IIRC there is actually a brochure somewhere that lists the mass as 10995 kg.
3 Likes
Dont make reports based on the actual values we use in game…
I don’t understand what datamining has to do with the process?
Well, in case of the weight specifically, it seem that the weight that devs use and the weight shown in the datamined isn’t actually the same, for example, the rafale weight decrease was stated at around 9400kg in the report but the datamine gave a significantly different y value iirc
Has the Rafale really only 9.400 kg empty weight in game? The official Dassault Website only says 10 tons class as “overall empty weight”. Another site says 10.300 kg empty weight for the Rafale B with the Rafale M being another 300 kg heavier (10.600 kg), so is the Rafale in game nearly a ton too light???
1 Like
It was reported according to a crash report of F3R rafales from the French entity responsible for making crash reports :
Initially, bug reports were made for a weight of the plane of 9650kg approximately, but as you say most sources are very unprecise, saying « 10 ton class ». On the other hand that report is specifically on the Rafale C F3R and gives precise values . Funnily enough, it was known that Rafale M was approximately 1 ton heavier than the C, so even without the big report above the rafale was still to heavy in game at above 9800kg.
Anyway, this is not really related to the EFT, so if you want to discuss this more :
It is quite interesting in comparison to the EF. They’re really similar in size:
Length: 15,96 m (EF) vs. 15,27 m (Rafale)
Width: 10,95 m (EF) vs. 10,80 m (Rafale)
Height: 5,28 m (EF) vs. 5,34 m (Rafale)
Wing surface: 50,00 m² (EF) vs. 45,70 m² (Rafale)
The most interesting part is the portion of fiber composite material:
82% (70% carbon, 12% glas) (EF) vs. 30% (Rafale)
Where is all this weight of the EF coming from if it’s nearly 2 tons heavier than the Rafale (11,220 kg vs 9,481 kg)? It’s either the modules integrated into the EF are that much heavier, the Rafale is way too light or the EF weight is stated way too heavy. Something doesn’t add up here in my opinion
3 Likes
The rafale B and M share the exact same dimensions as the C and are an entire ton heavier. You also can’t really compare the rafale to the EFT that way since they use completely different composites.
For example, the EFT uses bigger, heavier engines. It also needs leads to added weight for the structure to support those engines. Plus, as you said, the EFT is also bigger than the rafale in all 3 dimensions, so the weight/scale ratio increases at the cube of the size difference.
Overall, both planes still retain a similar TWR at low fuel (with the. EFT being ever so slightly better, so the weight difference doesn’t really seem crazy
Edit : and that 30% composite for the rafale is 99% wrong as far as I can tell btw. I don’t have any numbers in mind, but I’m quite certain there’s an error here
Edit 2 : it seems you are comparing the rapetitiln of composite per weight for the rafale (30% of carbon composite), to the equivalent surface of composite of the EFT (82%). If you want better comparaison the rafale has 75% of its surfaces made of carbon composite, which makes the comparaison drastically different
2 Likes
The engines are only 100 kg heavier for 1/1,5 tons more thrust. (EJ200 → ~1.000 kg, M88 → 897 kg).
Ironically the Rafale is higher than the EF even if the Rafale is built for carrier hangars where height usually is a problem. And the dimensions are not that different (the EF is 0,69 m longer, 0,15 m wider and 0,06 m lower with 4,3 m² more wing surface).
I (think I) used the composite usage by weight and not by surface. The Rafale portion I took from here:
75 % de la surface “mouillée” du Rafale est en matériaux composites. Ils représentent 1000 kg, soit 30 % de la masse de la cellule ", rappelle Jean-Michel Estrade.
75% of the Rafale’s “wet” surface is made of composite materials. They represent 1,000 kg, or 30% of the airframe’s mass," recalls Jean-Michel Estrade.
I interpret this as 30% mass portion for composites for the airframe.
2 Likes
So, 200kg for both engines, and a structure that needs to support those 1.5 tons of increased thrust.
Which makes the aircraft overall much heavier. ~70cm longer is still quite significant. Plus the wing area means worse wing loading at high G which also needs heavier structure to hold everything.
Yes, but it’s impossible for the EFT to have 80+% mass of composite. You are most likely referring to surface area, in which case you need to use the same metric for the rafale. This would be 75% of the area of the rafale being composites. This is much more in line with the EFT
3 Likes
It’s pretty simple, Eurofighter is carrying the weight of being the sexiest top tier aircraft + the sheer mass of all the nerfs they needed to hit it with to let everyone else win sometimes.
17 Likes
Trust me it isnt
2 Likes
I agree. Rafale is almsot certainly should be heavier. Most sources state 10 tons including the mnaufactorer, So its probably 500 kg too light.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/D32jwFfYLKDZ
Sources say it is 11,000 kg Gajin say other wise
3 Brochures and a data sheet
i have a source that more likely than not, cant be posted here
hence why i said:
2 Likes
Jarvis, summon feds at this guy’s porch.
5 Likes
Well, with that source not an option, all remaining sources state 11’000kg. therefore it should be set to 11’000kg.
Not the current 11’250 kg? that they either used classified sources for or made up.
Da7 isn’t a production aircraft
6 Likes
And there is that as well
Low key it makes sense that the prototypes would be heavier than the production variant as the prototypes would have to test a lot of various subsystems and weapons and such that wouldn’t be on the final product
1 Like