Also should be noted that the report looked at the performances of the aircraft BEFORE it reached bingo fuel, so there’s even an argument that the Rafale is underperforming and should be 60-70% fuel at the stated performance standards but I won’t argue that or go that far. But this is just to say that there’s more evidence of underperformance than overperformance so far.
you are admitting that the report is based on a guess and the assumption that bingo fuel is 50% remaining
carrier ops demand higher amounts of fuel for redundancy like Fireball said, they have to account for failed landings (basically a rough touch and go) and then the time to circle back around and line it up among other things.
Perhaps this is the case, but it should be noted that the aircraft in the video of the report stated bingo fuel when the aircraft wasn’t even attempting to land at the runway, it still was doing aerobatic manuevers. So while there’s a margin for carrier landing where in the video it showed the aircraft landing, the aerobatic aircraft was not attempting for a landing
and in what way is that relevant
for all we know bingo fuel in the rafale c could be 30% or even 20% unless there is proof that it is identical to the rafale m
Oh also, the Rafale M video just happens to start at 2300kg fuel. It’s possible the bingo fuel indication started before the 2,300kg fuel mark.
what? you see the bingo indicator happen during the video?
so that video is worth even less
because like you said it maybe could have been there even sooner and we just dont know
The point is to say that this is the minimum that we know of. It’s useful in that regards.
well do you know when the aerobatic aircraft landed?
it is the minimum we know of on the RAFALE M not the RAFALE C
and iam almost 100% certain that the rafale m carries less internal fuel due to the second seat
And that is to the person making such a claim to prove it. Especially if the Bingo alert is programmable, there’s just no way you can assume that in the video from the big report its 20%, 30% or whatever, so the standard assumption (that is relevant to another variant of the Rafale) at 50% - which was also accepted by the devs - is just as acceptable as before - since it was proven that the raffle bingo alert can happen at as high as 49% fuel (and in the video the bingo alert only appeared about 1.5 minutes after the time used in the report, which in full afterburner can be as high as 15% of consume fuelled in that time frame in afterburner
you are proving nothing here besides that the report is based on assu
Here is the video that’s referenced.
The report looks at 6:53 and 7:27, bingo fuel is at 8:25 with landing at 9:25.
Rafale Solo Display 2018: Toulouse Francazal de l’intérieur.
1 Like
so every rafale m is a single seater?
You have nothing to prove. In fact, you come here making obviously false bold arguments. All I’m saying is that the initial report explicitly stated fuel mass was not known - which was accepted by the devs - and all you’ve done for now is to prove that even with that bingo alert, you still can’t manage to give accurate fuel assumptions, so the initial hypothesis that was that we, in fact, did not know the actual fuel load of the rafale is still relevant
do you know if burners were used?
Every single one. The twin seater is only used by the air force under the Rafale B denomination.