There are many articles which state that and it is also a logical consequenz as the EJ200 uses the XG-40 core which was designed for the higher thrust levels. It get’s for example noted here: Eurofighter Technology and Performance : Propulsion and also here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160304003108/http://www.cockpit.aero/fileadmin/data/cockpit.aero/archiv/2010/1005_web.pdf (page 8)
4 Likes
That’s pretty much it and how it has been explained to me multiple times. Thrust figures given for an airframe like the Typhoon will usually be ‘as-installed’ with all the related factors taken into account such as tweaks to longevity, efficiency of fuel burn, etc. It will rarely if ever be the absolute maximum the thing can pump out in theory.
The reason is simple and generally SOP for the industry as a whole.
A customer will be interested in the overall package - e.g. they might specify an aircraft that must develop X amount of sustained thrust (e.g. for a reasonable lifetime rather than knackering them after an hour of exceptional use) from it’s engines.
For the example of the Typhoon - the high-end of energy leaving the tailpipe is at least 90kn for sustained use. Anything beyond that is in the realms of lowering the engine lifespan, ruining the fuel burn and generally blasting through components at a greater rate. EJ200 uses a lot of onboard management gubbins to regulate that.
You seem to misunderstand? The 69/95 kN settings aren’t some kind of “overdrive” setting but the design-thrust of the engine. The current 60/90 kN are downrated via Software to extend the engines lifetime beyond its designed lifetime and as such reducing lifetime costs (like lowered combustion chamber temperatures/pressures and reduced high pressure compressor speed below the nominal certified values).
6 Likes
I wonder if the M1.5 supercruise figure is with the war setting.
Gaijin seems confuzed about the supercruise claimed number, saying it would need unrealistically high thrust or unrealistically low drag to do so. And extra 9kN per engine might be the magic ingredient.
3 Likes
We’re probably getting our wires crossed a bit. I would consider the lesser of the two figures (60/90) to be the conservative, super-safe, super-fuel-efficient figures to be banded around. In other words - I agree with you.
That is my theory too as I wrote here: Eurofighter Typhoon - Germany's Best Fighter Jet - #4339 by kensai16
1 Like
from what i found it is throttled down its current setting IRL so the engines static thrust at 60kN and 90kN as the 15% and 5% increase in performance is disabled by the DECMU as like you said it will figuratively blow up the engine and the option to turn it off is more of the mentality rather blow up a few multi jets than get the country captured.
I still think the thrust value given is static as there is no real way to get an accurate thrust reading when installed as subsonic airflow vs trans sonic vs supersonic airflow change how the intakes slow the air down and the fact that in the test stand, it’s a climate-controlled room bringing it optimal air quality in optimal temperatures. however, I don’t think that the S-duct on the typhoon loses ~6% thrust it probably around ~2%
1 Like
Just wanted to ask, bc it works perfectly fine for the realistic and arcade difficulty, it only doesn’t work for Simulator which seems weird to me from a gameplay perspective.
.
1 Like
Is there anything special about german typhoon that we can ask for in exchange for not having IRST? Not HOSBO or any armament exactly. Something else that could realistically be implemented in a matter of week or so?
2 Likes
not yet, we might get 8x amraams but i reckon everyone will get those if gaijins goes ahead with the double pylona
1 Like
AMK ig.
That would break the game engine, unfortunately. + the backlash would be extreme.
(it already kinda does with AE kit on Phantoms)
1 Like
omfg i need this update to come out NOW!!
Alas Ivan, we’ve been over this before.
90kN is the figure as stated by the manufacturer as applied to the Typhoon / EF2000. No mention of mil power. No mention of benches. No mention of vintage 1960s USA calculations you found on the internet…
Who to believe? A forum expert who learnt at the University of Google or the people who actually build the thing?
Rhetorical question by the way…
Edit to add - weren’t you the guy who was claiming earlier in the week that Typhoon couldn’t possibly supercruise at X or Y speed despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary?
8 Likes
a good rule of thumb is to just not watch matawg or tec
2 Likes
this indicator is stated for the engine, not for the Typhoon
2 Likes
It gives the performance of the engine obtained on the stand without taking into account the impact of losses in the air intake. That’s what all aircraft manufacturers say