The amount of pitch force needed to prevent the aircraft from departing at high AoAThat'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. 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. 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. That's the military context.ĭassault 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. High level of instability, long moment arm AND TVC. 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. They encountered issues and tried to find a way out of them by experimenting with different configurations, both document mentions this. 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. 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. First of all it's 16% and again you are taking the topic out of its context: 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. 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. LOL! You should have seen the Mirage 2000 topic. I’m not a moderator but seriously consider maybe using the Private Messaging before continuing. Usually we talk about + and - in the planning rooms and the Sqd bar. The interesting part would be implementing the two on operations or on exercise, as they would be a perfect team with strengths and weaknesses. 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. 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. It tells you every moment that it belongs in the air to air fight regime. What I know: The typhoon is a lovely Maschine to fly. Sadly, to get to the interesting discussions, all parties (seriously) involved used unnecessary means of slander.Ĭonsider 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 %) Thanks for everyone’s enthusiasm for military aviation. I just went through six pages of some very interesting data about the Rafale and the Typhoon, including the predecessor (test)airframes.