By: Kovy
- 22nd May 2005 at 00:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the F2 BM will be the heavier 9.8t!
the "BM" has been canceled
AMSAR isn't a program , just a progect, and since 10 years no one want to put one penny on it to develop it, so thales and french gov go his own way!
where did you read that ? :confused:
AMSAAR IS a joint program to develop afordable active modules for the future active antennas of the rafale and Eurofighter. However, the active radars of those 2 aircrafts will be different (the rafale will use the RBE-2AA) but both will use the same active modules developed thanks to the AMSAR program.
By: Sens
- 22nd May 2005 at 01:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Similar to the Typhoon the Rafale is gaining weight. You can compensate that by pushing MTOW. There is still a payload ratio of 1,5 quoted, which no longer exists. The demonstrated MTOW is 24,5 tons. That ratio in mind the empty equipped has to be 9,8 tons, when the F2 from 1999 weight-in with 10,5 tons and a MTOW of 19,5-22,5 tons. So the real payload ratio is closer to 1,15 even by taking that higher MTOW. By that the Rafale had left its optimum design point and could no longer keep its range estimates for a given payload. It can not keep its specified climb-rates and altitude capabilities any longer. The higher wing-load smooth low-level flight but Ps will suffer.
The limits programed into FBW-software are related to stability and safety reasons. It prevents you from passing it, but has nothing to do to reach that values. You will be suprised to learn to which height a fully loaden Rafale could climb. Thanks to excellent aerodynamic much better than a F-16, but this is to exspect from a next generation fighter. When looking into this thread I hope for some never datas. A Saudi order will bring the Rafale a break-through in exports. But without the M-88-3 in time, this can become critical. Dassault must find some ways to shed some weight from the Rafale too. When that surplus weight is related to stealth, please tell me and forget my critics about that.
By: Sens
- 22nd May 2005 at 01:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
""The F2 standard Rafale has an empty-equipped of ~10,5 tons.""
nope, the rafale B F2 is 9.6t the F2 BM will be the heavier 9.8t!
i was wrong, the last pdf of eurofighter tests quote a weight empty of 11.7t and the datas about the plane was done on the first version 9.7t in early 90's!
so my dad isn't better than your dad, he just look the facts with the good glasses!
AMSAR isn't a program , just a progect, and since 10 years no one want to put one penny on it to develop it, so thales and french gov go his own way!
all that remind me the singaporians who was impressed by the typhoon, and all the money british put on the evaluations, there was sounds about singapore close to buy it, it seems that BAE pricks just don't know how to caputures vibes from clients, after the greece and saudies "close to buy" for years! lol
Look there (first report gives real datas) posted by Nicolas10 before: http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=211833&messageid=1094722874&lp=1095031744
The definition of empty weight seems to differ from country to country.
Mine is: aircraft ready for flight and with crew, but with zero fuel and no external load = empty equipped. Just to avoid misunderstandings.
The MiG-29A is 10,9 to 11 tons empty equipped. Older sources gave 10 tons and some even between 8-9 tons empty dry. With or with-out pylons. Just to show there are many variations of that sheme and none is lying really. So most readers pick that what suited those at best from the leaflets or books.
New
Posts: 318
By: PILOTGHT
- 22nd May 2005 at 02:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Similar to the Typhoon the Rafale is gaining weight. You can compensate that by pushing MTOW. There is still a payload ratio of 1,5 quoted, which no longer exists. The demonstrated MTOW is 24,5 tons. That ratio in mind the empty equipped has to be 9,8 tons, when the F2 from 1999 weight-in with 10,5 tons and a MTOW of 19,5-22,5 tons. So the real payload ratio is closer to 1,15 even by taking that higher MTOW. By that the Rafale had left its optimum design point and could no longer keep its range estimates for a given payload. It can not keep its specified climb-rates and altitude capabilities any longer. The higher wing-load smooth low-level flight but Ps will suffer.
The limits programed into FBW-software are related to stability and safety reasons. It prevents you from passing it, but has nothing to do to reach that values. You will be suprised to learn to which height a fully loaden Rafale could climb. Thanks to excellent aerodynamic much better than a F-16, but this is to exspect from a next generation fighter. When looking into this thread I hope for some never datas. A Saudi order will bring the Rafale a break-through in exports. But without the M-88-3 in time, this can become critical. Dassault must find some ways to shed some weight from the Rafale too. When that surplus weight is related to stealth, please tell me and forget my critics about that.
what? why the empty weight would grow with the MTOW?
Dassault designed and incorporated the weight of all F2 systems in their initial weight about the Rafale C F2. http://www.topfighters.com/aircraft.php?aircraft=rafale&cat=geninfo
the 2003 empty weight of the C version is 9.100t, it was weighted after the first delivery at merignac with F2 in mind, Dassault reported that weight should grow to 150kg in early 2006! due to little reajusting by operational squadrons!
the planed MTOW is 24.5 t for the F2, and 29.5t for the mk2 version with bigger engines!
