what the French community did find out and used to throw at Typhoon fans when they were pointing out a higher level of instability than Rafale, you were still sharpening your pea shooting skill at the time I suppose.

 

1) Every point I made on the level of instability and acceleration qualities are confirmed by a Typhoon display pilot, if they hadn't sorted them out it wouldn't be the case.

 

2) About your reality denial: One have to ask how you can conclude that Eurofighter could spend 18 month working on the FCS carefree handling with two pre-serie aircraft locked on a hangar and flight test the FCS carefree handling from Marsh 1994 to July 2002 for a level of instability roughly equal to that of a Rafale or Mirage 2000 all of this while not trying to improve on what is Typhoon forte. Bravo!

 

You obviously aren't familiar with the old Eurofighter Typhoon website, Pprune and the comments of the Eurofigter insiders on the subject but this takes some doing.

 

3) You're prone to chose bits that suits your views but miss the most important:

 

"Consideration of the aircraft dictates the MAXIMUM possible instability to avoid excessive induced drag penalties".

That's 16% goal, to avoid excessive induced drag penalties.

 

 

"The minimum induced drag occurs with a level of instability equivalent to about 16% of the mean aerodynamic chord".

That's the confirmation of the goal for optimization.

 

"Which is approximately twice what the FCS can cope with".

That's the reason for: 18 month ground testing before first flight, two extra pre-serie airframe added to the opening of the flight envelop for carefree handling and another 7 years and 8 month to complete the task, mote to the point, increased performance in turn rates and supersonic were also part of the optimization goals.

 

You're seriously lacking when it comes to understanding how the industry works, I'm very critical of MBB a little less of BAe, but I wouldn't take the mickey to the point of suggesting that it took them nearly ten years to sort out a FCS for 8% of instability and not trying to get the induced drag down.

 

8 % of the mean aerodynamic chord is not Typhoon final level of instability, MBB aren't that good but BAe are perfectly capable of sorting out FCS for this sort of instability. It's that simple. Obviously not for everyone.

 

 

The 8% quoted are mentioned in the frame of high AoA recovery:

 

 

""The high AoA recovery, i.e the ability to pitch the aircraft down from high angle of attack, whilst at low speed, dictates that the configuration shoud be neutral stable with the foreplane off".".

Clearly, since they were unable to go pass 70° AoA during testing, there have been some serious alteration with their 1998 findings.

 

 

That's the frame in which they quote 8 % of the mean aerodynamic chord, among with the size of the canard (foreplane area, compared to TFK-90 original design), but obviously they also mention in the 2000 BAe document the absence of accuracy of the data of the time.

 

 

 

Another point I made earlier...

 

 

 

.......

Edited October 13, 2020 by Thinder

[Hummingbird]

8 % of the mean aerodynamic chord is not Typhoon final level of instability, MBB aren't that good but BAe are perfectly capable of sorting out FCS for this sort of instability. It's that simple. Obviously not for everyone.

 

BS. Show me one reputable source which claims a 16% mac instability for the EF, just one.

 

And no, YOU don't count.

 

So far every single expert referenced is DIRECTLY disputing your claims.

 

Also I have no idea where your idea that MBB is incompetent whilst BAe are only semi incompetent comes from. But I'm sure it's based on nothing but your own personal idea of things as usual.

 

I will waste no more time on you until you provide a source directly claiming 16% mac instability for the EF.

[Thinder]

BS. Show me one reputable source which claims a 16% mac instability for the EF, just one.

 

And no, YOU don't count.

 

So far every single expert referenced is DIRECTLY disputing your claims.

 

Also I have no idea where your idea that MBB is incompetent whilst BAe are only semi incompetent comes from. But I'm sure it's based on nothing but your own personal idea of things as usual.

 

I will waste no more time on you until you provide a source directly claiming 16% mac instability for the EF.

