French planes are crap

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
If that were true, then we'd have binned Eurofighter in 1994 and
leased
F-16s instead.

Seriously examined and pushed quite hard.

...and bought for a small advantage, for (at least in part) political
reasons.

No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.


That's not true. Twenty years ago we had the Anglo-French EFA flying around,
but that wasn't a Eurofighter.

The Eurofighter was planned to fly in 1992, and to enter squadron service in
1999. The final design for production aircraft was actually frozen only four
years ago.

Matt

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
One of the reasons the Eurofighter's late is... significant changes to
the original design, as newer technologies came along (the RCS reduction
program being one example).

But those involved fairly minor changes (the "low RCS program" mostly
consisting of sticking some RAM in the intake), not major design issues.

Would that it were so simple. "Sticking some RAM in the intake" merely
results in a FOD hazard: how do you shield the compressor blades?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes

But those involved fairly minor changes (the "low RCS program" mostly
consisting of sticking some RAM in the intake), not major design issues.

Would that it were so simple.

Actually, it was. A layer of RAM in the intake channel, and most of the
radar return went away. Look at some cross sections of the plane, and
note where the airflow goes to get to the engine.

"Sticking some RAM in the intake" merely results in a FOD hazard: how
do you shield the compressor blades?

By using the normal turns in the intake. As for the FOD hazard: it
shouldn't exist, if you fasten everything correctly, and no more so than
normal aircraft structure.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
But those involved fairly minor changes (the "low RCS program" mostly
consisting of sticking some RAM in the intake), not major design issues.

Would that it were so simple.

Actually, it was.

I'll take the designers opinion on the issue, thanks.

A layer of RAM in the intake channel, and most of the
radar return went away.

After reshaping the intake, sure.
"Sticking some RAM in the intake" merely results in a FOD hazard: how
do you shield the compressor blades?

By using the normal turns in the intake.

Those "normal turns" didn't figure in the design baseline and were a
1990s addition.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

I'll take the designers opinion on the issue, thanks.

Better yet, look at the friggin' plane and read their website. It was a
minor redesign of the intake and addition of RAM. It doesn't take much
to drop that one area's RCS by a *lot*.

A layer of RAM in the intake channel, and most of the
radar return went away.

After reshaping the intake, sure.

Not by much, though, and mostly enlarging it a *little* to allow for a
bit more thickness due to the RAM.

They did little more than the USAF did with the F-16...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

I'll take the designers opinion on the issue, thanks.

Better yet, look at the friggin' plane and read their website.

Right. I talk to the design engineers, you read a website.

Fuurfu.

It was a
minor redesign of the intake and addition of RAM. It doesn't take much
to drop that one area's RCS by a *lot*.

Also doesn't tale much to choke the engine or give it some nasty habits
at high AoA. (Remember how much fun the F-111 had with inlet design, and
that wasn't even trying for low RCS?)

After reshaping the intake, sure.

Not by much, though, and mostly enlarging it a *little* to allow for a
bit more thickness due to the RAM.

With what knock-on effects elsewhere...?

Where's the "reduced RCS" field modification for the F-15 or F-16, if
it's such a simple change?


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Right. I talk to the design engineers,

Suuure you did. In the minutes between reading my post and replying to
it. On a Saturday.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Right. I talk to the design engineers,

Suuure you did. In the minutes between reading my post and replying to
it. On a Saturday.

No, two years ago up at Farnborough.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Right. I talk to the design engineers,

Suuure you did. In the minutes between reading my post and replying to
it. On a Saturday.

No, two years ago up at Farnborough.

....and they spent a lot of time telling you about the specific problems
they had with the intake design...

"Oi, we had some problems with the intake, eh, Herbie?"

"No foolin. First, Mikey here forgot to take the foil wrap off of the
RAM panels, and it lit up like a fookin' flare when we hit it with a
signal, then after we fixed that, Jimmy (God rest his soul) put the
engine in backwards after a six-pint lunch. Pain in the fookin' arse,
that intake was..."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Chad Irby
writes
No, two years ago up at Farnborough.

...and they spent a lot of time telling you about the specific problems
they had with the intake design...

Well, I was an employee of the same company, interviewing them towards a
Masters' in systems engineering (sponsored by that company), and they
had some strong viewpoints about the cost of late changes to design
versus the need to keep a design up to date when the program slipped to
the right that were very relevant to my dissertation.

So, yes, we had an interesting discussion.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk