The thrust values are modelled after a chart from the prototype M88’s bench tests minus a few % to account for intake losses, so it’s as accurate as can be. Basically 75 kN/engine of static thrust, minus a few kgf.
What’s arguably badly modelled is high supersonic drag, as well as underwing loadout drag.
At least 1000 kgf must be subtracted from these values.
These aren’t the charts I’m referencing. We got actual testing bench charts, that the devs also have. And fyi thrust is on par and even higher at sea level on the benchtest chart.
What kind of nonsense are you writing? Thrust in an airplane cannot be higher than bench thrust
No I mean the values on the bench chart are higher than the ones from the theoretical model charts you just posted.
Those ones come from a french PhD paper, and are “just” very advanced mathematical models.
Dassault offical cite
You’re writing nonsense.
Lmao, ever heard about the difference between static thrust and dynamic thrust?
Both curves indeed display a 75 kN static thrust, but the increase with speed is steeper on the prototype bench chart.
I know about static and dynamic traction. But the static thrust in an airplane at H = 0, M = 0, will be much lower.about 58 kN
Typical inake loss in game is rarely higher than 10%, often closer to 5%. That would mean worst case scenario 68.5 kN per engine for the Rafale.
Except intake design on the Rafale is much more modern and efficient as most 4th gen fighters, and it’s optimised for subsonic and overall low speed performance. Hence an intake loss closer to 5% or even lower.
So idk where that 58 kN came from, but you’ll need to rethink your expectations.
doubt that you cant even see the compressor blades of the rafale.
meanwhile the su-27 has an efficency loss of around 10% in game (not sure about IRL),
i dont think that it is physically possible for the rafale to have a lower loss than the su-27 or even f-14 for that matter
Intake efficiency depends on more parameters than whether or not you can see the blades though.
Both Su27 and F14 were optimised for M2+ flight, around 60s and 70s knowledge.
Rafale was explicitely optimised for subsonic flight and benefitted from the 80’s breakthrough in aerodynamics knowledge and CFD.
So I don’t see why it wouldn’t be more efficient than both F14 and Su27 at subsonic speeds. The contrary would be surprising even.
but from what i know it plays a big role, right?
there is only so much you can do when you have to route the air throug an S-duct
These are pressure losses, not thrust losses. The correct way is to make a complete calculation, taking into account pressure losses
It’s just ridiculous.
That’s the truth.
Su-27 has more thrust than needed on AB
Sauce ?
Afaik 23% intake loss isn’t a thing in game, at least for top tier jets.
possible,
my point was just that it doesnt really make any sense for the flanker to lose more thrust than the rafale
Math man math
0.9×101325=91 192,5 Pa
Fass Flow= m×p*/sqrt(T*)×q (lamda)×Fin
he is talking about real life
The Rafale requires specific installed thrust to meet certain sources. Sources state the Rafale when weighing at 16.1 tons will take-off in 9 seconds. The current in-game intake losses meet those requirements. Take-off is determined by weight and static thrust or thrust-to-weight ratio. A reduction of static thrust would mean that the data-points no longer are being met and is then unrealistic.
If you compared “official” thrust figure and in-game static thrust for each top tier aircraft in-game, none of them would show a 23% intake loss.
Your “maths” don’t add up with how the game works.
Also yeah I forgot to mention the current supersonic performance matches or underperforms all known data points.