IRL Typhoons won’t fly without external fuel tanks, but they did a time to climb test without them anyway.
WT players don’t play as real life militaries, so it’s best to use as many tests as possible.
big difference between external fuel tanks and CFTs…
I think the test is valid as it is a common configuration in the game.
1 Like
You mean the F-15E? Iirc I remember reading an article about some of the F-15Es now flying air defense missions without CFTs.
On top of that, I re-run ALL tests next major update with HOTAS installed for maneuverability related testing if Typhoon is part of the update.
So I keep testing of things currently to a minimum since I’ll be re-doing the time to climb tests of F-15E, JM, etc again anyway.
It’ll also have me refine test methods since mach 1.5 is now a data point for me.
It might be possible that the engines of Typhoon produce in excess of 25,500lbf, or ~27100lbf [8 AAMs] each, I just doubt it for their size. I feel USA would’ve adopted them if they could perform that well.
I haven’t found a source that cites the EJ200 doing that much at this time.
All I know is the competition is primarily F-15C/JM.
I want to know how one of my favorite delta aircraft performs in every test situation.
I have a yearn to learn.
It seems like Typhoon’s internal fuel time with full fuel will be ~32 minutes as a loose estimate. We shall see.
~9 minutes 44 seconds on full AB sea level.
1 Like
Anyone know what TGP to expect with the german EFT and what its performance should be (zoom/thermal gen?)
The brits seem to use LITENING III and later LITENING V, but havent really found anything about german EFT, I assume they use the same as the brits and seemingly the Italians?
Do you share the results of your tests compiled anywhere or are they just for yourself?
Can eurofighter super cruise at sea level?
I share, tho the last compiled of everything was when F-16 and Mig-29s were top.
I’ve been waiting for Typhoon before doing the entire thing again.
It’s been direct comparisons for all of this year pretty much.
1 Like
Yes
That means we’ll be able to take just enough fuel to have this plane in a helicopter mode. Sounds fun.
1 Like
I think full-tank with maybe the centre fuel tank will be the one to go for. I doubt you’ll need the wing tanks and to be honest, even just full-fuel is workable with M 1.2-1.5 supercruise depending on altitude.
But you can’t pull 18g with a full fuel tank… That’s utterly unacceptable…
Spoiler
1 Like
Abuse the fuel tanks to get to altitude, then supercruise once you burn your fuel down so you can pull 18g… gg
1 Like
You do have a point, with fuel tanks we might be abie to perform a vertical take off and gain altitude far away from the battlefield while being undetected by PD radars.
Take a look at my alternative flight mode presentation.
As you can see, by forcing control surfaces into a shape reminding a helicopter rotor and disabling one of the engines we practically turning this plane into a, well, a helicopter. Okay, I understand that it’s pretty dumb, okay, we MIGHT need flaps to take off like that if we’re taking fuel tanks.
2 Likes
It is air to air capable as well though and an import.
So, Tornado ASSTA3.1 after Eurofighter because
CaN dO A2A…
1 Like
That’s very realistic, i can say this because i am a certified forklift operator
1 Like
You got the wrong guy here.
germany tranche 1 doesnt have air to ground missiles?