The typical fact sheet that can’t even list consistent engine thrust values?
1 Like
Yeah. It’s called opening envelope in test flights. Also, in '90 we’re talking about pre_Black Knight (C01) prototype, although even the BK isn’t representative in terms of performances as it isn’t combat coded like actual line fighters. It’s lighter.
primary sources also state that the production Rafales are capable of supercruise Mach 1.4.
Where?
I’m seeing “AVEC Post-Combustion”, but no “SANS Post-Combustion”.
Reminds me of the concept of Khinzal carried by the Foxhound, but on a platform as good as the rafale, that’s quite interesting.
I don’t understand french, but is there a weight listed? (For the missile) Couldn’t find it with AI translator.
I think it is inferred, it reaches M1.4, and then in a subsequent month after burning is tested for the first time.
If this is indeed so, which I doubt, we’re still left with a RafaleA with one 404 and one M88 installed and it nowhere reads M1.4 in level flight, so this proves about nothing, let alone combat coded and loaded RafaleC doing M1.4 with two installed M88-2 engines.
You realize that both values could be “correct” with the first set of thrust values being the true uninstalled thrust values down to the ones and the second set of values being the rounded up thrust values commonly used in brochures?
except why would they round 16535 to 16900
it would be reasonable for 16500, 16600, or 17000, there is no reason to round it to 16900
Because M88 engine brochures often round up to 75kn thrust which equals to 16,900 pounds.
1 Like
or the more likely version is that multiple different people were writing that from whatever sources they could find, and therefore used whatever sources they could find
you know making it a secondary or tertiary source at best as opposed to the primary source you are claiming it is; if anything it makes it closer to a 3rd party website/blog post than a valid source
2 Likes
In a few days the document should be clarified. You could claim whatever you’d like but if it is clarified, it’ll be in a bug report rather than arguing about it here.
Regardless, the original post is meant to highlight the fact that a faulty report had been made.
pretty sure they give 7.5T, not 75kN typically, which is 15,535lbf. So you can see how the error has occured, whether you use 7.5T or 75kN.
2 Likes
If this helps; Safran claims 16,500 pounds on their website, old Snecma brochure lists 17,000 ib.
4 Likes
Aha, excellent
Or it could just be a poorly checked and referenced factoid sheet that is used at an airshow and the numbers are not precisely accurate in the first place.
Which goes back to original point of just finding biggest thrust value we can find and biggest super cruise value and saying that it is definitely true. Or using an unrelated marketing pamphlet to claim 23 degrees per second turn rate at sea level with 50% fuel.
1 Like
i dont understand why we cant use just numbers directly provided to us by the makers of said things (eg safran saying 16500lbfs on their offfical website)
because the number isnt big enough for them
obviously the biggest number is the most accurate
Earlier today I had no problems assuming that the first thrust value set in the Paris air show brochure which was lower than the second thrust value set was the correct one even though it was a lower thrust value, just because it was more specific in the numbers.
What’s more likely is the fact that there’s a group of people, whether or not they’re affiliated with each other that show preference of sources that provide the lowest underperformance rather than the most specific values or conditions and take preference of the most generic values given if that can be used to counter the specific values.
Take today, people have issues with the specific numbers and conditions provided in the Paris air show brochure. I’m not talking about those who question whether the brochure is a primary source or not, but rather they question the specific claim of “Mach 1.4 with 6 MICAs” or question the specific values given for the M88 thrust when other values are rounded up, but publicly in this thread have not questioned the report that claims that because the early Rafale did Mach 1.2 in a flight, that must be its true max supercruise when the source itself never claimed that.
Or let’s go back even further, when people had issues with the Rafale empty weight bug report that provided specific values from primary sources and to provide a counter-argument used the generic 10,000kg on Dassault’s site to argue that the report was wrong.
I have no problem with actually using the more specific values/numbers. If one primary source states supercruise of Mach 1.4 with 40,000 feet and another primary source states supercruise of Mach 1.37 at 40,000 feet, preference should be given to the more specific values (Mach 1.37) as the Mach 1.4 was likely rounded up.
4 Likes