Rafale question
Thread Starter
Rafale question
Looking at a picture of the cockpit I noticed it has only
a single lever throttle.
This despite the aircraft having two engines, can anyone explain ?
a single lever throttle.
This despite the aircraft having two engines, can anyone explain ?
With full authority digital engine controls there is just no need to have separate throttles when a single thrust lever will do the job. Helicopter folk will probably be wondering why so many twin engined FW aircraft don't have a single thrust lever.
The design on Rafale enabled a more ergonomic thrust lever as it does not need to be split for each engine. For me it felt very easy to use and much more natural, although I have always wondered if the cramped cockpit drove the need for the design as it is really tiny in there - especially compared to the roomy office in the Typhoon / Tornado / Harrier II / F-35. The odd 'what-the-butler-saw' console also exacerbates the claustrophobic feeling.
That said, it is one of the most comfy cockpits I have been in and whilst a bit wacky the cockpit does work rather well.
The design on Rafale enabled a more ergonomic thrust lever as it does not need to be split for each engine. For me it felt very easy to use and much more natural, although I have always wondered if the cramped cockpit drove the need for the design as it is really tiny in there - especially compared to the roomy office in the Typhoon / Tornado / Harrier II / F-35. The odd 'what-the-butler-saw' console also exacerbates the claustrophobic feeling.
That said, it is one of the most comfy cockpits I have been in and whilst a bit wacky the cockpit does work rather well.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTO
Just a good job that the Rafale doesn't need to perform AAR whilst juggling the throttles with use of min 'burner at heavy weights to keep in the basket then, as was wont with the F3!
Joking apart, out of the Tyhpoon or the Rafale which one would you want to go to war in? (Presuming you've been hands-on in both.)
MB
Just a good job that the Rafale doesn't need to perform AAR whilst juggling the throttles with use of min 'burner at heavy weights to keep in the basket then, as was wont with the F3!
Joking apart, out of the Tyhpoon or the Rafale which one would you want to go to war in? (Presuming you've been hands-on in both.)
MB
How is a malfunctioning engine shut down with only one thrust lever controlling both engines?
PS, please no comments about a collective not being a 'power lever' - I know, but in lay terms it is!
Thread Starter
The Rafale is not a helicopter so those comparisons are not logical.
So FADEC makes this possible, but what is the point ? The major advantage of having more than one engine is the redundancy but also the flexibility it offers.
You may decide. for example to operate one engine at a reduced thrust setting in case of battle damage and be able to modulate it's thrust as the situation requires, is this an option with the Rafale ?
So FADEC makes this possible, but what is the point ? The major advantage of having more than one engine is the redundancy but also the flexibility it offers.
You may decide. for example to operate one engine at a reduced thrust setting in case of battle damage and be able to modulate it's thrust as the situation requires, is this an option with the Rafale ?
You may decide. for example to operate one engine at a reduced thrust setting in case of battle damage and be able to modulate it's thrust as the situation requires, is this an option with the Rafale ?
There also reasons why one might want to modulate a helicopter throttle (e.g. stuck collective at high power) but advances in one area lead to sacrifices in others.
