It is well-known that the channel losses for the Flanker familiy in game are completely fiction, one of the reasons why they have a horrible flight model because Gaijin overtuned the plane for drag.
That’s beyond the point though.
1 Like
It was introduced in 1973 and updated pretty much yearly when new information was available or the regulation needed to change. The version I referenced is up to date as of 1997, the Typhoon flew in '94. The engine was finalized in '91. The design came from the 80s.
He tried to imply it was 1960s documentation being used to assess a 2024 aircraft and engine. That was just a stretch and cope.
I do not have the British parallel documentation for measuring installed and uninstalled thrust. MIL-E-5007/8 for the US is not used by Europe afaik.
Regardless, installed thrust of 4% is too small for a supersonic fighter to achieve intake compression and shockwaves that will slow air to subsonic speed. I’d guess the Tornado intake requires additional shockwaves over that of the Eurofighter as it’s an older design and this would mean additional friction by comparison. Channel losses will be greater. (Intake presumably larger, or shockwaves created by use of variable surface area system like ramps).
Supersonic shock waves are used to slow down air and the intake is designed with correct geometry to create these. Air needs to be subsonic entering the engine. Thus, intake designs require a friction of ~9% minimum as of the late 90s (after EJ200 / EFT). Any less and your engine is not going to be moving at supersonic speeds without damage to the engine.
That was not the issue necessarily. Gaijin is following an erroneously calculated FM sheet in regards to installed thrust. There are errors for both the Su-27 and MiG-29 manuals. The FM is incorrectly configured when it comes to the geometric shaping of the Su-27 and the lift to drag ratios at higher angles of attack are incorrectly configured. This is made worse by a oswald coefficient that is far too low.
How this compares to the EFT, we will see… right now the Typhoon has no problems flying at high angles of attack in excess of 70 degrees and acts like a TVC aircraft. So does the Su-33 and Su-34. The latest FM’s by Gaijin have all been awful with the exception of the Rafale. For some reason, the Rafale has realistic flight AoA and stability and does not benefit from the post-stall supermaneuvrability of the Typhoon or the ridiculous SEP of the Gripen.
1 Like
Holy cope batman
Do you ever stop making wild assumptions on anything British and along side disregarding anything the MOD says
4 Likes
Could you show how or why it is a “wild assumption” to state that the British engines & airframes also have to follow the laws of physics? Do you not see me pointing out the insane UFO performance of the Su-33/Su-34 and Gripen, F-16, etc? You think I’m being biased?
European Engineers know what they are doing? Impossible.
1 Like
It betrays a certain mindset that I suggest afflicts some WT devs.
e.g. - The best efforts of the brightest minds of the Soviet Union have been unable to do X or Y - ergo any other nation must surely be incapable of doing better!
Face it @MiG_23M - things move on and your preferred datasets appear to date from the time when jets were still running around with bits of wood in the airframe.
You can argue until you are blue in the face that Western engines cannot possibly be as capable as multiple sources state they are. However you are objectively wrong. Mark it and move on.
5 Likes
Are you suggesting the Eurofighter and F-35, other airframe and engine designs predating 1997 have wood in them? This gaslighting and cope nonsense needs to stop.
You are trying to put words in my mouth that I never stated. I’m a die-hard American patriot IRL. I serve my country. What I am saying applies to everyone and is based on WESTERN data. If you want to know something is true, look at both sides. @BBCRF has provided Russian studies showing the same thing as American and European ones. Channel losses will be approximately ~9-10% for a modern fighter aircraft simply because there is no way to make an intake frictionless and achieve the necessary geometry to slow air to subsonic speeds before the engine inlet. This is a fact that cannot be changed unless you can determine a way to slow air to subsonic from mach 2 with zero friction.
Quit arguing against the laws of nature.
4 Likes
What ARE those? ALARMS or something?
Those are Marte ERs
No, they didn’t. It is an AIM-9M.
Agm-88 uses solid propellant, so does not have air intake
1 Like
There was a dev or CM or someone official a while back confirming its a 9L/I-1 and the M stands for modernisation. Sweden modernized its AIM9L stock as it arrived a few years late and sweden not being allowed to buy the AIM9M.
But the Bug Report manager says it should be an aim9L/i and have the smoking motor, and the devs made a mistake.
Personally, I don’t mind it having a smoking motor, but I also don’t play sim and from what I can tell, the seeker is the same.
He said that he thinks they’re AIM-9L/I-1s, not that they are.
austria doesnt even have bvr missles xD, they only use IR ones
turkey just ordered them they dont have them yet
So, does it match the game?
1 Like
Was still WIP on the dev server the last we saw, will have to wait for live, but I imagine there will be plenty of FM related bug reports for it
1 Like
