Truly a bruh moment.
@MythicPi have you tried toggling the engine off and on again when on the runway, the start-up sounds awesome.
I dont use the dev, i tend to wait for the live server, since i dont bug report anymore, happy to hear it sounds nice tho!
1 Like
Thank you for the reply.
The thing that I find interesting is that the only bug reports that you have decided to link to are ones that show that it is underperforming. What about the bug reports that show that it is overperforming? Don’t you think that it being off of the claimed time-to-climb by 30 seconds to be a bit optimistic?
1 Like
The idea that these two turbofans share similar thrust curves is entirely absurd. The idea that thrust does not drop off until 2.2 mach is also absurd. What is this source?
Additionally, the “full AB thrust” indicates 30k lb-f when nearly every source indicates 20,200 lb-f uninstalled. Installed thrust losses would not amount to 5,000 lb-f per engine and 30,000 lb-f is far too high for a single engine. So what is it saying? Complete nonsense.
The same can be said for the Rafale’s M88, which produces 16,900 lb-f uninstalled. Installed thrust would be less, not more. This chart states 25k lb-f, which if combined would be short nearly 9k lb-f and we know that intake losses would not amount to 3,500 lb-f per engine. It is also clearly far too much thrust to be discussing the performance of a single engine. Make believe data.
Do you know what targets under which conditions this is for? I don’t think we will be able to report anything, unless we can give them the target plane, altitude, speed, power, and aspect.
The only reports i’ve seen so far are the ones ive seen linked in this thread, the German Typoon bug list or ones i’ve seen Flame submit via his profile
In fact, after a quick look through the bug reports for it on the website, I dont see any bug reports to nerf it . Heck, just found this one yet to be passed:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/75Meg57oyRDW
There is a report regarding overperforming acceleration which was closed as not a bug with the dev comment of:
The current FM of the Typhoon on dev server has not yet been configured correctly. As such, its performance is not accurate or representative at this time.
Now what changes this will entail will remain to be seen, but given the FGR4 and F-2000 dont even have the right names for the engines, im not surprised.
Now I do reckon the acceleration on reheat is too high, but not dramatically so.
Again, it states “under 2:30” not “it takes 2:30”. The time to climb should probably should have been around 2:10-2:15 I reckon, so thats only a marginal decrease in RoC needed.
This is the reason I am withholding my bug report for supercruise, unless someone beats me to it. I may be busy the following week or two.
As far as I am aware, Gunjob and Flame have given the Devs every scrap of Primary source data they have and the devs just havent finished implementing them yet. I doubt you’ll have much to report with wise to that and besides, Flame has already started to report it underperforming
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/uM50xadDrBYA
1 Like
The British and Italian Typhoon’s engines seem to have the name of the engine used on the Tornado. But I don’t know if the British and Italian Typhoon perform differently because of it.
Maybe the afterburning thrust is too high, but I don’t see anything substantial that needs to be changed in that regard.
I think its just a naming issue as well. As for thrust. I think AB might need dropping slightly but not by much, 5-10% tops and then dry thrust increasing
I see.
Someone reported that the Rafale’s empty weight is incorrect (heavier by approximately 900 kilograms ingame). So might be interesting to see how it performs in relation to the Eurofighter after both aircraft have been changed.
So you are saying that it accelerating to Mach 1 in half the time that is listed is not dramatic???
It’s current time to climb beats many of the current world records from 9000m - 15000m. It beats many of them by over 30 seconds. Do you find this improbable?
2 Likes
It also should be able to accelerate to Mach 1.5 without the use of reheat, but currently barely hits mach 1.
So its dry heat is also underperforming significantly and needs an increase of 50%.
So its thrust is all over the place
That did not answer the question.
It’s really odd to see a plane accelerating twice as fast as your own sources claim and think that it’s only off by a little bit.
So can the innermost Pylons on the left and right sides of Typhoon carry AAM? I checked Issue and found that the report on this problem has been Nab.
brakes off to 36k ft test
source:
“under 2 minutes 30 seconds”
expected:
2 minutes 30 seconds minus approx 15-20 seconds
result:
approx 2 minutes
So based upon that test, it climbs about 15 seconds too fast. That does not require a massive reduction in thrust to correct.
Unless you have a source for teh reheat thrust being significantly out or are just basing it on the fact the Typhoon is better than the Su-27?
1 Like
15 seconds from 200kts to Mach 1 currently.
Eurofighter accelerates twice as fast as it should from 200kts to Mach 1.
I don’t see how British mains will claim that this is a small difference.
2 Likes
Statshark SEP numbers are not really accurate in my experience. That is especially true with unstable airframes.