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
There exists some nice data about the EF inlet I already wrote down earlier in this thread. In short:
Mach 0,5 → 97% pressure recovery
Mach 1,0 → 100% pressure recovery
Mach 1,5 → 96% pressure recovery
Mach 2,0 → 90% pressure recovery
Mach 2,5 → 80% pressure recovery
Pressure recovery should translate nearly direct to engine thrust, but that’s just a guess on my part.
4 Likes
it’s impossible
…for Russian jet engine technology perhaps.
Joking aside - you’re looking at a few % (2-3) of losses with a well designed inlet.
4 Likes
The pressure recovery rate never reaches 100%
They’re not talking about 0% intake loss, that is impossible as there is not zero friction.
What they’re saying is they can achieve bench test static pressure only at mach 1 👍
1 Like
Show me an engine that has only 2-3% channel losses and you will win a scientific prize of achievement.
1 Like
Doesn’t the SU-27 currently have that range of channel losses? At least when it comes to in game I have no clue about IRL
No the channel losses and thrust of the Su-27 are incorrect, Gaijin has chosen to use tertiary sources for the modeling of that aircraft and it is one of the most underperforming and flawed ones at rank 8.
3 Likes
That’s ignoring the likely overperforming afterburning thrust, which the devs then massively increased the airframe drag to overcompensate. And hence we get utter terrible energy retention while maneuvering.
Ever heard of Concorde?
Y’know - the Mach 2.0 jet airliner that could actually generate more thrust the faster/higher it went thanks to some very clever engineering. Plus it did it without afterburners (a high-mach no. supercruise in effect).
In the 1960s.
German Eurofighter naming bug report
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9Rmw9hMaJ83E
5 Likes
hopefully it doesn’t get denied again :(
The F-106 supercruised up to 1.5 mach in 1959 - 1960 what does that have to do with the concorde? It had an efficiency of 43% which was best in class at the time but laughable by the standards set by the EJ200. The channel losses are in full effect there as well. You can’t escape physics. 100% bench vs installed thrust is not feasible because no matter what you do, there will be inlet loss coefficient and nozzle loss coefficient. It is not possible unless you have designed some materials that have zero friction.
I’d love to discuss this but it will derail the topic, which is the performance of the EJ200. @kensai16 and @Crazed_Otter are welcome to submit bug reports asking for 90kN thrust, they will be met with the same answer by the devs. Not that they are experts more than we are.
1 Like