You do need to counteract it, since having the computer constantly compensate will create noticeable extra drag and worse performance
What kind of source would be valid in your opinion, we gave you pilot testimony, manufacturer specifications from several independent firms, specifications from several different airforces, and forums such as that one, that all corroborate. Everything agrees, except you
That’s not what the UK were told
The decision to retain operational flexibility was made in early 2003 after a detailed assessment of the costs of ballast compared with guns," says the MoD. Ballast would have been needed to replace the gun mass as the aircraft’s flight- control system took into account the presence of the gun. An assessment into the use of ballast for the UK’s planned remaining 177 Eurofighters , carried out by UK Eurofighter partner company BAE Syst ems , concluded that guns, and not ballast , was the better option .
4 Likes
Well this is just a bold face lie i had to scroll up to see if i missed something. The only thing provided that i put into question was that site and it’s numbers I haven’t seen any 1st or second party sources that corroborate those number and therefore I will not accept them. As well with it being 3rd party numbers neither should Gaijin.
So far the only source I have seen posted in here about trusted numbers are the engines producing 20,000 lbf but that is static and not including channel loss so preformance will be less when installed like it is on all aircraft just like it is modeled in game.
Keep in mind this and remember that in most case.
1 Like
Not sure where you’re getting 20000 lbf from. For sources, look at the accepted bug reports and other sources posted so far. Or just look them up yourself, the manufacturer and airforce statements are public. Do I need to collect them for you?
Im not forgetting this, nor is a lot of the other forum users
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/6VynGN5lzXHW
Had to create another report because the mods dgaf to look back at previous reports
3 Likes
I get the 20,000 from the bug report sources. 🙃
While im at it here it is from MTU.
20000lbf is minimally above what its rated at in kN, and as you said thats without channel losses. The channel losses are hardly whats being criticised in terms of performance, its the non static thrust and performance
On that note, we could bring up how the 90kN afterburner rating is the EJ200 in its throttled configuration, and not the actual max performance. Specifically 69 kN dry and 95 kN on reheat are achievable via a toggle off of low maintenance mode, the standard combat setting
They would probably consider that “combat thurst”. Many aircraft, like the Tornados, had higher but limited use thrust settings. Currently only the Mig-21BIS gets access to combat thrust. Last offiical word from the devs [regarding the tornado] was “Not now, but maybe in the future”
1 Like
Do you mean temporary increased thrust? Because thats not it. EJ-200s are permanently throttled, until you have an engineer remove the limiter digitally, and then its permanently at its higher (true max) performance. Don’t think that would count under limited combat thrust
I could see Gaijin still counting that extra thrust as comabt thrust. You could try to report it if you have good sources for all that though.
Certainly worth a try, I’ll collect sources
Nevermind, it was already reported: Community Bug Reporting System
And promptly ignored despite various indepent sources as “assumptions and calculations”
That is correct but finding a good source with the exact thrust good luck. If the flight preformance wasn’t so guarded bug reporting the FM would be an shut case.
You will not get a bug report through without 1 primary source or 2 secondary sources.
That is fair, though I maintain that for lack of other sources or data its reasonable to think that EF currently underperforms in some areas, if only slightly. I felt it was quite solid and very close to finished before the recent nerfs since it matched the claims and pilot testimonies we had quite well, I just don’t know how it really behaves after the new changes.
I would wager worse, which is why I’m advocating for buffs and hoping to reach a middle ground instead of advocating middle ground and getting nerfs
Unfortunately it will probably be neither without an credible source.
But i can’t cause it is only an univerty research paper and the numbers are all speculative. Even their sources listed are trash so I hope they got an poor grade for it.
Oh fancy, a paper, I’ll give it a read