By: Sens
- 22nd May 2005 at 03:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
what? why the empty weight would grow with the MTOW?
Dassault designed and incorporated the weight of all F2 systems in their initial weight about the Rafale C F2. http://www.topfighters.com/aircraft.php?aircraft=rafale&cat=geninfo
the 2003 empty weight of the C version is 9.100t, it was weighted after the first delivery at merignac with F2 in mind, Dassault reported that weight should grow to 150kg in early 2006! due to little reajusting by operational squadrons!
the planed MTOW is 24.5 t for the F2, and 29.5t for the mk2 version with bigger engines!
See #126 about that. 'empty weight' without specification says nothing, when the link to that 'flight on board B-302 1999' reveals the 'empty equipped weight'.
Ever made up your mind, what definition of empty weight is published on your link given?
New
Posts: 318
By: PILOTGHT
- 23rd May 2005 at 01:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
empty equipped weight of a demonstrator? what that have to do with the C101 first C version serie produced in 2003 from the factory chain, the french MoD datas ares very accurates, of course the check the dassault work, and give 9.1t, the first B version 01 -02 ares 9.6t, and the B demostrator is just full of captor , sensors, flight analising instruments and devices throug the wings, bodies, engines, landing gears , i mean maybe the B302 is a bit heavier, but it will never be sold or will enter in service, i hope ! lol
By: Phil Foster
- 29th May 2005 at 16:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would be very nice if you could make a post without insulting the other posters. This is getting tiresome.
Edit: and you talking about objectivity is actually hilarious.
Nic
An insult is followed by an insult. I'm sorry its just the way it has always been. PilotGHT cannot make a post without an insult of some kind I feel the need now and again to redress the balance. Futile? Yes. Unfortunately I get so worked up by some of the crap I see posted here I just cannot help myself. I am sorry if I offended you personally. By the way, yes, I agree. It is getting tiresome but try to see it from somebody elses point of view once in a while. It might open you eyes a little.
One more thing, when you see me verbally attacking a nation on a regular basis as PilotGHT does, come and tell me about objectivity, until then direct you criticism elsewhere or keep your mouth shut.
By: Cliff Barnes
- 29th May 2005 at 17:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
increase the drag? lol it is profilated like a wing, so even help a bit!
- Then I suppose we just wait to see the next generation french fighters with 348 different fuel probes designed to help create lift? Get real. The probe may be designed in order to minimize the drag it introduces, but the drag is certainly not zero. And yes, you can design structures to create lift, but the small amount of lift this air-refuel probe introduces is not worth the price of drag you get. Besides, the thing will introduce non-symmetric aerodynamic effects - but let's not get into details here, I can see that you're having a hard time to keep up with just the basic facts of aerodynamics.
The only reason I can see to why Dassault choosed this variant is that there's probably no room to house the thing within the airplane. Hence a non-retractable external probe.
By: Adrian_44
- 30th May 2005 at 04:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Why the Rafale?
> sekant
> why is it that the French pulled out of the EF project and proceeded to
> develop their own plane, the Rafale?
1) The French pulled out of the EF Program because they needed a "carrier" variant and none of the other countries wanted to spend money to develope one.
2) The French also felt they had the greatest expertise in aircraft design and their designs should be taken more serious.
3) The final straw was the French wanted 54% of the manufacturing in their country and the other 46% was to be split up among the other members of of the consortium.
The other members said no to these requirements so France quit!
In essence, there was too much "testosterone" and not enough brain cells between the entire group. When you look at what the Americans have done with the F-35, smart money says there are many in the European aviation industries looking back feel they wasted a good opportunity.
Adrian
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 1st June 2005 at 20:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
An insult is followed by an insult. I'm sorry its just the way it has always been. PilotGHT cannot make a post without an insult of some kind I feel the need now and again to redress the balance. Futile? Yes. Unfortunately I get so worked up by some of the crap I see posted here I just cannot help myself. I am sorry if I offended you personally. By the way, yes, I agree. It is getting tiresome but try to see it from somebody elses point of view once in a while. It might open you eyes a little.
One more thing, when you see me verbally attacking a nation on a regular basis as PilotGHT does, come and tell me about objectivity, until then direct you criticism elsewhere or keep your mouth shut.
Phil :)
Then if you are so worked up by what PilotGHT writes, then why call Kovy a xenophobe?
And I don't think I have to take any lessons from you. I'll open up anytime I see fit.
By: swerve
- 3rd June 2005 at 15:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Of course Dassault was asking a big stake... Their demonstrator was almost ready and they had already spent a sh!t lof of $ in the project + all the work on the 2000 and the 4000, 2 aircrafts that were unstable FBW delta design flying for many years. On the other hand, BAe and MBB had nothing more than the tornado (no delta, no FBW) and a few moke ups to put on the table. What would you have expected from Dassault ?
