Eurofighter Typhoon (UK versions) - Technical data and discussion (Part 1)

[MiG_23M]

@DevilO6

I will be honest, that means nothing. It allows the pilot to do so, yes. After all using AB makes it faster. But nowhere it says pilot HAS to use afterburner to pass mach 1. also, if engine needed AB to pass mach 1, it would not be able to supercruise, as without it it would slow down under mach 1

That is not sound logic.

@Morvran

Most sources claim more like 1.5 mach and that supercruise can be achieved without the use of reheat

I don’t see “most sources”, only Austrias defunct webpage that also seems to have been from a time when it was assumed the Eurofighter could match the public F-22 Super cruise data and overestimates the thrust to weight ratio of the EJ200 to be 10:1.

The following claim of acceleration from subsonic to supersonic without reheat is not properly linked to a source

The fuel burn specifications are far inferior to the F-22, aiding my point in the discussion. That’s also not quite correct as 0.74 was the goal and 0.81 lb/lb-f hr was the lowest achieved with mil thrust cruise. As the temp limits increase to allow for higher speed and possible super cruise they actually end up decreasing efficiency as they pass beyond the efficiency envelope.

By comparison the F-22 is estimated closer to ~0.65 lb/lb-f hr subsonic and on less than mil thrust while full mil thrust provides closer to 0.8 lb/lb-f hr but at a sustained super cruise speed in excess of mach 1.7. These are estimates from aerospace engineers and other external forum users not me.

And yes, it can exceed mach 1.7 in supercruise handily.

I’d hazard the EJ200 performs 0.81 lb/lb-f hr at high subsonic cruise and would have to push itself harder and with more consumption to supercruise. As stated in the earlier document the 0.4 bypass ratio engines needed an upper temp limit of 2150K and a lot more fuel just to have a supercruise capability of 1.36-1.4M and that was the best they could do for 1995 simulations of their next generation engines.

@Flame2512

An archived version of the Eurofighter website says it can accelerate to supersonic speeds on dry power. So as you say that’s probably talking about using afterburner to get to high speeds quicker, rather than it being necessary to get to high speeds.

Okay, thank you that would make sense then.

@Flame2512

I assume you are choosing the RM12 and M88 as examples of engines which can super cruise (both the Rafale and Gripen are widely cited as super cruise capable)? The Ej200 compares favourable to both of those in terms of mass flow rate and specific thrust (thrust produced per unit of flow rate). Also of note is that it uses a convergent divergent nozzle, which by now means unique does give it a supersonic performance advantage over the M88, which only has a convergent nozzle.

The flow rates in static conditions will likely be better for the higher bypass ratio engines, this is expected but the dynamic mass flow rate in supersonic conditions and the other factors I discussed when describing the F119 are not being considered. For the aforementioned reasons in the post you replied to, the higher bypass ratio by nature requires higher SFC and Thrust to supercruise which obviously harms efficiency and lifespan especially if the temp limit is being extended for this reason.

@Celestia

Supercruise ability is largely determined by airframe drag and engine exhaust velocity (Specific Impulse).
NOT engine thrust.

Airframe drag at required speeds must be overcome, that thrust requires high exhaust velocity, high difference in exhaust velocity to free stream airflow indicates high SFC and low efficiency. The larger bypass ratio is not conducive to efficient super cruise capability. There are no efficient supercruise capable aircraft with a bypass ratio larger than 0.34 without some form of variable bypass.

@Celestia

Even the F414-GE-400 on the super hornet has far superior thrust and a bypass ratio of 0.25:1 but it has no ability to supercruise whatsoever.

A modification of that engine allows the next gen Gripen variants to supercruise handily and quite efficiently.

@Celestia

The above aircraft have too much drag and not enough specific impulse on military power to be able to achieve supercruise.

Unlike the Phantom, the Super Hornets inability to supercruise is not the fault of the engine. The Phantom was quite an absurd comparison as the British did have a raw turbojet powered aircraft that could supercruise at the time, just not as efficiently as say a F-22. Naturally that is just a generational engine difference but a testament to the performance of the Lightning at the time. The F-106 from America could also supercruise up to 1.5 mach but this wasn’t efficient either.

