It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Asking help for debate in China

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
In China, there is a huge proneness that is because UK is a friendly nation of USA whereas France had some stand against USA so when someone estimate capability of UK's equipment and Franch equipment, they will intent debase UK's equipment.
Now, someone said that aerodynamical dsign of Rafale is more superior than Typhoon.
other is the T/W rate of EJ200 that Typhoon fitted and M88 engine that Rafale fitted is same.
For first I want to you guys give me more evidence to support me that Typhoon equiped is better than Rafale
For 2nd, I want to get some accurate data about thrust power and dry weight of both EJ200 and M88 so I can rebut those fallacy. Do forget use link and article from book you have as prove, please scan it to upload here.
The more data you noute such as air flow rate etc., the better you are closer to expert here.
Come on! my friends

[edit on 3-1-2006 by emile]

[edit on 3-1-2006 by emile]




posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
emile, it is a bit of a pointless argument as people will always believe what they want. There are some facts and figures relating to what you are looking for in the thread about Saudi Arabia buying the Typhoon where me and stealth spy were debating this very subject (case in point - he didn't persuade me and I doubt that I persuaded him).

The *general consensus* among the unbiased is that the Typhoon is very slightly larger, heavier and more capable but the Rafale cannot be counted as 'faulty' in this respect as it was designed to meet Frances needs, which it does, and not to compete with the Eurofighter in a stats war.

As to aerodynamic design, there is no difference one way or the other as they are both unstable FBW canard deltas with a single fin, to try and say one is 'better' than the other at being an unstable FBW canard delta with a single fin, is just silly.


here are the figures from the 2004 Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft (you could check these yourself in your editions - they will be the same figures from whichever recent volume to check)


I said this

Therefore (from Jane's)

Typhoons max speed is M=2.0 compared to Rafales M=1.8
Typhoons normal ext load is 14,300lb compared to Rafale's 13,000lb.
Typhoon takes off in 985ft compared with Rafales 1,315ft.

I could go on but there are other comparisons I would like to make but cannot where manufacturers data is missing, for instance Dassault fails to include a 'time to height' figure in its data while the Typhoon is missing a 'max turn rate' in its own figures here, there are other examples.

However using this data (not projected future data for ONE of them as you like to do) the thrust to weight ratio is nowhere near the same.

The weights for the Rafale vary by variant but the middle figure is for the Rafale B at 23,038lb with a normal take off load of 13,000lb this gives it a weight of 36,038lb with a thrust of 21,900lb dry and 32,800lb reheat.

Typhoon weighs 24,500lb, plus a normal load of 14,300lb (more than Rafale notice!) giving a total of 38,800lb with a thrust of 26,890lb dry and 40,500lb reheat. Thus at the highest figures the Typhoon has a thrust excess over the Rafale of almost 8,000lb whilst weighing just 2,600lb more (including a greater payload!)

These are actual figures, not projections. You will of course refer to Rafale upgrades but do you imagine the Typhoon will not be also?
One other interesting aside, and this is taken yet again straight from Jane's, is that it gives the Rafale an AoA of 30 degrees, but also comments that the Typhoon "has demonstrated a 40 degree AoA as acheived by the Grumman X-29".


I have since learned that the M88-3 engine of which stealth spy was so enamoured has been ditched or more accurately is only offered to export customers (so thats nobody then) so the T/W ratio discrepancy WILL remain.


[edit on 3-1-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Yes, and as always happens in threads like this, some yahoo (in this case me), will go on ahead and do this:

F-22 PWNS all them n00bs...Its American dammnit!



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I would say the rafale could be better than the EF on aerodynamics - the blended fuselage offers a much better chance of generating decent lift figures on the fuselage itself.

Its just a hunch, but would I put a bet on it.... nah.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Waynos I'm not sure what a "normal load" is ? If we talk about max weight the Rafale is given for 54,000 lbs and the Typhoon 51,809 lbs... From their official websites. It's quite funny to see how they give different details, making comparisons actually difficult.

Emile although you said "no link" Ii'm afraid the best doc on the M88 is Snecma's pdf :
www.snecma.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by echoblade
Waynos I'm not sure what a "normal load" is ? If we talk about max weight the Rafale is given for 54,000 lbs and the Typhoon 51,809 lbs... From their official websites. It's quite funny to see how they give different details, making comparisons actually difficult.



Thats correct, even in Janes you wil find a some data for one of them that is totally absent for the other, this goes both ways.

Regarding the weights, according to the 2004 JAWA, the Rafale weight of 54,000lbs is for 'a future, developed version' with the current production version being given as around 43,000lbs, rising to 49,000lbs for 'later production' . Hee then the 54,000lb figure seems highly speculative and possibly relates to the M88-3 engine upgrade, which is now not going to be produced, but which promised more power than the initial version of the EJ 200 in the Typhoon.

