What's new

Delta Wings---Quantum Radar---Rafel---grippen---Eurofighter:---

I will probably be off-topic a bit, but I found a very interesting difference between delta wing-canards design. As you may know the airfoil profile plays a very important role in aerodynamic and aircraft design. The canards are very important part as they not only generate lift, control the pitch of aircraft but also generate vortex for the main wing behind. Therefore, I look into the airfoil profile of delta wing - canards fighters, they are all using symmetry profile close to NACA00xx series, except for one aircraft (i will talk about it later). This profile is very common on elevator or stabiliser as they are simple, have linear lift/drag characteristics and therefore easy to control. The exception, however, is J10, which uses a complex and twisted profile for canard. This profile will generate lift at 0 AOA, stronger vortex and higher stall AOA comparing to NACA00xx profile. Ofc it is going to be more complex for aerodynamic design and FCS. What do you guys think?
Eurofighter:
see attachment
Rafale:
rafale_b_reims_04_of_13.jpg

Jas39
1200px-Saab_JAS_39_Gripen_Canard.jpg

LAVI
15736244328

J10
13560C361-3.jpg

13560BZ3-2.jpg
 

Attachments

  • C8RK4W.jpg
    C8RK4W.jpg
    94 KB · Views: 97
. . . .
I would have thought the pilots would have done that landing with NVG equipment - right?

I don't think so TBH, at least not in this video as it pretty much shows the HUD with all the info like altimeter, speed among other things.

This is the Rafale M which is the carrier version so not sure they use any NVG. Although the Rafale is compatible with several types of HMDS, just not sure those are used on carrier landing aircraft.
 
. .
They do..

Nope, not in this case. NVGs are only just starting to be used by French pilots on the new F4 variant. For this M Marine Rafale, it's all about what's on the HUD using the altimeter, glide slope, meatball and good pilot 20/20 vision. Read the exchange from the ISR pilot in that tweet. It's good stuff.
 
.
.
Just because the video does not show lights, does not mean that the pilots cannot see the lights. Nighttime affects cameras in strange ways.

I agree with that, but man, you guys just wanna argue about anything lol. The man making the post is a veteran pilot of the C-130 and currently flies the A350K and is just sharing his opinion that he would never do such a dangerous and terrifying thing since he doesn't see the lights until touchdown, that's all.

Of course the cameras capture things differently than the eyesight, especially in low lighting conditions but it's still difficult to see no matter what and can easily be much worse. It's not a walk in the park by any means. Everyone and their mothers know you need nerves of steel and a lot of specific training to do that on a regular basis. A commendable strength of naval aviators across the world.

In the video, the tower lights actually become visible around 310 meters (minute 0:19) and the deck lights start appearing at 170 meters (minute 0:30) or so. I think it's meters (anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

He says he doesn't see the carrier until touchdown which is a slight exaggeration but he's just trying to make his point. It's still pretty damn scary. The Rafale's angle of attack and the HUD symbols obscure the deck lights more so in the clip.

Not only the challenging visibility of nighttime carrier landings, but also multi-tasking the rest of the procedure; maintaining the proper altitude in the approach while relying on the combination of instrumentation and eyesight; the correct airspeed and AoA; catching the wire and having the wherewithal to get the jet back airborne incase of a bolter. Must have great courage, also.

You listen to many US Navy pilots they'll always say it's one of the most nerve-racking things to do, obviously. In inclement weather with high seas, that deck is also rising and falling by a good 30'+/-. Balance that with the pitch-black conditions and woohoo, fun fun fun.

SOP in the US Navy stipulates that in time of war, the carrier must have minimal lighting to be less visible to the enemy. So they shut down as much as possible and barely leave a few lights on the tower and deck, adding to the degree of difficulty. I remember watching a video of F/A-18s returning from sorties in pitch black nighttime conditions and the weather was brutal. The entire squadron was taking turns landing one after the other. Pounding rain and winds with high seas causing the deck to heave up and down that several aircraft had to abort their landings and try again. They only had so many chances to land because of fuel running out and a ban on A2A refueling. The last guy had to go around a couple of times and was flying on fumes! He finally made it but he had to drop that thing like a rock with sparks flying all over the place because he ran out of chances. He had reached the point where it was land or crash. Insane. I don't think they wear diapers, either.
 