[Morvran]

If you do not personally believe that the typhoon can supercruise. Please provide a primary sources supporting your claim. You have yet to do so and your argument so far is that the typhoon uses a different engine to other aircraft that can supercruise.

Also,

@MiG_23M

And yes, it can exceed mach 1.7 in supercruise handily.

@Morvran

@MiG_23M

This is likely achieved at 36k feet as well

and can the F-22 supercruise at sea-level?

And interesring that the f22 can supercruise at Mach 1.7 at sea level when it’s max speed at sea level is Mach 1.2. You made a statement that implies the Typhoon is limited in someway to only being able to supercruise at high altitiude, but is that not the case with all aircraft. The source you provided for the F-22 being able to supercruise at mach 1.7 does not state what altitude they were at. For all we know, they were at 45k ft to achieve that speed.

[ShOt_MaCkEr]

True, not when they have a certain track record though…

[Firestarter]

@Flame2512

I know at the time the UK was working with the US on various STOVL projects (SSF, ASTOVL, JAST - which became JSF) so the comment was likely being made with regard to one of those.

Not to jump on you, but with reference to the document he posted, is in reference to the SHAR Replacement, which was JSF and later became F-35B.

It is definitely in regards to that project, as until the paragraph specifically below the excerpt he refers to, the RAF hasn’t even got a word in edgeways, and even still that spec, the “Future Offensive Aircraft” is clearly not the EFT (as was intended) since it refers to a replacement for the Harrier and Tornado, which was not EFT particularly (although, I must admit, talking about a replacement for Harrier and Tornado, without qualifying which Tornado it is, is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.)

@ShOt_MaCkEr

True, not when they have a certain track record though…

We all have to keep up the pretences old chap… :)

[MysteriousHonza]

Yeah… by not arguing and burrying him under tons of facts, will result in fabricated voodoo math, claims and comparisons to totally unrelated airframes with aim of fabricated nerfs of anything of european origin.
Gripen was nice example. He compared it to 2000C and Viggen, making his claims on HORNET engine (which is substantially changed in gripen on top of its dragless design) AND flight performance of two totally different designs with bogus math, resulting in questionable nerfs (energy retention nerf was fine, anything beyond that was pure fiction of his and devs somehow trusting it). Due to his doing, it barely gets up to speed up high and it literally drops all of it within 45° turn.
You let him yap, you will end up with unhistorical nerfs to typhoon and i bet rafale too.
Thanks god theres more info about typhoon than on gripen and we have lads like flame and gunjob doing the gods work.

[dotSHINI]

@MysteriousHonza

You let him yap, you will end up with unhistorical nerfs to typhoon and i bet rafale too.

nup, because u dont need to convince him. gunjob and flame have everything gathered and believe that special class guy and gunjob take a guess which ones informations gonna reach and be prefered by gajin.
even this part shows it nicely

i wouldnt worry about gibberish of those guys and just trust gunjob, because i propably wont let it stand if the typhoons in a bad situation

[Morvran]

Yep, thankfully the National Archives contains plenty of info for the Typhoon. Not so much on the Gripen

[MysteriousHonza]

Its a shame because now, its high alt performance is outright meme, barely gets to 1.4 with 6 missiles and then if you even touch the stick, it bleeds energy like crazy.

[Morvran]

Yeah, and its not just FM, BOL, MAWS, Centre line A2G. They really didnt like another nation being better at top tier air

[MysteriousHonza]

@Morvran

BOL, MAWS, Centre line A2G. They really didnt like another nation being

I pray for bol fix this patch… gripen is bearable as you can run 500 chaffs on it but on typhoon, you will have like half of them in decent flare/chaff setup and they wont ever add towed decoy.
Imagine russian and US mains having their missiles ignoring plane 2 times because of decoy, and thats counting with them being always destroyed by missile hits which is something i highly doubt is possible irl in combination with chaffing.

[MiG_23M]

@Morvran

And interesring that the f22 can supercruise at Mach 1.7 at sea level when it’s max speed at sea level is Mach 1.2

I didn’t say anything about sea level, you can’t fight my argument by putting words in my mouth. Your entire counter must be more substantial than “nuh uh”.