However an aircraft will rarely, if ever, operate at its max overload TOW and that is what the 'normal load' figures are for, a sort of 'manufacturers recommended' operating figure.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Well... I guess we'll have to wait until when the "F2" Rafale enters service, six months from now, to see how the standard Rafale is operated. If the 43,000lbs figuer refers to the F1 standard it doesn't mean much.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Thats the thing, for me the term 'later production' could mean anything from next year to 'sometime hopefully' if you see what I mean. I'd have liked it to be more specific. Maybe I'll have to look out for a cheap 2006 JAWA on ebay? (Some hope!!!!)



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Actually this aggressive compararisons of the EF-2000 and the Rafale are quite...aggressive!!

chill out ppl!
btw I read a good article somewhere on a LCA-Fc-1 comparision..
forgot where its was though



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   
well,well,well.......
please, I really didin't want to raise an arguement between English and Franch. Factually my ID also take from a name of dramatis personae in a Franch famous writer called J.J.Rousseau who are my favorate
In cases, we have some details below


in which we can see the T/W rate and AirFlow rate of EF200 would be much higher than M88-2. Also we knew Franch will be going on M88-3 but we still haven't got any case of it, if someone has, please take out, don't be closefisted.n
As far as we concerned aerodynamic of Rafael and Typhoon. I only knew that General Design Engineer of F-16 who has siad: it is the best to fit forewing on enemy's fighter aircraft. So I estimated Typhoon's aerodynamical design of maneuverability will be better than Rafael in dogfight. On the other hand, we all knew that a close coupling design which has been used on Viggen, Gripen, Some of Mirage fighter etc. was propitious to STOL esp. for some as Rafael must to do T/O and Landing on aircraft carrier. But I am not a expert of aerogynamics, so if someone here who are knowledgable of principle of maneuverability design, would tell me which one is better,more well-founded
By the way, I am lacking some details of avionics of Typhoon and Rafael to make compare.
Thanks for Echoblade's link and Waynos noute by the way


[edit on 4-1-2006 by emile]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Actually this aggressive compararisons of the EF-2000 and the Rafale are quite...aggressive!!

chill out ppl!
btw I read a good article somewhere on a LCA-Fc-1 comparision..
forgot where its was though


Well, I think that you said was these two below
forum.keypublishing.co.uk...
forum.keypublishing.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Aggressive? Argument?
Did you think so echoblade?

If you did then I apologise but I actually thought that was a very good exchange in which we both merely dealt with the facts and fiigures as we understood them. I certainly have no axe to grind against the Rafale which I think is a beautiful aeroplane and very effective fighter.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Waynos, I think this thread is staying civil, no agressive comparisons here, just noting the funny points of communication/marketing, quite like when you compare mobile phone companies offerings, they always slightly differ while always being almost the same.
It seems it's easy to get the picture for pure fighters since they often fly with fake missiles representing their operational configuration, while the attack a/c rarely do it and have broader combination possibilities.

Emile, there will be no M88-3 if there is no export client for it. We just can't afford it. The project has been converted to the M-88 "Eco" which instead of having much more thrust will have a longer operational life, and will have a slightly lower fuel consumption. It should still have a -slightly- increased thrust but don't expect miracles.

[edit on 4//1 by echoblade]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Thank god for that, you don't know how many times I re-read my posts to see where I was being aggressive as I knew I didn't have an aggressive thought in my head when I typed them


I wonder where people saw 'the fight'



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Well, very good!
then who can tell me how high is the temperature in front of EJ200's turbine and M88-2's turbine? I don't know what is this temperature called in English?

And what's the limit of incidenced angle on Typhoon's canard wing and Rafale's canard wing?
I thought that limit on Rafale is bigger than Typhoon because Rafale's canard was much closer to wing and very lower than Typhoon's. But I need an accurate data. thanks.....



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
This question is in a hurry: When the M88-2 was first time installed on Rafale in service?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
The M88-2 was on the Rafale demonstrator from 1990 on, for "in service" Rafale, well it depends when you consider its service started... The "production" Rafales always had M88-2s, their entry into service is officially august 2000 with the first Rafale Marine, then their first cruise started in dec 2001...



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Could you give me some links to prove what you said? Thanks! Or someothers who also had this side of informations?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Emile, what info are you looking for exactly ?
The M88-2 has always been the standard engine for the production Rafale, although the M88-2 has substandards, e.g. first ones were "etape 1" then came the "etape 4".
So are you looking for info about the Rafale entering service or the M88-2 being standard from the beginning ?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Yes, exactly, that's you said is what I realy want to know.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join