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. 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. You just proved you know nothing of Typhoon. FACT: TVC were part of the original design, reason for the long moment arm.īefore 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. 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. On the other hand, close coupled canards triggers the appearance of vortex lift lower in the AoA scale, which reduces induced drag.
#PAPER EUROFIGHTER PLUS#
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. 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. 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.Īt 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. 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. 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 So when do we start the debate on F-16 being prone to departure in transonic above 35.000 Ft?īut Eurofighter was designed as uncompromised air superiority. We still have to see a Typoon pulling more than 9.0G, that's routinely 11.0G for Rafale demo for you. That's M 1.4, 6 X AAM and 1 X supersonic tank for you. Here, a GENUINE Paris Air Show (client-only) Dassault-Aviation document, not a false flight envelop. 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. 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. Now we read comment such as "I like Ates youtube channel but some of the comments in that interview were just silly."
![paper eurofighter paper eurofighter](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1599177732i/55225555._UX1427_SS1427_.jpg)
Rafale won literally EVERY single evaluation where Tyhoon was pitted against it, most notoriously the SWISS Air Force evaluation. The poster of this article have a have history of posting bogus, uninformed material and calling it "good", that's yet another example.