|
nakazatoGTR (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
can the pilot see the deck at the angle the rafale is flaring befor touchdown?
s0undActivist (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
c'est meme le moins cher ..mais il manque un nouveau moteur et radar ... et le missile meteor..on verra quand tout ca sera disponible.. parce que pour l'instant on est un peu ridicule avec.
Tairusiano (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
go rafale and give them the hellgreetings from brazil
Antros23 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
European aircrafts are all about efficiency
Souffle00 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
comparé à ses concurrents les Rafale à un prix dans la norme, il permettra de faire des économies d'échelle quand à la maintenance simplifié et les pièces communes puisqu'il remplacera 7 avions différents en France.Les journalistes ne répète que ce que leur souffle dans le cul
admiralnomad (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Yeah, but it is certainly still capable. Why build more than you need, right?
chenoir (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Compared to the Tomcat or the Su-27, which are monstruously big aircraft (no offense, just an expression ^^), it's sure is a small aircraft.
admiralnomad (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Those are certainly the reasons, I'm just considering a pilot's perspective. For instance, pilots have always praised the F-16's lack of a canopy rail in front, which gives an unobstructed view. You're definitely right about its compactness. Rafale is a tiny little aircraft.
chenoir (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
THe refueling boom is not retractable for a matter of fiability. Rafale is a small aircraft (very compact), and moving pieces of a retractable refueling boom can make this system inoperant. Also, the Refueling boom of the Rafale (and the M2000) is designed to have the smallest impact on the Aircraft aerodynamics.
glup2glup (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Perhaps it will be removed for export version, if we can sail one to foreign, one day. |
