It’s 74.77kN, and still 200lb shy of the 17,000lb figure used in the source
If the goal was to clear up the discussion, this document only adds more grey to the area lol
17,000lb is most definitely a rounding issue, given it clearly states that 75kN was the value tested in trials.
Crazy that you keep mentioning rounding stuff and still find issue with a rounding error of less that 0.5%
Sure then, if we assume that only the 17,000lb number is rounded for this presentation, why does every modern source state 16,500lb or less? Were the test bench thrust values de-rated to preserve engine life for the production versions? Jane’s also has the M88-2 at 16,400lb
Bro wanna make a pinpoint sim out of WT but doesn’t bother with german Typhoon having brimstones or all Typhoons using the dual rack only spain uses actively.
Jane is unreliable as hell.
6 Likes
You’ve been alleging that people have been using shoddy sources but you cite Jane’s? You really shot yourself in the foot with that one.
8 Likes
Ah yes, jane, the most authoritative source there is. You made a point, I now believe you 150%
6 Likes
Does a percent difference of roughly 2% really matter
I am using the most generous possible values in this comparison. If we take the document at face value, the M88 being 45% lighter than the Atar makes it 874kg, and a TWR of 8.5 would then make it produce 7429kgf, or 16,378lbf…
ur asking the people who are making a report to raise it by 1.5%
1 Like
And it is also about the m88-1, which is also the m88 étape 1, not the m88-2 or étape 2 which got the thrust increased to 75kN with an increase in the turbine temperature
Fig.4 is a comparison to the M88-1
1 Like
Okay ?
M88-1 and m88-2 are mostly identical, the changes are mostly to allow for the higher turbine temperature, thus better cooling being required. And I believe one of the sources you gave did talk about the excellent cooling system of the turbine blades. The thrust generating components are visibly identical
Is that so? Then how come MICA cannot reach 80km despite it was stated by manufacturer?
This is hilarious.
1 Like
The visual comparison is with the M88-1. The stat comparison is with the M88-2.
To be frank, the hate on Jane’s is very much bloated.
I personally have not see anything that Janes was incorrect with, that would not fall under “data released at that time”.
Well, a few typos but they are typos, so whatever.
1 Like
Fair enough I misread
However, as you point out, this document misrepresent the weight of the m88 compared to the atar 9k50 (putting it at 712kg instead of 897kg) is it because they are disregarding external systems (such as cooling, structural components… ?). Starting from this, it’s quite clear that the percentage calculations are incorrect.
And in anyway, that’s far from the only source stating this. We could disregard it and still have more primary sources than necessary giving the 75kN error
A 45% lighter engine from 1590kg would be 874.5kg. A 55% lighter engine would be 715.5kg. It would appear as though you are putting in your percentages wrong.
But no, the comparison would be made engine-to-engine, its not as though components would be missing from one and not the other. The document is simply internally inconsistent.
Over the course of relatively 6 months I’ve found multiple data in it that were disputed by primary sources. I’ve only ever had obtained some usefulness from it when finding out about weapons I never knew existed previously.
I’ve found also that it seems as if Jane’s had been referencing secondary sources rather than referencing primary sources which would put it below other secondary sources which do reference primary sources.