Oh, that’s what you were asking.
One of Eurojet’s PDFs.
Also my bad, reheat TSFC is supposed to be 1.7ish, not 1.8.
Dry thrust TSFC is correct though.
At a TSFC of 1.7, 21640kgf should return an hourly fuel use of 36788, or 613kg per minute.
Also my bad, reheat TSFC is supposed to be 1.7ish, not 1.8.
Dry thrust TSFC is correct though.
1 Like
No because Gunjob made a way better one at or around the same time that I did that one. I also have no idea what making another report would do realistically without being labeled as a duplicate.
1 Like
They gotta put some more veggies into EFTs diet I think, it still weighs 300kg too much.
2 Likes
Im just desperately hoping the Typhoons keep “CMs” and dont get “fixed” to have BOL instead. at least until BOL Is fixed and actually worth taking over regular CMs
2 Likes
Didn’t gripen have apg-65?
for a little while, got replaced just before march update iirc
Ah ok
Gaijin wasnt focused on the gripens so they were added late and the gripens are all over the place model wise. Only gripen with the correct radar is the A and thats been entirely forgotten by gaijin when it comes to fixing its problems
Those are bench TSFC you’d need to convert to installed.
you’re lucky. I did that shit with 2x 9L…
Installed doesn’t matter. TSFC is based on thrust, not absolute fuel consumption.
Less thrust when installed just means less fuel is used because the TSFC remains almost the same.
You can see this currently with F-16C running the PW-220, which has a TSFC of ~0.74. Seen both in-game and IRL.
You can also see this while engines up up and down in thrust in-flight while their TSFC remains the same.
Older engines of course don’t behave this way, but the newer stuff does.
Technically TSFC would imply the motor is already installed in the aircraft, otherwise fuel consumption is normally rated as a function of mass flow rate of fuel over uninstalled thrust. TSFC is thus nominally the mass flow rate of fuel over installed thrust. In performance data charts they usually erroneously label the uninstalled fuel consumption “TSFC”.
The relation between S (uninstalled) and TSFC (installed) in equation form is given as;
S = TSFC (1 - inlet loss coefficient - nozzle loss coefficient).
To make it simple, if there is less thrust installed due to channel losses the installed (TSFC) specific fuel consumption will be higher than uninstalled. If the document suggests ~1.7, and the channel losses are not quite 10%, then the SFC will be a little bit higher as the same amount of fuel will be used but less thrust will be made. So if it is ~1.8 in-game, that would be roughly correct according to the documentation you provided.
What’s up with the EF nerf? Nothing is wrong with it before the nerf. So many crying babies cry that EF is too OP, imagine the F/A-18 was added with that level of performance, they will protect it at all cost…
1 Like
What is nerfed, the thing is still a complete UFO that defies physics
3 Likes
Gaijin as usual, schizophrenia project presents
2 Likes
It has almighty canards
1 Like
Guys relax! It’s the dev server for crying out loud. Things change all the time, it’s WIP. How are people already offended over “nerfs” and stuff!?
I mean just watched a MatAWG vid and in that video he said the EF engines got nerfed, less thrust than Rafale C ( this suppose to be impossible)
It’s software development. Some dufe changed 1 line of code somewhere and screwed up 99 other classes. It’s fine, its the dev server they are trying to get this WORK IN PROGRESS flight model to where they want it.
3 Likes
Hopefully it get better >:D