1.15 for EF, 1.05 for F16
Keep in mind though, i’m not even sure a Rafale would need to carry full fuel in the first place
For comparison, Gripen in both scenarios would be :
0.79 with full fuel, 2x Meteors and 4x short range missiles
0.93 with half fuel and same loadout
I really don’t know cars that well, so idk
Quick question though, does Enzo accelerates 2 to 3 times as fast as MC12, or does it go 2 to 3 times faster ? That’s basically the order of magnitudes we are talking about here.
Last but not least, comparing cars physics to planes won’t really work X)
Its just easier to compare full fuel load static numbers, either way, the rafale has a lower TWR than other comparable planes.
For 0-60 It accelerates 0.3-0.5 seconds faster, gaps becomes bigger in medium to high speeds. Keep in mind Enzo is actually heavier then MC12.
You can do the math i believe.
True, but you are the one making the basic comparison in the first place.
You need more than that to prove the Gripen’s true capabilities.
Have you taken into account friction rates and overall design philosophy? These are just couple things you need to take into account, in reality however it will take much more than that.
Anyway, it seems we both agree that the Gripen overperforms, the question is how much it overperforms.
We will never know the exact numbers unless we have access to confidential data
problem with that is, EF only carries around 4T of internal fuel while Rafale carries around 4.7T (interception doctrine VS long range multirole doctrine), while EJ200 is more thirsty than M88. The RL comparison stands, but in game, with the current way runways are setup, i’ll never chose to carry the full amount on a Rafale, making my TWR de facto superior to 1.
So basically EF is better motorized, but the difference between a Rafale, F16 and EF is much tighter than with Gripen, for example, which is why i’m always surprised when i hear the “underengined” argument (which you don’t hear for F18, J20, Gripen or F35 that often for example)
I can and it isn’t a x2 to x3 performance, assuming the numbers i have are correct and “0-60” refers to MPH
I mean if two “design philosophies” as you call it end up with 2 similar airframes, i’d say it doesn’t really matter. What matters is the airframes themselves. And in this case, thay are almost identical with a few differences here and there (mainly wing area, but even then not by much)
You do you then.
It’s pretty pointless to discuss performance data on a classified vehicle, you can file a bug report and use Lavi’s flight performance as an example to justify it, but in the end Gaijin will have his way.
Personally, I would like to see Gripen in its real performance, whether its performance gets worse or not. Such a thing is not possible with current knowledge tho.
Now can we go back to Mirage and Rafale discussion? I believe we already derailed this topic with Gripen enough.
I never said the Rafale was as underpowered as the Gripen was compared to other 4th gens. I actually specifically said that the Rafale was closer in rate capability, but still had somewhat lacking engines, which IS true.
As for the F/A-18 and Gripen, both are already widely considered underpowered in the engine department, nobody bothers mentioning it because the difference is rather large and obvious. The J20 and the F-35 on the other hand are 5th gen jets, and as such irrelevant in this context.
On the topic of fuel consumption btw, the EJ200 and SNECMA M88 are largely similar according to wiki, at 21-23 g/(kN⋅s) vs 22.14 g/(kN⋅s) and 47-49 g/(kN⋅s) vs 47.11g/(kN⋅s) respectively according to wiki, granted the stated numbers are for M88-2 and not M88-4e, but the exact changes for the 4e vs the 2 in terms of thrust and fuel aren’t exactly clear to me atm. The EJ200’s are also just higher TWR engines than the M88’s.
It’s actually not, it is statically stable until canards is deflected. Meantime, canards required negative trim to maintain level flight and / or a lot of negative trim from main wing elevons with leading edge flaps down.
In any case, it doesn’t provide additional positive lift with the canards and energy maneuverability is still somehow double that of the F-16 which DOES add positive lift with the elevators. Just doesn’t make any logical sense.
Also please refrain from cussing and being so volatile. Doesn’t help anyone. Certainly not yourself.
I think you kind of forgot about the “g per kN per second” part here…
This literally means the eurofighter consumes its fuel 1.2 times as fast when you take the thrust into account, which in turn would mean a Rafale can last 1.4x longer than a EF when taking the fuel cell capacity into account.
It also means a Rafale can fly as long as a Typhoon with 3.34T of fuel (4T for EF).
Most sources I’ve seen put Eurofighter’s internal fuel load at about 5,000 kg.
Edit: Eurofighter says the max fuel load is 7,600 kg (which would be with 3 x 1,000 L drop tanks). If we assume that 1,000 L of jet fuel weighs 800 kg (that seems to be about average) then that puts the internal fuel load of Eurofighter at 5,200 kg.