@MysteriousHonza

Yeah… by not arguing and burrying him under tons of facts, will result in fabricated voodoo math, claims and comparisons to totally unrelated airframes with aim of fabricated nerfs of anything of european origin

You’re welcome for buffs to M2K and Gripen ig

@MysteriousHonza

Gripen was nice example. He compared it to 2000C and Viggen, making his claims on HORNET engine (which is substantially changed in gripen on top of its dragless design) AND flight performance of two totally different designs with bogus math, resulting in questionable nerfs (energy retention nerf was fine, anything beyond that was pure fiction of his and devs somehow trusting it). Due to his doing, it barely gets up to speed up high and it literally drops all of it within 45° turn.

This paragraph is a fiction

@MysteriousHonza

Its a shame because now, its high alt performance is outright meme, barely gets to 1.4 with 6 missiles

In reality the aircraft tops out at 1.4 mach with four missiles and a drop tank so this isn’t unrealistic to be honest, and the thrust curve was extrapolated from an engine with identical core and then modulated to give the aircraft correct acceleration time in both sea level and altitude scenarios so I’d say it’s about as accurate as it can get until gaijin models the relaxed stability. This will also be something not correctly modeled on the Typhoon - the stability.

[Morvran]

@MiG_23M

I didn’t say anything about sea level, you can’t fight my argument by putting words in my mouth. Your entire counter must be more substantial than “nuh uh”.

You stated that the Typhoon can only likely supercruise at 36k+ ft in such a manner that hinted at that being a negative exclusive to the Typhoon and that EVERYTHING else can supercruise at any altitude. I asked “can the F-22 supercruise at sea-level” and you respond with “Yes, it can exceed mach 1.7 in supercruise handidly”

So for someone who accuses people of "not reading comments properly, you really need to start reading comments properly

[MiG_23M]

@Morvran

You stated that the Typhoon can only likely supercruise at 36k+ ft in such a manner that hinted at that being a negative exclusive to the Typhoon and that EVERYTHING else can supercruise at any altitude.

No, you simply ignored what I said and then decided to try and stuff words in my mouth after hitting us with a “nuh uh”. Responding to opinions that you pretend to be mine is no way to continue a discussion.

This has been a matter of fact discussion on what gives low bypass turbofans good efficiency in supercruise conditions and the EJ200 is simply not well optimized for this. I’ve stated multiple times that the Eurofighter is known to supercruise at 36,000 feet. We know it can go from subsonic to supersonic in dry setting. These are facts supported by proper documentation. My argument has been that the aircraft will not be doing so as fuel efficiently as its’ peers and likely considerably reducing the lifespan of the engine in comparison when doing so.

This is not really a concern for the game, it is just something I was invited here to discuss by Flame so as not to derail another thread. The mob of players who are coming here to slander me is what got your thread locked last time. I’m trying to make an honest point and discussion but this is difficult when a dozen people who do not understand the topic at hand are putting forth their opinions on my character. and posting nonsense memes.

In any other thread, this nonsense gibberish from those offering no real substance to the conversation is cleaned up and people are warned but this has not happened here. I’m afraid the staff tends to let it go on far too long and it winds up becoming a larger issue and the threads end up locked like they did the last time.

[Mytho-GR1]

@MiG_23M

In any other thread, this nonsense gibberish from those offering no real substance to the conversation is cleaned up and people are warned but this has not happened here. I’m afraid the staff tends to let it go on far too long and it winds up becoming a larger issue and the threads end up locked like they did the last time.

The irony of everything you say

Your points have been disproven and yet you keep going on and then try to gaslight people as well. You act like you are the reasonable one but we have seen how you talk in other places and you are far from reasonable. Like how you are banned from that server that leaks everything for that reason

[MiG_23M]

I’m banned from a discord server therefore my argument is disproven? Can you show me ANY proof that the Eurofighter can supercruise efficiently at 1.5 mach? My argument is that the EJ200 is not optimized for efficient flight in dry & supersonic conditions. This is supported quite well and no one thus far has made any effort to prove otherwise. Please, if you’re going to waste your time responding at least address the subject at hand instead of attacking my character. You’re doing yourself a disservice.

[Jεcka]

@MiG_23M

This is supported quite well

Surely if it’s supported “quite well”, then you will be able to show evidence of that… unless of course, like always, you don’t actually have any proof of your words other than “because I said so” and “trust me bro”.

[MiG_23M]

Look at my replies to Flame2512, I did support it

[Markus752]

Honestly you have proven just as much as the other side.

You go by a single data point and conclude it’s not efficient. You don’t know what the engine is capable of and what performance it has in reality.

A high fan pressure is also beneficial to the ability to super cruise and the EJ200 has among the highest there is.

I appreciate the discussions you have and you seem to add a lot of useful sources to the mix, sometimes you just seem to be too sure of things you shouldn’t be able to accurately estimate.

You can make educated guesses but in the end, if you follow your comments up to this point you have changed your mind multiple times from

“The Eurofighter can’t super cruise at all”

to

“The Eurofighter needs it’s afterburner to reach supersonic speed and can then super cruise”

to

“The Eurofighter can super cruise but is doing this inefficiently”

It’s just hard to follow because you seem very adamant about what you think about the engine and it’s performance, yet you do seem to be able to be persuaded when you get enough evidence.

I just don’t know why you think that a lower bypass ratio is the be-all-end-all requirement for efficient supercruise… Fan pressure itself also has a very big impact if I understand it correctly and the 0.4 bypass value is still rather low.

It might not be able to supercruise as efficiently as the Raptor, but that not the same as being inefficient.

A lightweight, small engine petrol car will consume little fuel and is by definition very efficient in fuel consumption but it obviously wouldn’t beat a specifically designed low consumption car like the VW XL1 for example.

The Eurofighter has other advantages over the Raptor, and it’s design didn’t put as much focus on supercruise as the Raptor did.

[Firestarter]

I hate the BOL nerf.

Because they applied it to everything that has BOL. So Harrier II and SHAR (with their stupidly high IR signature despite there being accounts of it being impossible to lock one from the top aspect) get gimped. Tornado F.3 gets gimped.

[MiG_23M]

@Markus752

You go by a single data point and conclude it’s not efficient. You don’t know what the engine is capable of and what performance it has in reality.

I’m not using a single datapoint, rather just looking at the characteristics of the engine as a whole it is not conducive to supercruise as the peers. That was the entire point of my breakdown.

Larger bypass ratio like 0.4 as opposed to 0.3 or lower will have higher drag, less mass flow through core, worse cooling, slower exhaust velocity and worse SFC running dry at high mach numbers.

@Markus752

A high fan pressure is also beneficial to the ability to super cruise and the EJ200 has among the highest there is.

Pressure ratio is good for maintaining high thrust output and mass flow through core but comes at cost of increased temperatures. The study I linked discusses next generation engines and shows that with conventional low bypass turbofans with a ratio around 0.4, temps required for supercruise up to 1.35M were ~2000K+ which is the upper limit for the Eurofighter. A temp rating higher than 2150 was required for supercruise up to 1.5 mach and these are the upper limits, not the efficient range.

By comparison, the F119 pushes the F-22, a much draggier airframe, up to 1.7+ mach and the efficient range is lower at 1.5 mach.

@Markus752

“The Eurofighter can’t super cruise at all”

Yes, when I was shown materials that didn’t support my position… my position changed. That’s how good discussion goes. Could we be respectful of that? I don’t suppose you’re omniscient by any chance?

@Markus752

“The Eurofighter needs it’s afterburner to reach supersonic speed and can then super cruise”

I stated with that source that it is likely doing so simply to arrive at the speed quicker and that hypothesis was confirmed with a source from Flame, but once again you want to skew what I said to fit your opinion of me. This is not good discussion practice as I’ve stated a million times now.

@Markus752

“The Eurofighter can super cruise but is doing this inefficiently”

The point of supercruise is to cruise while supersonic - that implies efficiency. If the Eurofighter cannot do so efficiently, why is it described as supercruise? Is it just propaganda? If no one questions these claims or tries to find evidence to support them all we are doing is echoing propaganda. I get that it is an arcade game but for the sake of discussion and understanding why is it villainous to question the almighty God of storms?