 

 

You haven't provided us with ANY expert "disputing" my claim, you interpret their comments as such even coming up with incomplete info about Martin Freimer that we digged out and used years ago.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4522203&postcount=68

 

And already posted to make false point: Martin Freimer talking about the long moment arm like a close-coupled canard? Just shows how little you guys know about both.

 

I don't have to show you anything, I have great pleasure at debunking your false interpretations of documents which specify that their own data aren't accurate in the first place.

 

Your post are completely contradictory, one hand you point out to the opposite of what are Typhoon known qualities and can't figure what took them nearly ten years to sort out the FCS, you're talking development aircrafts with data which doesn't cover all topics accurately and incomplete info.

 

Why would I bother getting in touch with all those who explained in great length that your sources are inaccurate? It's been done ten time over.

 

I know why it took them so long to sort the FCS out and Typhoon flight envelop demonstrate those points:

 

Higher level of instability equals higher supersonic performances with lower induced drag resulting in high acceleration rate, but lower pitch control authority at low speed.

 

That's why as Tarnished was saying, the aircraft is limited in AoA at those speed, not G limited, where is the famous increased pitch authority quoted for your 8% gone???

that’s irrelevant to this story because it is highly likely that the aircraft was a speeds where it would be alpha limited not g limited

I can't expect you to figure this out, the more clues you have, the less you understand.

 

Dated from 1999 date of first edition.

 

 

 

 

 

......

Edited October 13, 2020 by Thinder

[Thinder]

Something else: I think I might be the one at the origin of the Martin Friemer debate, since I was into with Flight International from news to archives and still am today, here is the story...

 

Martin Friemer was mentioned saying 15% and 8% instability in an interview to Flight International in 1999, the quote on lift associated to him is false.

 

It was done within a particular CONTEXT.

 

Actuators in the case of the 1999 F.I article as well as the FCS, mentioned in the 2000 BAe document as not been able to cope, otherwise said, design goals not meet yet.

The maximum pitch instability possible was determined by the capability of the flight controls. "We needed highly dynamic actuators, which drove the level of instability we could achieve"

 

Martin Friemer.

 

Agile thinking

16 June 1999

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/agile-thinking/26933.article

 

The two previous articles doesn't tell the whole story, there are a number of elements and details which are missing to come to conclusions and data were still inaccurate but the flight envelop of the Typhoon, its qualities and limitations can be compared to what the BAe article says about the solutions they were looking for to meet required performances.

 

So basically they spent 18 month sorting the FCS before the first flight then from Marsh 1994 to July 2002 worked at fine tuning the FCS for carefree handling.

 

What I know from our joutes at Eurofighter forum: Some Eurofighter insiders at the time indicated that those actuators had been upgraded even before the first flight, which I know to be true since they were tested on DA airframes, to meet customer required performances, obviouslty FCS had to be adjusted.

 

As the 2000 document show, improvement in the flight envelop goes through increased level of instability, the goal was 16% not 15% not 8% which was the actuators mechanical limit, that's nearly 8 years before the first fully instrumented aircraft flew equiped with the new actuators "for the first time on a production aircraft".

 

This (below) will be the second overhaull of the actuators from Liebherr since the first production aircrafts, all DA airframes are development aircrafts, DA1 completed carefree handling program in 2002.

 

https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/air/7014-liebherr-to-overhaul-italian-eurofighter-flight-controls.html

 

 

......

Edited October 13, 2020 by Thinder

[BIGNEWY]

Guys dial it back a little please, this thread is heading for closure.

 

Be civil with each other or take it to PM's

 

last warning.

 

thanks

[Talon Karde]

A good read:

 

https://hushkit.net/2015/12/18/typho...he-final-word/

 

Several false assertion in this article :

- M88 is underpowered : no ! Maybee for the Typhoon, but not for the lighter Rafale with a 1.5 weight/trust ratio.

- M88 is the reason France leave the Eurofighter program : no! We left because Eurofighter couldn't be navalized and we wanted a versatile aircraft, not a pure interceptor

- MICA Range 20 Km. No ! Of course, true performances are a big secret but range is expected to be similar to AMRAAM.

