I don’t think the excess thrust should be to the tune of mach 2.8 as it is in-game, but it is intended for there to be so much acceleration above its structural limits even when the probability of reaching Mach 2 in combat is not realistic due to the nature of combat itself. The excess thrust there is needed in order to ensure even the heaviest Rafale variants can reach Mach 1.4 supercruise as I outlined in my report to developers and will revisit in the near future.
Strengthening the airframe in order to take advantage of the higher level of performance the engines offer is counter-productive for two reasons. One being that Mach 2+ flight is improbable, and that strengthening the airframe increases the weight of the airframe which also reduces super-cruise performance.
So you simply need to build engines that has excess thrust of Mach 2 like the Mirage 2000’s engine, but then build the airframe lighter which compromises the structural strength but allows for better supercruise performance at the cost of Mach 2+ performance.
Had the Eurofighter consortium opted for a lighter weakened airframe, it would have been unable to then physically go over Mach 2, but would have greater supersonic acceleration, greater energy retention, greater TWR, and greater supercruise speeds. Dassault had opted for a lighter weakened airframe which comes with more realistic trade-offs.
What makes you say M2+ flight is improbable, seeing as almost every other modern fighter jet is M2+ capable, and the in-game Rafale with full fuel, 8x MICA, DAMOCLES TGP, unspaded can hit M2.0+ at 10km alt from brakes off in under 3min45sec (on afghanistan).
If the WT Rafales high speed SEP is accurate to reality, M2.0+ flight is not just probable, its rather likely seeing as the jet is claimed to supercruise at M1.4. In fact, I just tested it, and took ~41s to accelerate from M1.4 to M1.8 with full AB at 10km alt with the earlier stated weapon/fuel load, and 1min 8sec to go from M1.4 to wingrip, with a Rafale missing almost all its acceleration related mods.
Itd be silly for the designers of the jet not to take advantage of this incredible high speed SEP if they did indeed have it irl. There’s a big difference between “having the SEP to reach structural limits in a reasonable amount of time” and “having enough SEP to make all other jets ever made barring a select few ultra high altitude spy-planes/interceptors or 5th gens look like jokes”, and atm, the in-game Rafale is firmly in that second camp.
Dassault states they have variable geometry intakes that adjust to speed and AOA, I believe it has something to do with the cutout at the bottom of the intake ramp, tho how it works exactly, I’m not sure. I figured maybe it has a boundary layer blowing device or something on the bottom of its intakes, but thats not really “variable geometry”.
Newer does not equal better at altitude. F-15 born and bred to perform well at high speed and altitude. Look at SR-71/A-12 family, the typhoon and rafale cannot come close to it and it’s from the 60’s
I apologize, I should have clarified. France had determined that Mach 2+ flight in combat or in real life scenarios were improbable to do. Most sorties did not call for such scenarios.
France had undergone their own sorts of energy-maneuverability theory crisis in where they had realized Mach 2.2+ flight like that achieved on the Mirage 2000’s were wasted potential. What mattered far more were combat range, acceleration, energy retention, supercruise performances.
These performance requirements still called for exceptional engines and a certain airframe design at the expense of an unrealistic scenario (Mach 2 performance in combat sorties).
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)