.
I agree with that, but man, you guys just wanna argue about anything lol. The man making the post is a veteran pilot of the C-130 and currently flies the A350K and is just sharing his opinion that he would never do such a dangerous and terrifying thing since he doesn't see the lights until touchdown, that's all.

Of course the cameras capture things differently than the eyesight, especially in low lighting conditions but it's still difficult to see no matter what and can easily be much worse. It's not a walk in the park by any means. Everyone and their mothers know you need nerves of steel and a lot of specific training to do that on a regular basis. A commendable strength of naval aviators across the world.

In the video, the tower lights actually become visible around 310 meters (minute 0:19) and the deck lights start appearing at 170 meters (minute 0:30) or so. I think it's meters (anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

He says he doesn't see the carrier until touchdown which is a slight exaggeration but he's just trying to make his point. It's still pretty damn scary. The Rafale's angle of attack and the HUD symbols obscure the deck lights more so in the clip.

Not only the challenging visibility of nighttime carrier landings, but also multi-tasking the rest of the procedure; maintaining the proper altitude in the approach while relying on the combination of instrumentation and eyesight; the correct airspeed and AoA; catching the wire and having the wherewithal to get the jet back airborne incase of a bolter. Must have great courage, also.

You listen to many US Navy pilots they'll always say it's one of the most nerve-racking things to do, obviously. In inclement weather with high seas, that deck is also rising and falling by a good 30'+/-. Balance that with the pitch-black conditions and woohoo, fun fun fun.

SOP in the US Navy stipulates that in time of war, the carrier must have minimal lighting to be less visible to the enemy. So they shut down as much as possible and barely leave a few lights on the tower and deck, adding to the degree of difficulty. I remember watching a video of F/A-18s returning from sorties in pitch black nighttime conditions and the weather was brutal. The entire squadron was taking turns landing one after the other. Pounding rain and winds with high seas causing the deck to heave up and down that several aircraft had to abort their landings and try again. They only had so many chances to land because of fuel running out and a ban on A2A refueling. The last guy had to go around a couple of times and was flying on fumes! He finally made it but he had to drop that thing like a rock with sparks flying all over the place because he ran out of chances. He had reached the point where it was land or crash. Insane. I don't think they wear diapers, either.
You can see in the video that there are dozens of lights turned on.
1694278091379.png

and the pilot will see those several kilometers away, unless there is fog.
 
.
Nope, not in this case. NVGs are only just starting to be used by French pilots on the new F4 variant. For this M Marine Rafale, it's all about what's on the HUD using the altimeter, glide slope, meatball and good pilot 20/20 vision. Read the exchange from the ISR pilot in that tweet. It's good stuff.
I heard somewhere that the Rafale M is already a F4 variant, and the Airforce variants are getting it late. Will have to check though
 
. .
You can see in the video that there are dozens of lights turned on.

And what's your point? No one ever said any lights weren't visible. He said he only saw them "at touchdown" so I don't know what you're arguing about. I even corrected him by listing the exact times that the tower and deck lights become visible in the video, at a few hundred meters prior to touchdown.

and the pilot will see those several kilometers away, unless there is fog.

Amazing how you're minimizing the visibility these guys have to deal with and try to make it sound like it's so easy because you think the lights are visible to the pilot from "kilometers away". Ritchy, that's so ridiculous it's not even funny.

Watch more testimony from naval pilots about how difficult it is to see during nighttime carrier ops and specifically landings (if you go to airshows, you can even talk to the pilots, and they'll tell you). I even mentioned how the US Navy shuts down the carrier lights with the exception of a few important ones on the tower and the landing strip to make it less noticeable to the enemy. You'll see how minimal lights are on in the video below.