 

True things :

Typhoon has more power and may have the upper hand in hi altitude hi speed flight. So if Rafales and Typhoons go straight head on at 40.000+ feet full speed, yes, Typhoon should be superior. Well, it was an interceptor after all...

[Steph21]

A nice comparison video (2 parts):

 

[Hummingbird]

It's just a rehash of the earlier hushkit article.

 

The aerodynamics part is pure guesswork as no'one besides the manufacturers have access to the EM charts of either aircraft. In STR the Eurofighter is most likely superior, whilst in ITR the Rafale is most likely superior due to a higher alpha capability, and this should hold true at any altitude where either aircraft can operate.

 

Other than that it's a good comparison though.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Hummingbird

[bies]

I would say EF was more exciting from aerodynamic point of view but Rafale was probably more effective and universal combat platform.

 

In mid 2000s Rafale already had AESA radar, arguably more capable ECM system, arguably better sensor integration.

 

Eurofighter had both higher thrust to weight and lower wing loading + uncompromised low wing aerodynamic configuration for even more lift so it was better in "dogfight", Rafale had slightly more AoA available though.

 

Plus EF had more low drag semi recess A/A weapon pylons blended in fuselage boundary layer for low drag index in A/A configuration increasing supercruise speed.

 

Was in some mid 2000s "dogfighting" among most important considerations in air combat? Probably no.

Is "dogfighting" the most exciting part of air combat for DCS players? Considering offcial tournaments, community, youtubers - probably yes.

Edited February 8, 2021 by bies

[Hummingbird]

I agree with that bies, albeit I'd argue the EF's HMD & IR sensor system was and still is a major advantage in its favour, it just really lacks an AESA radar (coming soon) as well as something akin to the Rafale's SPECTRA CM system.

[TLTeo]

I thought the Rafale only started getting AESA after 2010, and they used a PESA before. Also, how does the SPECTRA system compared to the Praetorian DASS on the Typhoon? I thought the two were fairly comparable.

[Spectre11]

The underlying principles of the aerodynamic layouts share some commonality, but are also different. Rafale's combination of close coupled canards, a slightly lower sweep angle, leading edge extensions and a wider fuselage certainly contribute to greater lift generation capabilities. In terms of wing loading and TWR the Typhoon and Rafale are fairly evenly matched with a comparable loadout. Typhoon certainly offers a better SEP, which plays out at greater altitudes. It's thrust/drag ratio is probably superior, lift/drag might go to the Rafale. Close in the Rafale can turn tighter and point its nose faster. The Rafale is notably more maneuveravle at lower speeds. Typhoon's strengths lies in its ability to regain energy and maintain high energy levels. At the end iz depends on the pilot and who is capable of dictating his terms on the opponent. Typhoon is certainly excellent up high and fast for long range BVR shots and intercepts, but Rafale isn't a slouch either. An accurate comparison of the sensor performance and capabilities is different though. As has been said Rafale features an AESA since 2013 and its SPECTRA utilizes more sophisticated  ESM technology. 

[Hummingbird]

The EF features LE devices as well, camber & chord increasing LE slats, pretty large ones at that. As for the Rafale's wider fuselage, it's mostly counted in with the reference wing area on both aircraft due to their delta wing body design, so in this case I'd say a narrower fuselage is an advantage as that means more of the Ref.area is actual wing.

 

The slightly lower sweep angle of the Rafale's wing does help improve lift, esp. at low speeds, but as does the EF's lower wing loading and larger LE devices. In other words based on the aerodynamic layout coupled with FLCS restrictions I'd expect the Rafale to have a higher instantanous turn rate, and thus smaller min radius, however I'd also expect the EF to have a higher sustained turn rate, afforded by a lower lift induced drag (lower wing loading = lower required Cl), coupled with more thrust.