I didnt forget it? That means the Eurofighter can output similar thrust with similar fuel consumption, or more thrust with more fuel consumption. By definition it matches or exceeds the Rafale’s engines.
TWR means relatively nothing to be quite honest, as you can see the M2K beating many other aircrafts in-game despite having a lower TWR. The design of the aircraft also matters, and the canards of the Rafale is closer to the body of the aircraft of the Rafale allowing for better nose authority, which makes sense as the Rafale has to be carrier operable and is required to have nose authority at very low speeds while the same is not required of the Eurofighter. The design of the Eurofighter also appears to be draggier, while the aircraft is also bigger, the Rafale is smaller and sleeker which would give it a smaller turn radius thus cutting inside of the Eurofighter’s turn radius. It is also understandable for the Rafale to have somewhat lower TWR than contemporary aircrafts due to stealthier designs which adds weight to the airframe.
Also, in a Dassault magazine, a Rafale pilot states this:
Against a F-16, the Rafale is more powerful in the whole flight envelope, and is considerably more maneuverable below 300 knots. Ideally, after the crossover, I will climb into the sun to force him to slow down. I will constantly threaten him by pointing the Rafale’s nose in his direction. That will force him to tighten his turn even more, and his speed will wash out very rapidly.
When in the ‘merge’, we quickly gain the upper hand against a F-16: with our large delta wing and our canard fore-planes, we have considerably more authority in pitch and we can turn more tightly, the Rafale offering better sustained turn rates than the F-16 at low, medium and high levels. Our Snecma M88-2 turbofans are so powerful that we often have to reduce power to avoid overtaking our prey.
Page 14: 1.04 MB file on MEGA
With this said, early Rafales and Eurofighter if added anytime soon are going to have a loadout of MICA EM + Magic 2 and AIM-120 + AIM-9M respectively. It’s easy to see which one is going to win in a dogfight.
calling them your prey is based af
Oh i dont doubt that in a Missiles dogfight the Rafale would easily have the edge on account of missiles more capable in a dogfight, but would be very interesting to see how the two compete in a guns only dogfight.
That topic would lead to 10+ people joining the thread and another 200 comments over the next 24 hours lol. From what I know of the two aircrafts, I would say the Rafale for multitude of reasons.
The Rafale should have a lower turn radius, better instantaneous turn rate, and better AoA, as well as better controllability at lower speeds. The Eurofighter should have better sustained rate on paper when it comes to pure numbers, but it should be close enough for the Rafale to easily overcome it with the previously mentioned factors.
All of this should add up to the Rafale handidly beating the Eurofighter in a guns only fight.
I think a lot of people will be either surprised or unhappy if the Rafale is modeled as an aircraft beating the Eurofighter in every scenario for a guns-only fight and the gap is exarcebated once early missiles are introduced.
Interesting, i can definetely see it being the case but i imagine its still close enough a Eurofighter does have options available. Eurofighter, Would to my knowledge be the one thats superior in BVR fights, althought im unsure by how much as im unsure on how capable the Rafales Radar is but later model AMRAAM, which i can see eurofighter coming with (say a C model AMRAAM) would probably put it above ingame, then back to equal again once MICAIR/ASRAAM or Meteor are introduced (if they ever are were probably all doomed)
For me it really just depends on how or if the properly implement SPECTRA’s capabilities that would be one of the greatest assets, since pure range itself is the downside for Micas in comparison to the C model AMRAAM
In terms of BVR, that’s a bit tricky to figure out. It does seem like Rafale will have a BVR capability gap due to missile count and if later AIM-120Cs/AIM-120D are added. But we might also see MICA IR then. A full loadout of 6x MICA IR might help as these missiles would not provide any warning.
However though, the BVR capability will be handidly in favor of the Rafale later down the road when it comes to 8x Meteor + MICA NG EM/IR. MICA NG EM has a range of 130km with AESA seekers.
So a full loadout of 8x Meteor+MICA NG EM means that an aggressive Rafale will always leave the Eurofighter running away/defensive after the Eurofighters use up their Meteors.
Plane: Designed for an unstable configuration
Mig 23: Nope, this isn’t the case because I don’t want it to be.
You really are not worth the time of day. Especially when available information runs pretty counter to your claim. Though most information on a lot of things you talk about runs counter to your claims across the board, but I’m sure some people will believe you. Keep spouting nonsense.