Well I guess third times a charm or something.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/RMrabQWdgu38
1 Like
Gaijin dgaf anymore
Compressor design is the main limitation here, the specifications you are rattling off mean nothing for comparison purposes without understanding the intent of the compressor stages. You keep going on about the 0.4 compression ratio but you don’t seem to understand why it has that ratio.
It’s very easy to completely alter the performance of the engine by altering the design, number and angle of the blades.
The EJ200 has 3/5 compressor stages and 1/1 turbine stages for reference
The compressors are specifically designed for very high airflow speed, but lower pressure ratios. This increases reliability at the cost of overall thrust output.
The higher relative bypass ratio and reduced pressure ratio is a result of specifically reducing the total mass of airflow through the turbine. NOT because the bypass is larger. The actual bypass is not much larger than comparable engines. This means the bypass still has significantly high speed airflow while the turbine has lower mass of airflow.
The airframe does not require higher thrust so engine lifespan is prioritised instead.
Higher thrust would be required for higher payloads or a much heavier airframe, which is not required on the eurofighter typoon.
Also of note, the pressure ratios for engines listed is during static testing. The actual pressure ratio will increase significantly with higher air speeds and will be very different between aircraft and engine design.
It’s also worth noting that the F414 engine has a 3/7 compressor design and 0.25 bypass ratio and and a pressure ratio of 30:1
Vs 3/5, 0.4, 26:1 for the EJ200
The eurofighter engine is less fuel efficient as a result, but the difference is marginal as they produce very similar levels of thrust but has a higher speed airflow.
A different compressor design on the EJ200 would result in much higher thrust output and reduce the bypass ratio to levels similar to US engines, and increase the pressure ratio as well. But this would, as you said before, significantly increase the maintenence and decrease engine lifespan significantly.
You could easily add another 5000lbs of thrust per engine by doing this.
Also:
Mean Service life of the EJ200 is 1200 hours
Mean Service life of the F414 is 1000 hours
USAf also tend to take their engines to the limit due to massively increased flying hours per engine before removing them…
Pros of having a big budget where if anything happens it’s not a big deal to replace the engines entirely.
1 Like
iam gonna spam it for long enough until they accept it if they keep ignoring it
You’ll get banned from the bug report site. Better action to take, DM a Tech mod War Thunder — official forum
2 Likes
Wasn’t it 3 LPC, 5 HPC, 1 HPT (not 2), 1 LPT (not 2)? Additionally the LP- and HP-Spool being contra-rotational so saving two static guide vanes one each between LPC/HPC and HPT/LPT.
1 Like
Well it got i accpted so its fine
4 Likes
How are you doing this
I have 6 or 7 issues about ILS-31 and they are literally dead in the water
That isn’t how the sizing of the air inlets work and channel losses are still an issue. Channel losses as they are correctly termed account for nozzle loss coefficient as well as inlet loss coefficient which will always be above 0 because these are not frictionless. There really is no good way around ~9-10% channel losses and the EJ200 nozzle is not optimized for subsonic performance which would indicate worse than expected static thrust compared to the expected operating range.
Regardless, I do understand the installed thrust is lower than expected based on documentation. The static thrust as they measured it is 90kN and the installed thrust on the demonstrator had losses from that number of only ~4% or so. Whatever the means of measure, the discrepancy lies with the fact that the in-game model does not match this difference.
Yeah typo.
It’s 1/1 for turbine.
I didn’t say anything about a 0.4 compression ratio.
This is all talk and yet there is no substance to it. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The documentation shown clearly defined the EJ200 as was supported by the data from kensai16. When supercruise performance was added as a consideration for the research paper they noticed that the requirements for the British fighter aircraft actually caused them to incorporate an engine that left more to be desired when it came to supercruise performance. They posed that future engine designs could improve on various areas of performance and how.
What does the high bypass ratio have to do with a low pressure ratio? Did you read what was shown? The pressure ratio is akin to the other engine designs, which is problematic because a higher pressure ratio is desired to overcome the additional friction from subsonic bypass air entering the exhaust from the larger bypass ratio.
It required a combination of excellent subsonic (0.8 mach) cruise SFC and supersonic re-heat SFC at ~1.8 mach and 36k feet. These combinations required a higher bypass ratio and as a consequence diminished supercruise capability.
It was shown in the documentation that the pressure ratio will not exceed 30 and the T3 temp will not exceed 900 degrees K which is exactly as shown in the documentation using supercruise as an additional discriminator wherein the EJ200 style engine was not capable of pushing a conventional style fighter not optimized for wave drag past ~1.45 mach even with absurd SOT increases such as 2100K+
Again, nonsense. What are you writing?
What is the nonsense for? What is the purpose? How do you reduce compression and increase pressure at the same time?
why is the ignore option not available to profiles that are hidden? seems like an oversight, now I must suffer through someone’s spam.
Why were TWS ground targets removed based on?
And did the F4F iCE get its 9Li-1s?
No, still the normal AIM-9L/i
i checked live maybe i missread but it was the -1
It’s only nonsense because you have no idea how a turbine functions and can’t seem to understand that design intent varies wildly between engines based on what airframe they are intended to be fitted to.
-
All pressure ratios listed in the performance specification for turbine engines are for static operation ONLY, unless otherwise stated.
-
In flight, the pressure ratio WILL increase relative to the airspeed due to ram effect: The forward motion of the aircraft compresses the air before the air even reaches the first stage compressor.
1 Like
nvm thats about the F-4F ICE