AFAIK the compressor compresses more in this setting too (due to higher RPM) which causes more airmass flow, but that is something some data states without specific numbers.
whats even worse they marked my bug report as a duplicate for a completly different bug
What I reported
The bug report that mine is a duplicate of
Iam so pissed rn about the stupidity of the Bug Reporting Managers
1 Like
Can the Eurofighters RWR not identify anything because of that bug? Or what does it mean?
the mfd isnt working properly
but that isnt what i reported at all
Try switching mfd mode maybe
the rwr mfd mode isnt working at all on the german EF
1 Like
higher pressure ratio means more mass flow but the actual amount of air coming in the front is not more necessarily at any given condition, no?
More mass flow through the core means more mass flow through the front as the fan has to spin at higher RPM too to keep its own pressure ratio up which of course increases mass flow through the bypass too.
Beautiful
If higher RPM’s are used to achieve higher flow while maintaining pressure ratio and T3 temp, increasing SOT would enhance supercruise performance at the cost of engine lifespan which circles back to my point.
Yes, but the focus was airflow through the inlet and not thrust on this one.
I don’t understand what would be the point of war mode setting if not increased thrust. If flow is higher the pressure limit must remain the same and T3 temp will not increase. To achieve higher thrust they increase SOT temp. Larger gap between T3 and SOT temp will yield larger increase in thrust.
1 Like
The point was that the current air inlets are oversized for the current airflow of the engines and are instead designed for the higher airflow of the combat settings which in turn means that they’re currently oversized and shouldn’t have as high as 11-13% channel losses as they currently do in-game.
Well I guess third times a charm or something.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/RMrabQWdgu38
1 Like
Gaijin dgaf anymore
Compressor design is the main limitation here, the specifications you are rattling off mean nothing for comparison purposes without understanding the intent of the compressor stages. You keep going on about the 0.4 compression ratio but you don’t seem to understand why it has that ratio.
It’s very easy to completely alter the performance of the engine by altering the design, number and angle of the blades.
The EJ200 has 3/5 compressor stages and 1/1 turbine stages for reference
The compressors are specifically designed for very high airflow speed, but lower pressure ratios. This increases reliability at the cost of overall thrust output.
The higher relative bypass ratio and reduced pressure ratio is a result of specifically reducing the total mass of airflow through the turbine. NOT because the bypass is larger. The actual bypass is not much larger than comparable engines. This means the bypass still has significantly high speed airflow while the turbine has lower mass of airflow.
The airframe does not require higher thrust so engine lifespan is prioritised instead.
Higher thrust would be required for higher payloads or a much heavier airframe, which is not required on the eurofighter typoon.
Also of note, the pressure ratios for engines listed is during static testing. The actual pressure ratio will increase significantly with higher air speeds and will be very different between aircraft and engine design.
It’s also worth noting that the F414 engine has a 3/7 compressor design and 0.25 bypass ratio and and a pressure ratio of 30:1
Vs 3/5, 0.4, 26:1 for the EJ200
The eurofighter engine is less fuel efficient as a result, but the difference is marginal as they produce very similar levels of thrust but has a higher speed airflow.
A different compressor design on the EJ200 would result in much higher thrust output and reduce the bypass ratio to levels similar to US engines, and increase the pressure ratio as well. But this would, as you said before, significantly increase the maintenence and decrease engine lifespan significantly.
You could easily add another 5000lbs of thrust per engine by doing this.
Also:
Mean Service life of the EJ200 is 1200 hours
Mean Service life of the F414 is 1000 hours
USAf also tend to take their engines to the limit due to massively increased flying hours per engine before removing them…
Pros of having a big budget where if anything happens it’s not a big deal to replace the engines entirely.
1 Like
iam gonna spam it for long enough until they accept it if they keep ignoring it
You’ll get banned from the bug report site. Better action to take, DM a Tech mod War Thunder — official forum
2 Likes
Wasn’t it 3 LPC, 5 HPC, 1 HPT (not 2), 1 LPT (not 2)? Additionally the LP- and HP-Spool being contra-rotational so saving two static guide vanes one each between LPC/HPC and HPT/LPT.
1 Like
Well it got i accpted so its fine
4 Likes