Well, guess what you do in WT, pay for repairs after battle :D
In reality, if you take amraam headon, you die, you dont fly another day.
This is untrue, there are cases of AMRAAM not fusing properly and other issues. In fact, the kill rate of AMRAAM in-game for targets above 100m is far too high. That is the case with all missiles in-game though.
If the peak is 18G before ripping the EF will never rip in-game. According to the in-game FM stats it rips at 13.8 G at minimum fuel. At least according to statshark.
Edit: Might actually be misleading since statshark often has problems with canard planes because non-canard planes like the 16A have much higher rip G’s, such as 17G
Come on a fully loaded Phantom has been pulling 8g in this game long before the Gripen.
My Eurofighter is not fully upgraded but it seems to rip right as it says 14G usually.
@Gunjob If you say it is intended to rip at 18G I’d happily do a report. This thing will be an absolute monster and then it can get rightly nerfed again soon after.
1 Like
This has been a problem long before the F-4 as well but that is beside the point. Those fighters compress at higher speeds generally and only do it for short durations. The Eurofighter would sustain a 14+ G turn for almost a full 360 or maybe more.
Probably recalling the figure from the dev server.
I have a source for G onset of 15G would that count for a higher Rip G load or ist the G onset not long enough?
i postet it on the forum once but here u go
Spoiler
G Onset is how quickly you can pull g, not how many g you can pull.
The Eurofighter airframe was designed for 9g flight with 100% internal fuel and two ASRAAM missiles.
1 Like
high G onset is indeed a feature of the Eurofighter though
1 Like
Says the man who has faced precisely… ZERO… real-life missile shots heading in his direction.
For pete’s sake - give the furious googling a rest. Unless you want to whip out a report dated from the 1930s and use it to prove that the AMRAAM misses an awful lot.
Like your 1960s report that says the EF2000 must have engines as inefficient as an old Axial-flow turbojet - because …reasons.
@BBCRF Typhoon uses a LOT of composites in it’s construction. I’d be leery of making an assumption of bits that ‘must be all metal’ unless you actually have firsthand experience working on the type. Which you don’t. Anyone who did wouldn’t be on the War Thunder forum anyway. =)
Further to the above - I should make the following plain.
I am not involved with the IRL EFA or Typhoon in any way, shape or form. So my opinion (educated though it is by some aviation-related shenanigans) counts to no greater or lesser degree than any other internet forum expert.
That’s not all, again, the power frame is made of metal
I mean, let’s be entirely fair, the only way we’re going to do that is-
Nevermind, none of us are going to pass any kind of SC checks. We’re on this damn forum 😄
1 Like
The performance of 1980’s era technology is well known to be quite inferior to that made after the 2000’s. As technology advances so does reliability. Now the biggest concerns are not reliability, but rather performance against stuff such as electronic warfare.
In fact, the AMRAAM would have been procured sooner if reliability problems were not resolved after initial testing showed totally unacceptable performance.
Source
Even the latest versions suffered reliability issues that held them back from production ~10 years. How does it take a decade for a missile to be re-designed just to meet basic reliability requirements?
Source
And why would I need to be shot at by one of these missiles to believe the department of defense? Is that the only way you’ll believe what I say even though it is backed by primary sources?
The 1997 MIL-E standard guidelines showing how installed and uninstalled thrust must be calculated in American aircraft are not a 1960’s document. The original was first printed in 1973 if I recall but was continuously updated yearly or as needed until it was replaced in '97 by a newer document that is still restricted.
Like the constant of gravity, friction values cannot change much. The friction of the surfaces may decrease, weight of the vehicle may decrease but there is a limit. There will always be some weight and there will likewise always be some friction. Channel losses cannot get much less than ~9-10%.
Perhaps they will find some smooth surface coating in the future that reduces the friction without causing problems for the supersonic shockwaves that slow air to subsonic speeds before the inlet. Until I see papers on this, the channel losses will be standard.
Oh, and channel losses do not care if it is a axial or centrifugal flow afterburning turbojet or if it is an augmented turbofan. Channel losses are caused by the inlet loss coefficient and the nozzle loss coefficient sums subtracted from uninstalled thrust.
@BBCRF does in fact work on Sukhoi’s in real life. Having firsthand experience working on something is not a requirement to understand basic physics or read a textbook.
Your opinion is irrelevant, everything I shared was sourced from the British MOD directly.
1 Like
Proceeds to List the same 1960s report almost on cue.
RB199 says hello (again). Sub 5% intake losses from uninstalled to installed thrust in the Tornado.
Actually, let me guess - ‘ThAt DoEsNT CoUnT!’ because it doesn’t agree with your chosen calculations made when slide rules were in vogue…
Tech changes, improves and iterates. You spent the best half of the previous week proclaiming that the Typhoon couldn’t possibly effectively supercruise. Now you appear to have chosen a new hill of insisting that every engine must be so hilarious inefficient that it’s a miracle the aviation industry hasn’t imploded.
It’s probably best to move on.
Oof! Gargh! Past self was on fire back then.
Well played good sir, well played.
For those interested - Concorde managed almost 95% pressure recovery using clever intake trickery. At Mach 2 - 75% of it’s thrust developed from the intake alone (the engines kind of along for the ride by that point).
Linky https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/426900-concorde-engine-intake-thrust.html
2 Likes
This is a reminder that EJ200 has ~5.5% channel loss on dry-thrust, and ~5.58% on full reheat in-game.
5783/6118
8645/9177
So yeah, less than the ~9% I saw skimming this conversation.
So if I quote the 1997 MIL-E standards again are you gonna call it a “1960’s report” on cue?
If you insist, please show me where it says “1960-1969” anywhere on this page;
Spoiler
Clearly the stated thrusts are not measured properly according to MIL-E, no wonder, it’s not American. Regardless, the channel losses of British stuff must also follow the laws of physics like everyone else. When Russian and American stuff agree on something it is usually well supported everywhere else also.
I just shared British defense research agency documentation (Page 51 of PDF) that suggests that is the case and it was supported by additional manufacturer documentation provided by @kensai16.
Though I will reiterate that my current stance is that it is not fuel-efficient supercruise and thus defeats the purpose thereof. It is optimized for subsonic SFC at around 0.8 mach and supersonic SFC during reheat at about 1.8 mach. These are the points it was tailored to, and as a consequence of these requirements the supercruise performance diminished. To have good thrust specific fuel consumption without drastically degrading engine lifespan you’d need to be able to cruise at speeds like 1.3-1.5 mach without maxing out the temperature and pressure limits of your engine.
You can reference my post where I go over the first source for anyone not quite as knowledgeable or well-read in the subject.
This isn’t discussing the same thing you think it is. You are thinking of the percentage of air that is making it from the free stream flow ahead of the intake and into the compressor. This plays a small part in the overall inlet loss coefficient but it is not the entire story. At static speeds, outside air is being pulled in by the engine and so pressure recovery is not a considerable factor.
1 Like