The first flight of the Rafale technology demonstrator was 35 days before the first flight of the BAe EAP technology demonstrator (July 4th & august 8th 1986). The delays in the Eurofighter programme which put it behind Rafale development came later.
By: Rob L
- 3rd June 2005 at 17:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To Kovy:
Rafale development : €10.1 billion
eurofighter development : €21.6 billion
OK it's "only" twice more
I doubt your figures very much: UK R&D cost is 4.4 Billion pounds = 6.6 Billion Euros (1998), German R&D is 7 Billion DM = 3.5 Billion Euros, together that is 10.1 Billion Euros for 66% of the total R&D -----> that makes it a total of 15.3 Billion Euros. http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk//Eurofighter/history.html
Also I heard very often, for example FlugRevue that French industry paid 25% of Rafale R&D, whereas your figure is only government R&D so it might well appear less, but in fact it might be very similar.
By: Kovy
- 3rd June 2005 at 17:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Also I heard very often, for example FlugRevue that French industry paid 25% of Rafale R&D, whereas your figure is only government R&D so it might well appear less, but in fact it might be very similar.
The €10.1 billion figure is the total (it's 10.14 actually)
French government : €8.35 billion
Industry : €1.79 billion
For the Typhoon development, I must admit it's very difficult to get an accurate figure because each country has more or less its own version with different capabilities
Posts: 1,403
By: Kovy - 22nd May 2005 at 00:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the "BM" has been canceled
where did you read that ? :confused:
AMSAAR IS a joint program to develop afordable active modules for the future active antennas of the rafale and Eurofighter. However, the active radars of those 2 aircrafts will be different (the rafale will use the RBE-2AA) but both will use the same active modules developed thanks to the AMSAR program.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 22nd May 2005 at 01:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Similar to the Typhoon the Rafale is gaining weight. You can compensate that by pushing MTOW. There is still a payload ratio of 1,5 quoted, which no longer exists. The demonstrated MTOW is 24,5 tons. That ratio in mind the empty equipped has to be 9,8 tons, when the F2 from 1999 weight-in with 10,5 tons and a MTOW of 19,5-22,5 tons. So the real payload ratio is closer to 1,15 even by taking that higher MTOW. By that the Rafale had left its optimum design point and could no longer keep its range estimates for a given payload. It can not keep its specified climb-rates and altitude capabilities any longer. The higher wing-load smooth low-level flight but Ps will suffer.
The limits programed into FBW-software are related to stability and safety reasons. It prevents you from passing it, but has nothing to do to reach that values. You will be suprised to learn to which height a fully loaden Rafale could climb. Thanks to excellent aerodynamic much better than a F-16, but this is to exspect from a next generation fighter. When looking into this thread I hope for some never datas. A Saudi order will bring the Rafale a break-through in exports. But without the M-88-3 in time, this can become critical. Dassault must find some ways to shed some weight from the Rafale too. When that surplus weight is related to stealth, please tell me and forget my critics about that.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 22nd May 2005 at 01:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Look there (first report gives real datas) posted by Nicolas10 before:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=211833&messageid=1094722874&lp=1095031744
The definition of empty weight seems to differ from country to country.
Mine is: aircraft ready for flight and with crew, but with zero fuel and no external load = empty equipped. Just to avoid misunderstandings.
The MiG-29A is 10,9 to 11 tons empty equipped. Older sources gave 10 tons and some even between 8-9 tons empty dry. With or with-out pylons. Just to show there are many variations of that sheme and none is lying really. So most readers pick that what suited those at best from the leaflets or books.
Posts: 318
By: PILOTGHT - 22nd May 2005 at 02:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
what? why the empty weight would grow with the MTOW?
Dassault designed and incorporated the weight of all F2 systems in their initial weight about the Rafale C F2.
http://www.topfighters.com/aircraft.php?aircraft=rafale&cat=geninfo
the 2003 empty weight of the C version is 9.100t, it was weighted after the first delivery at merignac with F2 in mind, Dassault reported that weight should grow to 150kg in early 2006! due to little reajusting by operational squadrons!
the planed MTOW is 24.5 t for the F2, and 29.5t for the mk2 version with bigger engines!
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 22nd May 2005 at 03:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
See #126 about that. 'empty weight' without specification says nothing, when the link to that 'flight on board B-302 1999' reveals the 'empty equipped weight'.
Ever made up your mind, what definition of empty weight is published on your link given?
