Close, diffrente time + lacks IRIS-T and METEOR… but apart from them, close…
1 Like
thats just the thrust curve the EF and Rafale have ingame
but good luck explaining that it shouldnt drop below static thrust
his point is that engines should always have atleast their static thrust
In simple terms:
static thrust is achived by the engine itself sucking air in and useing that to generate thrust,
it is more or less impossible gicing a engine less air unless you are flying backwards or something stupid like that.
so it dosent make any sene for both the eurofighter and rafale to have speeds where they generate less than static thrust
2 Likes
“so it dosent make any sene for both the eurofighter and rafale to have speeds where they generate less than static thrust” every other jet powered plane in the game has areas where they make less than static thrust what are you talking about
That is a misconception that gets covered early on in aeronautical engineering class. The equation for the thrust of a jet engine relies (among other things) on the difference between the speed of the air exiting the engine and the speed of the air entering the engine. As a result (in the absence of ram effect) the thrust produced by an engine decreases as speed increases, eventually all the way down to zero thrust.
Now as you alluded to when an aircraft is flying, the forward movement of the aircraft compresses the air in the intake, which helps balance out the thrust loss due to increased speed and is known as ram effect (or various similar names). However the ram effect usually only starts to impact things in a meaningful way at speeds of around 300 kts, and you usually have to get to speeds of around 500 kts before ram effect completely cancels out losses due to speed and gives you a net thrust increase. Hence engine thrust curves often look something vaguely like this (thrust initially decreases with speed, then starts increasing, then exceeds static):
It should be noted however that the design of the engine / intake heavily impact the ram effect. For example these are real thrust curves for non-afterburning versions of the Rolls Royce Adour engine (taken from the Rolls Royce sales Brochure). You can see that both engines are impacted by Ram Effect in noticeably different ways, and that in this case neither engine manages to exceed static thrust.
So yes it is expected that there will be speeds where jet engines produce less thrust than they do static. If you know how to make a jet engine which always produces more thrust when moving than it does when static then I suggest you file a patent pronto.
13 Likes
Proper way to test if AOA negatively impacts the jets tbrust in-game would be to take a snapshot of the thrust at a given speed, and once again at the exact same speed but during a turn.
I’m not at my PC for a while tho, so I cant test it out myself.
1 Like
Altitude also has a very noticeable impact on thrust, so you need that to be the same too.
2 Likes
Yeah sorry, figured that was a given
1 Like
I don’t know but if I am looking at the graph isn’t it weird that the Rafale has that little drag at high supersonic speeds?
The Eurofighter has quite a bit more thrust than the Rafale and this graph seems to indicate (to me at least) that the Eurofighter has roughly 25% more drag at VNE of the Rafale. That gap keeps widening as well.
Is there any knowledge of how much more drag the Eurofighter has compared to the Rafale?
25% seems an awful lot to me for a design so similar and from the same time period. On the other hand, aerodynamics are no joke and even the smallest things can have a big impact, so this might be accurate.
Although I still don’t get how the Eurofighter can’t supercruise at M1.5 “Because it would need too little drag which is unrealistic” and then the Rafale seems to have 25% less drag than the Eurofighter :D
2 Likes
Both jets are roughly the same size in length, wingspan, and height, the EFT is a bit over 1000kg heavier empty weight, and the EFT has the more swept wing (53° vs 48°) so Id actually assume the EFT should have lower drag than the Rafale, particularly at supersonic speed, but maybe im wrong.
Afaik, gaijin doesnt have any aftual drag numbers for the EFT or the Rafalr tho, they base their drag numbers on the stated static thrust of the engines, gave them an arbitrary thrust curve (the raf now uses a real sourced thrust curve), and likely based the drag on what they thought made the performance match some sources.
Atm the “best” EFT sources we have are from the ESR-D specification, which are the bare minimum the EFT needed to achieve to be accepted (to my understanding), so its possible that its drag is too high, that its thrust curve is wrong, or both.
At worst case scenario both jets should have similar drag ratios.
What bothers me is that new limited pull capabilities, now I’m happy that my EFT’s doesn’t break their wings when turning around but with A2G ordinances it pulls way less than it should be.
I mean, theres a few reasons that the EFT could have higher drag than the Rafale, I just dont see why it would have substantially more drag if it did considering their similar sizes and layouts.
The thing is they don’t I looked at a few thrust curves relevant for top tier and only the EF and Rafale had those “valleys” in their thrust curve.
I looked at:
- F-15e
- F-16a
- F-18C late
- Su-27Sm
- J-10
And none of those jets have speeds where they produce less than static thrust
Iam going to look at a few more later but rn, it seems like the EF and Rafale are the only ones that have that valley in their thrust curve
1 Like
Gripen may also be similar, but honestly my main issue is the delay in acceleration when you level out from a high G turn which first brought my attention to it.
I have not been able to replicate this on anything other than the typhoon and the old flight model for the Javelin.
Intake cross section and the angle limits for the intake ramps are not optimised for high supersonic speeds.
Big mouth when traveling fast catching too much air.
The Rafael intakes are better optimised for high supersonic speeds, which is a result of not needing larger intakes for the smaller engines, but those engines cannot carry it to the speeds where it would matter.
Same thing for the FGR2 vs F4E
Same airframe with emphasized textmore powerful engines resulted in a lower top speed due to additional drag caused by enlarging the intakes.
Do you have any proof of that? Cuz just about everything about the EFT is optimized for supersonic speeds.
Theres also the EFT aerodynamics paper that states its ability to provide air for the EJ200’s is very good even at high speeds, so I’m really not sure where your claim is coming from…
This entire statement is contradictory in design concept, its also seemingly false, since the Rafale is one of the rare jets in-game capable of ripping in level flight at 10km alt.
Im not expert on the Spey engines but im 99.999% sure the engines themselves are optimized for low alt, which is why its top speed is lower (since your top speed is reached at high alt) and why nobody else wanted the engines. This is not the case for the EJ200 or the EFT, every source ive seen discussing its capabilities varying by altitude state it to be stellar at high altitude, retaining much more of its performance when compared to other 4th gen jets. Theyre pilot comments, so inadmissible for bug reports, but still worth mentionning.
1 Like
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
1 Like
To avoid taking the other thread off topic
We definetly need these as an alternative to FnF Brimstones if the KH-38 remains
1 Like