@quartas121 @Morvran @Code_649
Where is this narrative that the Rafale is faster coming from? The Eurofighter and F-15E have always been the two fastest jets in the game in terms of acceleration and topspeed (ignoring Mig-25 for topspeed).
The Rafale isn’t faster when talking about pure top speed, it’s actually kinda slow because it has a low rip speed (shown in the graph).
But it accelerates faster after mach 1, even faster than the eurofighter IIRC. The rafale has very little post-mach drag and can easily reach its wing-ripping speed at just 101% afterburner if you fly clean.
At 10km altitude it might not win the drag race, the F15E breathes better up there, but that’s irrelevant.
3 Likes
So then give a scenario from mach 1 where the Rafale wins if it’s not at 10km altitude?
A high mach climb. At straight line you can’t use all the engine power or you rip wings, but you sure can do a shallow climb and be at 2000kph in no time with a full load of missiles
No one has posted any evidence that it has a better high mach climb than the Eurofighter or F-15E. I believe the Rafale’s high speed performance is overperforming but nothing indicates it beats something like the F-15E which is still the best of climbers and fastest accelerating jet in the game.
Here’s 7km alt.
The rafale also loses a fraction of its speed when defending or repositioning. Typhoon can easily bleed 0.1-0.2 mach just from turning 90 degrees. Rafale doesnt. In an actual match, the result is that there is a good chance the Rafale is actually at a higher energy state, even vs something like the Typhoon and Especially F-15 that have the higher top speeds
3 Likes
I don’t usually rely on statshark because the data is all over the place regarding accuracy from what I’ve seen, just today I was looking at all the Mig-29 variants turn graphs and it’s all wrong
I think statshark has been perticuarly and consistantly off with the euro-deltas more than most
But it’s better than nothing, do you actually have anything to back up your claims or other’s claims?
Don’t use those graphs, they are probably inaccurate
Unless you have proof showing that it’s inaccurate, I don’t see a reason to dismiss it.
I did some comparisons with StatShark and real WT data and it was off by a considerable margin. I don’t recall the exact topic right now. But I think it was about the flanker FM.
Also, if you have any mig29, just compare the sustained turn rate you can achieve in-game to what statshark tells you it does. It’s off by 2deg/s or more across the board, which is a lot
Thanks, how did it compare to the Eurofighter in the same test?
iirc it was slightly worse than eft
1 Like
In every scenario I’ve seen, it always loses to either EFT or F-15E. It was never better than both in any of the scenarios.
I mean, the high altitude acceleration it is better than both, by a lot at some points
Let’s say we conclude that statshark underestimates all flight models by 1G for a given speed, that wouldn’t change the conclusion of a lot of these charts when doing comparisons to see which one is better in certain scenarios. It wouldn’t change the conclusion of the chart I posted for example, where even if statshark underperforms or overperforms both FMs by the same amount, it still doesn’t change the overall conclusion derived from the chart which is that the Eurofighter doesn’t bleed more speed than the Rafale in the same turnrate.