Sure, but none of what you claim France wanted the Rafale to do is impossible with toned down high supersonic acceleration. Case in point (and i know ima get some groans out of this) the EFT and Rafale are effectively matched for acceleration and climb rate and the likes in-game, until around M1.4-1.5 where the Rafale overtakes it, and the gap just continues to widen as speed increases beyond that point.
According to SS (grain of salt), with 20mins of fuel, at their largest difference where the EFT has the advantage, the Rafale has ~87.5% the EFT’s acceleration at 10km alt. At the largest difference in the Rafales favour, the EFT has ~57.9% of the Rafales acceleration (at Rafales VNe speed).
For those who are illiterate, I’m bringing up the EFT as proof the Rafale doesn’t need magic supersonic acceleration to match the expected performance below ~M1.4, its just the closest comparison.
So clearly, the Rafale doesnt need to have the SEP be able to nearly catch an SR-71, or flat out outrun an F-22 (if its wings didnt blow off) to hit the performance numbers you expect of the jet in-game.
They def aint mediocre, they’re quite good engines for their thrust class. Arguably inferior engines to the EJ200 tho. Cant say definitively since we dont have thrust curves for the EJ200’s, but they have roughly equivalent SFC’s, but the EJ200 has a higher TWR and slightly lower TIT without even accounting for WAR power, granted none of that is touching on other potential factors that arent as obvious numerically.
Yea it weight around 100k less than other engine of their class. but The Thrust its mediocre… I get that the focus was in other areas like Fuel consumption. But in the parameter that matter the most. They are lacking. Good thing that RAFALE its not that heavy. Or At least the RAFALE in game its not that heavy.
The thrust isnt mediocre though. They’re smaller and lighter engines than F404’s for example, but have pretty much equivalent thrust, lower SFC, and if what DirectSupport said is right, much better high alt performance to boot. Thats not the mark of a bad engine.
Correct, I already claimed it shouldn’t have an excess thrust to be able to hit Mach 2.8 in-game if aircraft limitations weren’t a factor.
First off, we’re supposed to examine aircrafts independently and judge them with the according sources rather than trying to compare with other aircrafts which is problematic in of itself. Model both aircrafts to the best of sources available and see where they fall, not by engaging in “This aircraft should be better than this because online discourse said so”. Those working on the Eurofighter flight models have a big problem to deal with, which is that the engine has taken quite a bit of thrust loss and documents on the prototype are being used for the Eurofighter and often times are being preferred over other more newer sources. It’s a whole other set of factors you have to take into account if you want to compare both aircrafts, factors we don’t have sources for on the Eurofighter or among other things.
I already have sources needed to prove Rafale should have excess thrust allowing it to achieve atleast somewhere in the region of Mach 2.4, rather than Mach 2.8 in-game.
The problem is that the excess thrust allowing it to achieve 2.4 without physical limitations still means it would out-accelerate the Eurofighter post-Mach (Eurofighter in-game I mean, not sure about IRL Eurofighter).
In-game it cannot hit Mach 2.8 as the airframe would disintegrate, but yes it has enough thrust to do that. But Gaijin could make it have a thrust-drop off after Mach 2.3 for the engine’s thrust which wouldn’t affect the post-Mach acceleration anyway. And wdym by coming up with the 2nd one?
Statshark graph, though you could also make a user mission with increased VNe if you wanted a more accurate number (statshark isnt perfectly accurate, but its good at giving you an idea)
Who knows. The community has been very touchy recently and many post get hidden for seemingly no reason (not saying many post shouldn’t have been hidden tho)
