Oof! Gargh! Past self was on fire back then.
Well played good sir, well played.
For those interested - Concorde managed almost 95% pressure recovery using clever intake trickery. At Mach 2 - 75% of it’s thrust developed from the intake alone (the engines kind of along for the ride by that point).
Linky https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/426900-concorde-engine-intake-thrust.html
This is a reminder that EJ200 has ~5.5% channel loss on dry-thrust, and ~5.58% on full reheat in-game.
5783/6118
8645/9177
So yeah, less than the ~9% I saw skimming this conversation.
So if I quote the 1997 MIL-E standards again are you gonna call it a “1960’s report” on cue?
If you insist, please show me where it says “1960-1969” anywhere on this page;
Clearly the stated thrusts are not measured properly according to MIL-E, no wonder, it’s not American. Regardless, the channel losses of British stuff must also follow the laws of physics like everyone else. When Russian and American stuff agree on something it is usually well supported everywhere else also.
I just shared British defense research agency documentation (Page 51 of PDF) that suggests that is the case and it was supported by additional manufacturer documentation provided by @kensai16.
Though I will reiterate that my current stance is that it is not fuel-efficient supercruise and thus defeats the purpose thereof. It is optimized for subsonic SFC at around 0.8 mach and supersonic SFC during reheat at about 1.8 mach. These are the points it was tailored to, and as a consequence of these requirements the supercruise performance diminished. To have good thrust specific fuel consumption without drastically degrading engine lifespan you’d need to be able to cruise at speeds like 1.3-1.5 mach without maxing out the temperature and pressure limits of your engine.
You can reference my post where I go over the first source for anyone not quite as knowledgeable or well-read in the subject.
This isn’t discussing the same thing you think it is. You are thinking of the percentage of air that is making it from the free stream flow ahead of the intake and into the compressor. This plays a small part in the overall inlet loss coefficient but it is not the entire story. At static speeds, outside air is being pulled in by the engine and so pressure recovery is not a considerable factor.
So what is the conclusion on this long debate about eurofighter’s intakes
They are still going to be here after gaijin introduced 6th Gen aircraft into the game smh
I think this bug report is mildly interesting for the 7 and a half Simulator Players in this thread.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/zCvKZmwP6tFW
Any info Gaijin fix Captor-M radar? I’m sick with this TWS that unable follow target correctly. Yesterday my TWS always follow and lock behind target or sometimes just really far from target, like the TWS just tracking a ghost.
Sadly not I think it is going to be like this for at least a week or two (I hope iam wrong)
Im tired keep locking ghost. And the dum dum thing is AIM120B accept that ghost as target and track it.
I think more likely its flying towards that ghost point on IOG. Ghost contacts arent a new issue, the F3 and Gripen were plagued with them for months at the start of the year
Even my ICE have better tracking than this “Captor M” aka “Blue Vixen”.
A complete catcher m?
In-game channel losses are 5-6% and inline with documentation that indicates that the installed thrust is about that much less than the number they give for the public. How the British calculate installed vs uninstalled thrust appears to differ from the rest of the world.
Or perhaps the benefit of a doubt should be given and that European designed and built aircraft like the Tornado, Concorde and Typhoon just have less channel loss on average than American built aircraft?
Especially in the absence of any proof that Britain “calculated installed vs unistalled thrust differently to the rest of the world”
There is zero discussion of what type of materials or design for the intake could yield 1/2 the channel losses of what countries with considerably better engines a generation ahead of them can develop. It is not a talking point anywhere in this document. America was a generation ahead of the EJ200 as early as 1987 in the form of the YF120 and realized in the F-35 with the F135.
From the same symposium where the British DRA (defense research agency) presented the EJ200 as a datapoint to compare to future engine concepts, primarily variable cycle engine types such as those tested on the YF23 and installed on the F-35;
Any kind of potential upgrade for the EJ200 that yielded so much as 3% better performance was discussed in lengthy detail from TVC nozzles to redesigns of the compressor, material sciences for increased temperature limits, etc. No data on improving channel loss.
So when the British consistently say that they have had such high installed thrust as opposed to the “maximum rating” (never really officially labeled “uninstalled” or “static thrust” to my knowledge), I cast doubt.
do you know why the YF120 wasnt picked? didnt it push the YF-23 to M 1.72 on supercruise while it got mach 1.5-something on the YF-119?
The YF119 was far simpler and more mature technology at the time, YF120 was not. They chose the low-risk option because the performance in the 80’s was a plane that could already supercruise well beyond what anything else in the world had to offer. The production F-22A with the matured F119 supercruises in excess of 1.7 mach and accelerates past the sound barrier without the afterburner faster than the F-15C does with it.
The F135 in the F-35 is actually not a derivative of the YF120, I was mistaken. The F136 which was not ultimately chosen was. The F135 was developed from the F119 but incorporated the same technologies such as variable bypass.
can only imagine what couldve been with the YF120. either something crazy like mach 1.8-2 or a total reliability flop lol
Due to the 80’s technology the YF-23 demonstrator that used it had issues with throttle lag and other problems that would have been necessary to resolve. The Eurofighter boasts the ability to slam the throttle from cruise to max throttle and afterburner and back without consequences. This was not possible with the YF120 at the time due to the nature of the primitive variable bypass control.
arent they going further with that whole concept on the planned F135 upgrades? i wonder how they will deal with that
