https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/aboutus/FactSheets/A10_Thunderbolt_II.pdf
in the official documents is states that the a10 has 9065lbs of total thrust for its engines but in game it only has 4040kgf (8906.675) so either someone dropped the ball at gaijin or im missing something
Thats for the A-10C. Unfortunately A-10A has 8900lb of thrust @ sea level.
Got it from the user manual here: A-10A Flight Manual (TO 1A-10A-1) 1988 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
2 Likes
I love it when people try to correct the game but forget that variants exist.
Even if you were going to use this as a source for the thrust on the A-10C, it’s wrong. The actual installed thrust output of the engines is generally not 1:1 with the static uninstalled thrust rating (the figure given). Granted, it will be somewhat close due to the design, but the dynamic thrust varies as well. For a report on engine thrust you’d need the full charts and such or good datapoints for comparison.
1 Like
It’s for the A-10A, fitted with the GE-100 variants.
Nice page citation
If you’re being sarcastic about whether or not it’s permissible for posting, it meets the criteria. While it is marked restricted, it is unclassified and older than 30 years old with no export control statements.
1 Like
I’m not talking about the permissibility, just the very unclear citation itself. It’s details seem to be implicit without the aid of context, with no clarification of “Thrust figures are on 1-3”.
1 Like
Btw even if this was true:
Channel losses are considered, and if the results is within 5%, Gaijin will not even look it up. ^^"
300Lbs of thrust out of 18130Lbs of thrust:
300/18130 = 0.0165 ->1.65%
High bypass turbofans in mounts like this should not have any channel loss by design, it defeats the entire reason to have such mountings which is allow full airflow for low speed performance.
Having channel loss on an engine mount like this would mean that the engine itself is incapable of collecting enough airflow itself, which is not channel loss but a design flaw.
Your only possible issue that could arise from an engine mount like this is exhaust deflection, which, once again, should not be an issue due to how far from the airframe the engines of the A-10 are mounted.
Tldr, functionally all, non-internally mounted high bypass turbofans will not have channel loss due to not having an airflow channel to have channel loss on, the only exception is the likes of the C-5A which resolved that issue at low speeds with duct channels like the harrier, and said issue only existed there due to the sheer power of the engines.
Yes, them 1.65% more thrust will make speed climbing in dogfights much more easy… = )
(Sorry, couldn’t resist…)
2 Likes
Congratulations! You now have an increase of 5km/h to your top speed!
Now you can hit a maximum speed of 305km/h instead of 300!
2 Likes
Well, it does reduce risk of bird strikes from the rear not insignificantly…
4 Likes
Do you now:
Channel loss are EVERYWHERE.
Because it is due to AIRFLOW,… and AIRFLOW is significantly different when being BEDTESTED and MOUNTED ON AIRCRAFT.
Some Airflow mechanical cursus i followed for my engineer degree is exactly showing that.
Gaijin only calculates channel loss via inlet uptake, high bypass TFs in external mounts like what you find on the A-10 or Viking have 0 inlet uptake channel loss because there is no inlet changes to speak of.
You are going to get the same performance out of a test stand TF34 as you would one on an aircraft, bar a bit of airframe turbulence which is replicated in such tests, because their configuration is nearly identical, same goes for pretty much every single external, ducted turbofan you will find used.
1 Like
And you still don’t know what I’m talking about,… therefore can’t be helped.
You will not have any meaningful channel loss that should be modeled in game on the TF34 present on the A-10A in WT, and that is the final fact due to how gaijin models channel loss currently.
You can keep talking about irrelevant factors that effect generated thrust IRL, but they have no bearing on WT as channel loss is solely modeled off of airflow through an inlet and that alone.
As long as Gaijin continues to follow this standard, the TF34 on the A-10A should not have any channel loss modeled.
Because 1.65% is meaningful to you?
Come on,… most aircrafts today in game is turning around 3% to 4.5%,… so you already have that reduction with Channel loss.
Yet you have not a single idea of how an airflow works, and it shows how incredule you’re saying that there should be no difference,…
I want the engine performance to line up with the standard that Gaijin holds all jet engines in game to, that being the inlet design reduces performance through channel loss off stand vs on due to the lack of that inlet while being tested, and the subsequent airflow involved.
The TF34 is tested with the same inlet as installed, thus, due to the fact that the inlet is identical in both situations and gaijin only dictates channel loss on the presence and design of the inlet itself, the TF34 in particular should have the same exact performance as it’s test stand performance.
Keep posturing all you want, this is how gaijin models channel loss, if you don’t like how its done in game, then go ahead and bug report it to gaijin, maybe it will be tweaked in 1 to 2 years.
yeah,… you’re currently neither answering nor knows anything.
BTW: if you had read my first post, which took into account that the numbers came for an A-10C and not the A-10A, you’ll notice a word “if”
and also that the current channel losses are considered within WT.
Yet,… concerning your inadeqation to what i have said after: Test bed always differs from mounted engine on unit, and that’s because Testbeds put every engine in within specific condition, in which nothing can interfere,…
with basic knowledge about how fluid mechnics works, you’ll be able to understand that iti is STILL normal to see some channel losson rear postiionned engines,…
i literally studied that last part, and perfectly knows on what part you’re wrong,…
The TF34-100 and TF34-100A have identical performance at 9065lb of thrust, only the TF34-100B had an improvement in overall performance with an increase of 15% total thrust ASL and the purposed 2006 upgrade package would provide an increase of 30%, the only improvements the TF34-100A brought were reliably improvements, reduced susceptibility to FOD, and weight changes.
The A-10C and A-10A have identical total thrust output.
sample-babeng.pdf (tealgroup.com)
PowerPoint Presentation (geaerospace.com)
Does it have the same inlet in both situations?
If the answer is yes, the channel loss is identical per WT.
Its almost like this is a binary issue, funny that.
Duly noted and ignored.
Maybe you should study gaijin a bit more so you understand how they model aircraft.