Well Eurofighter threads often bring up issues even if reports are accepted and open about it, for instance the sustained and instantaneous turn rates are acknowledged but also repeatedly brought up and discussed (not knocking on it). Priority track is also brought up repeatedly although it is acknowledged as well. Missing air to ground mode is also brought up often.
Rafale was reported to be missing lift, but it was never discussed again. Rafale was also reported to be missing air to ground modes but it was also never discussed again.
Cause at the end of the day, all we can do is report issues and then either update it by adding more sources, make a dev server thread, or find other issues to focus on and report.
Yes, because from hard learnt lesson from other aircraft. If we dont, they will be forgotten. Like the SHars are getting their placeholder HUDs replaced after 2.5 years and they are still a buggy mess or the fact it took 1.5 years just to get the Tornado placeholder FM partially fixed.
If we didn’t keep it discussed, we know for a fact the Typhoon we have today, is the only Typhoon we’d ever get.
Though past history has been a mixed bag, look at the Challenger 2, god knows how many reports were submitted from the tech thread, and instead of buffing it, they nerfed it, gotta love that.
I would suppose it helps having Gunjob to bump certain reports as reminders, but I’m not sure how the complaints would do anything in the thread, does it go back to devs for feedback? If not then it seems to be a time-waster. I know dev server threads are sent back as feedback to developers and is useful in that aspect but otherwise I’m not sure who else is listening to the Eurofighter thread besides Gunjob who is already well aware of all the Eurofighter reports. It would probably help though if Gunjob/Flame are getting assistance in obtaining sources and etc. Most recently their assistance came inadvertently from Mulatu who had obtained a primary source regarding Brimstone’s gimbal limits funny enough.
All this is to say that helping Gunjob/Flame report things or finding more sources to add to existing reports would probably go much further than making complaints in a non-dev server thread.
Literally the only reason why certain reports got actioned was because of him bugging the devs every other week.
But he has used community interest within threads to get certain things added, such as BOL on the GR4. If he can demonstrate the community wants something fixed, added or changed, then having a thread full of people saying so does help
Anyway, the point is, MythicPi found a descrepency and raised it in the appropriate thread looking for feedback, sources, etc. You’d be surprised by how many times i’ve found what I thought was an issue, only to have Gunjob or flame either provide the primary source they have showing why its that way, or a heads up that there was already an internal report for it. (heck the bug report site is so hard to navigate that sometimes ive missed public reports no matter what I tried as search terms)
With the Astérix that display aircraft’s are without weapons and probably at relatively low fuel, since the pilots almost never use after burner in French displays, staying slow and close rather than doing longer high speed approach like the Americans do
You’re correct though it doesn’t invalidate the initial point I think.
Idk about every demo but on the specific video I just posted the chevrons (AB inidcators) are visible for a good chunk of the demo. Speeds aren’t that low, and even in slow turn the pilot stays on AB to compensate for the high AoA speed bleed.
Also I can’t find it rn we’ve got a pilot interview that speciifically says they load full fuel on longer displays (over 8mins).
There is a source somewhere which notes that solo display configurations have their limits released up to 10.g or 10.5g depending on the configuration, but we don’t know what that configuration is.
Now I’ve never heard of that one, you got me curious. But tbh I doubt they’d give pilots a lower available combat g-load than what’s achievable during display (at least in A2A config). Would make no sense.
Wikipedia is not the source.
They just have easily kept a record of the display regime which used to be posted on the Rafael Solo Display website until 2022
Not sure how official it is, but this is where any reference for 10.5g comes from, usually annotated with “Solo Display”
Just noticed this while looking at the AASM brochure again:
It’ll be interesting to see the AASM receive a dual mode seeker to bring it more in-line with the PGM’s of most other nations. Maybe laser + IR so they dont have to pick either or anymore, allowing for more flexibility in the types of targets they can engage, or maybe they’ll go with laser + MMW seeker to improve the weapons ability vs mobile target and eliminate the need for the rafale to baby the munition all the way to impact. Little late to the party with other nations beginning to push into tri-mode seekers though, but it is a strap on kit for dumb bombs to be made into PGM’s for cheap, so its definitely forgivable.
As for the “new range extension kit”, I wouldn’t be surprised if they gave it some proper wings to extend its range some more, along with maybe a new turbojet similar to what’s seen on the SPEAR 3 to extend its range further, turning it into the first strap-on cruise missile kit?
It’ll be interesting to see what future development comes out of it.
Maybe, but just from the graphic there, AASF looks like something different than what AASM currently is. Graphs also pretty weird since the way the AASF are laid out would interfere with the elevons, so its probably no use trying to figure stuff out from that pic.
Not sure when defense companies and militaries will finally get some ppl that actually know what they’re doing to make their art renditions and videos and stuff, but I sure hope they get that figured out sooner rather than later…