We've been boating and fishing at nighttime for a while now because many species of fish are active at night and I rely heavily on my radar (even without fog) because some of the hazards such as metal docks, buoys and especially other boats show up better on the screen than eyesight and are slightly positioned differently than what's showing on my GPS, despite lots of lighting on the shore, that actually creates distortion and makes you not see the things that aren't lit. Even when I set waypoints on my GPS to follow and having accurate coordinates with corresponding heading, it's still scary as hell because the visibility is terrible on the ocean in pitch black conditions.

These guys also rely heavily on their HUD & navigational instruments between radar, GPS and tower/LSO commands for the final approach.

A short recording of the head's up display (HUD) of a U.S. Navy F/A-18E landing aboard an aircraft carrier at night in 15–20-foot seas and grabbing the target three wire. The correction calls on the radio are from the landing signals officer (LSO) on the boat to help guide me aboard. And yes, it really is this dark. The circle in the middle of the video is the velocity vector which is my primary navigation instrument. The ball call consists of the aircraft side number, type of aircraft "Rhino", the amount of fuel on board in thousands of pounds, and finally "auto" which means I am using auto-throttles which respond to my control inputs with power on or power off.


Hardly lit enough to see from kilometers away.
 
.
Nope, not in this case. NVGs are only just starting to be used by French pilots on the new F4 variant. For this M Marine Rafale, it's all about what's on the HUD using the altimeter, glide slope, meatball and good pilot 20/20 vision. Read the exchange from the ISR pilot in that tweet. It's good stuff.
Wrong again, why must you insist on spreading your ignorance.
The Rafale/Mirage pilot has had the option to mount NVG on their helmet for decades. Its an HMS solution made by Sextant Avionique, later acquired by Thales.
 
.
Wrong again, why must you insist on spreading your ignorance.
The Rafale/Mirage pilot has had the option to mount NVG on their helmet for decades. Its an HMS solution made by Sextant Avionique, later acquired by Thales.

Ok, let's review how this is appears to be the result of some misunderstanding. I won't get into insults since that's counterproductive to good debating skills.

I first posted this tweet by the former C-130 pilot whom I quoted:

Rafale M landing on a carrier in pitch black nighttime. The deck doesn't become visible until half a second before touchdown. You need nerves of steel to do this.


That's pretty much what the guy said.

Then @Ali_Baba replied to that post and said the following:

I would have thought the pilots would have done that landing with NVG equipment - right?

He thought THAT SPECIFIC landing would've been done using NVGs. To which I responded with:

I don't think so TBH, at least not in this video as it pretty much shows the HUD with all the info like altimeter, speed among other things.

This is the Rafale M which is the carrier version so not sure they use any NVG. Although the Rafale is compatible with several types of HMDS, just not sure those are used on carrier landing aircraft.

I also mentioned that being the Rafale M, I wasn't sure if they did use NVG equipment with that model but I was aware the Rafale is compatible with several types of HMDS.

To which you jumped in and only quoted this part of my post...

Rafale M which is the carrier version so not sure they use any NVG.

You replied with this:

They do..

I replied to you and said:

Nope, not in this case. NVGs are only just starting to be used by French pilots on the new F4 variant. For this M Marine Rafale, it's all about what's on the HUD using the altimeter, glide slope, meatball and good pilot 20/20 vision. Read the exchange from the ISR pilot in that tweet. It's good stuff.

No NVGs on that landing. As far as the M pilots using them, or if they're only part of the F4 version but compatible with M series, that's a separate subject.

Very likely why @indushek commented that he had read somewhere the M version is already an F4 variant itself which is great! He understood the exchange and the possible correlation and made a good contribution to the debate based on his knowledge and even offered to double check it to be sure.

I can see where you and I had some miscommunication somewhere in the back & forth and I'm leaving it at that. Cheers.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom