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

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
1895

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.

1896

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

5 Likes
1897

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.

1898

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”.

4 Likes
1899

Look at my replies to Flame2512, I did support it

1900

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.

16 Likes
1901

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.

8 Likes
1902

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

1903

Preflaring in the AV-8S
still can’t flare an Igla
please I just don’t want to die immediately to manpads

3 Likes
1904

I’m not seeing any hard sources, just “because I said so” and “because bypass ratio”, the latter of which is a non-argument, as it does not rebute anything that has been shown to you by Flame. You also change your mind on what the EFT can and cannot do almost on a whim (this isn’t even the first time that you claimed EFT cannot supercruise at all, you had done so before, in another thread - and there, just like here, you also “changed your mind” once showed evidence that it in fact can), as Markus has already mentioned; cannot supercruise - > needs AB to reach mach 1 - > can supercruise but can’t do so efficienctly. One doesn’t need to be addressed at all, the other two are nothing more but assumption borne out of a conviction that bypass ratio is an end-in-itself.

All in all, you don’t have any actual evidence EFT cannot supercruise “efficiently” from what I can see, you only have assumptions, and those are fine and all, but at the end of the day they’re just presumptions. So I’d suggest to find some hard evidence it cannot do so efficiently, or wait for people to release more data on the jet.

8 Likes
1905

a bypass ratio cannot tell you if an aircraft can supercruise or not, its used more to state where the engines optimal altitude is

For example, the JA37s optimal altitude is low down because its bypass is quite high

1906

So nothing can supercruise? By definition, supercruise is efficient. Being off reheat to go supersonic is never inefficient.

1 Like
1907

Yes, the discussion progressed from an incorrect thread to the correct one. My position was X because Y and I asked for info, info proved my position wrong so I adjusted and yet my hypothesis has not been answered. Bypass ratio is important as it is the core of the issue but it is affected by other factors. Most of these do not aid supercruise efficiency in the EJ200’s case.

It’s not just because I said so, there is information and studies already linked that support the conclusion I arrived at. What I’ve asked for is serious discussion with substance that aids either position and none has been posited by any of the hecklers.

I’ve provided substance from which that conclusion can be met, if you choose to ignore it that is entirely your own prerogative.

That has nothing to do with optimal altitude, the bypass ratio alone is irrelevant for such factors without considering the other mechanisms. I’ve considered all of the factors that aid efficient supercruise from the design standpoint. Exhaust velocity, how that affects fuel consumption, how the bypass ratio affects cooling capability, the temperature limits, the mass flow through the core, the size of the intake and it’s ability to slow air down. These are all factors that have been considered.

A larger bypass is not indicative of low altitude performance. The MiG-31 has a 1.0 or even up to 2.0+ bypass ratio and higher overall pressure ratio compared to the Viggen. It performs terribly at low altitude and exceptionally well in high altitude, high speed scenarios.

That isn’t true, it’s been postulated that it is actually more efficient for the eurocanards to use the burner to get up to speed and altitude faster to save fuel during acceleration before cutting back the burner. I just believe the efficient cruising speed for the Eurofighter is likely closer to the Su-35’s at mach 1.1-1.2 but if it wants to supercruise at 1.5 mach it would need to reach the limits of the engine in pressure/temperature and mass flow… and push itself outside the optimal efficiency range doing so.

1908

man you love just lying straight though your teeth

Guy it is pointless talking to him he will gas light and lie because he can’t back down from his point which is just wrong

5 Likes
1909

I think i missed that, where was that posted?

1910

@Mytho-GR1
Insulting Mig-23M because his perspective is hard to understand is not conducive to this conversation.
I haven’t seen a post of him pushing people to question their own “self” [sanity], he has not lied as he believes what he says. He has stated what he believes in a direct manner, and I for one have more questions despite probable disagreement.

@MiG_23M
It is in-general most efficient to run low burner for climbs and mild acceleration including into mach than full burn or full dry, unless you’re already within your preferred cruise speed range. This is for all aircraft of course; those that can supercruise and those that cruise below the sound barrier.

So why do you think that EJ200 is inefficient at mach 1.5?
Have you seen fuel flow at that speed and altitude vs a slower speed and same altitude, then compared endurance time to distance traveled?
That’d be the best way to determine fuel efficiency, but that’s not necessarily supercruise efficiency.

1911

Imagine how F-14 players feel with their ungodly IR signature…

1912

What would your response be to say Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH as well as Luftwaffe stating Eurofighter can supercruise?

2 Likes
1913

Well, they are wrong of course, they obviously dont know how their own jet performs.
The random guy on internet exposed all their lies of one of the features they sell it with.
Its all scam. In fact, eurofighter turns worse than F-4C.

2 Likes
1914

OH LORDY, I FORGOT THAT

Cause of course, the 14B has them too.

Jesus wept, that thing is even worse, it’s like God (or Northrop Grumman) strapped two portable suns to the back of the Tomcat. According to Gaijin (mind you, Northrop apparently had cold fusion technology for the F-5)

3 Likes