Posts: 318
By: PILOTGHT - 23rd May 2005 at 01:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
empty equipped weight of a demonstrator? what that have to do with the C101 first C version serie produced in 2003 from the factory chain, the french MoD datas ares very accurates, of course the check the dassault work, and give 9.1t, the first B version 01 -02 ares 9.6t, and the B demostrator is just full of captor , sensors, flight analising instruments and devices throug the wings, bodies, engines, landing gears , i mean maybe the B302 is a bit heavier, but it will never be sold or will enter in service, i hope ! lol
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 23rd May 2005 at 13:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You did not grasp it.
To translate it for the C.
Empty dry is ~8,6 tons
Empty is ~9,1 tons
Empty equipped is ~10 tons.
Dassault gives empty really.
Posts: 318
By: PILOTGHT - 24th May 2005 at 01:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
dassault ? no the french MoD after evaluation in 2003 give the Rafale C101 9.1t, now i don't know what you mean!
sorry....
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 25th May 2005 at 12:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Simply post the defenition of empty from French MoD.
Posts: 805
By: Multirole - 25th May 2005 at 12:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why does the Rafale have a fixed fuel probe? Isn't this a throwback to the 70's?
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 25th May 2005 at 12:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, it saves weight, space and less mechanical failures by that.
Posts: 226
By: Cliff Barnes - 25th May 2005 at 17:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But increases drag. Big time.
Posts: 318
By: PILOTGHT - 25th May 2005 at 18:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
increase the drag? lol it is profilated like a wing, so even help a bit!
for the weight, go to french defence evaulations pdf, there ares o much i don't remember wich one is the good one!
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 29th May 2005 at 16:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
An insult is followed by an insult. I'm sorry its just the way it has always been. PilotGHT cannot make a post without an insult of some kind I feel the need now and again to redress the balance. Futile? Yes. Unfortunately I get so worked up by some of the crap I see posted here I just cannot help myself. I am sorry if I offended you personally. By the way, yes, I agree. It is getting tiresome but try to see it from somebody elses point of view once in a while. It might open you eyes a little.
One more thing, when you see me verbally attacking a nation on a regular basis as PilotGHT does, come and tell me about objectivity, until then direct you criticism elsewhere or keep your mouth shut.
Phil :)
Posts: 226
By: Cliff Barnes - 29th May 2005 at 17:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
- Then I suppose we just wait to see the next generation french fighters with 348 different fuel probes designed to help create lift? Get real. The probe may be designed in order to minimize the drag it introduces, but the drag is certainly not zero. And yes, you can design structures to create lift, but the small amount of lift this air-refuel probe introduces is not worth the price of drag you get. Besides, the thing will introduce non-symmetric aerodynamic effects - but let's not get into details here, I can see that you're having a hard time to keep up with just the basic facts of aerodynamics.
The only reason I can see to why Dassault choosed this variant is that there's probably no room to house the thing within the airplane. Hence a non-retractable external probe.
Cliff Barnes
Posts: 451
By: Adrian_44 - 30th May 2005 at 04:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Why the Rafale?
> sekant
> why is it that the French pulled out of the EF project and proceeded to
> develop their own plane, the Rafale?
1) The French pulled out of the EF Program because they needed a "carrier" variant and none of the other countries wanted to spend money to develope one.
2) The French also felt they had the greatest expertise in aircraft design and their designs should be taken more serious.
3) The final straw was the French wanted 54% of the manufacturing in their country and the other 46% was to be split up among the other members of of the consortium.
The other members said no to these requirements so France quit!
In essence, there was too much "testosterone" and not enough brain cells between the entire group. When you look at what the Americans have done with the F-35, smart money says there are many in the European aviation industries looking back feel they wasted a good opportunity.
Adrian
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 1st June 2005 at 20:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then if you are so worked up by what PilotGHT writes, then why call Kovy a xenophobe?
And I don't think I have to take any lessons from you. I'll open up anytime I see fit.
Nic
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 3rd June 2005 at 15:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The first flight of the Rafale technology demonstrator was 35 days before the first flight of the BAe EAP technology demonstrator (July 4th & august 8th 1986). The delays in the Eurofighter programme which put it behind Rafale development came later.
Posts: 629
By: Rob L - 3rd June 2005 at 17:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To Kovy:
I doubt your figures very much: UK R&D cost is 4.4 Billion pounds = 6.6 Billion Euros (1998), German R&D is 7 Billion DM = 3.5 Billion Euros, together that is 10.1 Billion Euros for 66% of the total R&D -----> that makes it a total of 15.3 Billion Euros.
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk//Eurofighter/history.html
Also I heard very often, for example FlugRevue that French industry paid 25% of Rafale R&D, whereas your figure is only government R&D so it might well appear less, but in fact it might be very similar.
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRRafale.htm
Posts: 1,403
By: Kovy - 3rd June 2005 at 17:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The €10.1 billion figure is the total (it's 10.14 actually)
French government : €8.35 billion
Industry : €1.79 billion
For the Typhoon development, I must admit it's very difficult to get an accurate figure because each country has more or less its own version with different capabilities