A lot of people at airshows in Europe complained that the Rafale etc maneovres were better than that of the Typoon, however, this was with test aircraft, who at the time, were limited to 70% of the flight envelope.

According to the MOD, quoted in Flight Int'l, the gun inthe first 55 Eurofighters, will not be operational, however, in the rest of the Typhoons the gun will be operational, however, it will have no ammunition fitted. Pilot training on use of the gun will take around 2 weeks, which is about the same time it would take to work up to a peace keeping deployment (according to the MoD). So all those studies in to saving money which cost millions have all been a complete waste of money, so it is good to see the MOD being spendthrift as per the normal!

I can't get you a full transcription anytime soon...however, I recall that those were the initial flight specs. According to Jane's subsequent flight testing was done to significantly increase the flight envelope. I'll get it ASAP, but it may take a while.

"Um need we mention physics and thermodynamics here again? Barring grossly different speeds any similar craft (frame and materials roughly similar) while having one with a turbojet engine and the other with a turbofan engine, the turbojet will always be HOTTER than a turbofan engine unless you somehow cool the exhaust drastically somehow." Lets not forget as well, that airframe design has come a long way between the L-29 and the F-35. The L-29 is a plank winged aircraft, with no attention payed to IR signature reduction. Plank wings on their own generate far more drag than sweeped/delta ones do, so that will increase the IR signature of the type. Also, you can bet that the F-35's airframe is optimised to reduce IR signature due to drag. Then, you have the question of paint, and how much that will have an effect. We know that black absorbs heat, while white reflects it, so you can bet the US will chose a colour scheme that reduces IR signature. Back to engines, apart from what the others have said about engine placement, plume cooling and turbofans, you can bet that the F-35 has some hellacious insulation wrapped around it's engine. These are all things that people on this board, who I doubt have access to classified material, have come up with by applying basic scientific and aeronautical knowledge. The odds are that LM's boffins have tricks up their sleaves, that we can't even imagine. I think all of that combined, is going to produce a pretty cool(excuse the pun) aircraft in the F-35.

Rafale use a chemical product injection around engine wich mask COMPLETELY exhaust plume on more than 5 meter to help decoy when missile comes. I see a infrared picture of device and it seems impressive.The exhaust plume is seen away the plane. Normal plume cooling lower the signature but it is still visible in IR

FYI -- looks like the Eurofighter is something of a ground queen. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/25/mod_leak/ Best, wjr

I would not touch any article about the Eurofighter by Gilligan with a stick, aprart fromt he fact the story is from May, and all the points have been corrected, and were a 'tad' overexagerated even at the time by Qinteq.

(Shaken) A little while back there was a discussion about JSF stores stations, and some doubt was raised about the existance of a centerline pylon. To back this up, someone questioning the station' existance posted this page link: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml Let me say, "I find your lack of faith disturbing". So, I found the LockMart article with the full stores diagram at: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2002/articles/arp_02/jsf/index.html One role of the centerline station is to carry the missionized gun pod on CV and STOVL aircraft (seen at the bottom of the first link). -- Shaken - out --

FS, Yes I saw the post and thankyou for the contribution. The reason I didn't mention it in the ensuing discussion, is because we were talking about the F-35, not the Rafale.

Ok, I've promised to further argue the thermal signiature of the F-35, but I had a severe hangover and then went a way for a few days, so this is overdue :( I assume the F-35 would have a greater thermal signiature than an L-29 because a) while its engine is a turbofan as opposed to turbojet, it is vastly more powerful and at higher speeds the volume of the hot exhaust would be larger than the L-29's puny Rolls-Royce Nene-derievative. b) What radio energy the F-35 doesn't disperse gets absorbed by RAM, which converts it into thermal energy. c) The F-35's considerably higher operating speeds would make for considerably higher skin friction. d) the F-35's greater size would make for a larger "heater" Compounded, I cannot see how the F-35's thermal signiature would be LESS than that of an L-29, and I think it is noticeably larger when operating at high speeds in a hostile radar environment. As for Aussiegunner, I'm sorry, I did not realise that the RAAF didn't share that guys threat assessment, but I thought he was in their employ...