I thought it’s cooled by the fuel which is on its way to the engine anyway, so it gets warmed up and burned afterwards (enhancing the burn quality by better “misting” through the fuel injectors as a side-effect). Same with the fuel-draulic actuators of the nozzle. The minimal fuel flow should be more than enough to transfer the heat generated by the electronic equipment.
As I think about it it, I don’t know any modern plane which doesn’t cool its electronic equipment by fuel as it’s the easiest way to do that.
I found a brochure by a company called Eaton that specifies the Typhoon uses non-fuel water based cooling fluid, so that’s probably not true.
Either way I trust that the F-35’s electronics cooling system was designed poorly and isn’t very good, as the software is of the same dubious quality.
And where does the water bring the heat it absorbed? To a heat-exchanger with the fuel. So yes: Avionics is cooled by water which transports the heat to a heat-exchanger to transfer the heat to the fuel. Makes sense as you don’t want to risk fuel leaks in the electronics bay ^^
To draw a conclusion from software-quality to hardware-design-quality is quite the jump I wouldn’t go with TBH.
Yep. To think the company embroiled in decades long hyper-bribery/extortion scandals wouldn’t do it again is ridiculous.
Even if the plane performed in game as well as Lockheed says it does irl, which it doesn’t, I’m really wondering what BR it’s going to be at. In BVR it’s just going to get stomped flat by the Rafales, Typhoons, and Su-30SMs. It just doesn’t have the capacity to be competitive with its garbage performance.
It’s ridiculous how they have treated Britain though, who literally helped get the software created xD
I don’t even need to go into it at all as Riley already has and quite indepth to the point of certainly making LM look absolutely diabolical.
Without it’s stealth capability it would most likely be a F-16 with better radar and all-around IR view (and most likely MAW + integrated targeting pod “EOTS”) but a worse loadout and worse flight performance (maneuverability and thrust-to-weight). So I would guess 14.0 at max if they don’t implement its stealth features.
With stealth I mean. In the chaos that is top tier with players everywhere and the spotting system, it’s going to be launched at from every angle, top side rear top, the worst angles for it possible. Even from the front at 30km it’s going to be easy to pick it up, and its acceleration at altitude it’ll be going like 1.1M F-18 style against 1.6M Rafales/EFs that are 4000 meters higher with, probably meteors by then.
I personally think it should be at the highest br possible so it faces contemporary opponents, performance not considered.
Meh, the more modern the equipment is they implement the more the shortcomings of the current implementation of certain game-mechanics become obvious. At some point in time they will have to overhaul, and with that I mean reconcept and rebuild, core game-mechanics like RF and IR stuff. Otherwise this whole game will collapse under its own deficiencies. This point seems to be awfully close already (insert “objects in mirror are closer than they appear” meme here).
Has an IR seeker…it should follow convention of all other IR seeker air launched ground attack missiles.
EG it can track moving objects perfectly and lock from 20+ Km away :P
Nice, except a Eurofighter with tactical Nr. 31+70 does not exist (yet) ;)
Does anyone know if there’s already a bug report about the Eurofighter external fuel tank jettison?
It’s modeled that there stays a pylon when the tank is gone, but irl the tank hasn’t a extra pylon, it’s like ‘integrated’ and after jettison the empty station would be clean.
Also, why the heck does the Eurofighter have flaps modeled? 😅🙈
