Oh damn ok, it did seem a bit weird that it was obscured.
It’s classified for public release
hey what do you guys think of this?
1 Like
It’s a very good engine
1 Like
i converted the engine cycles to flight hours for original early 80’s F100-PW-220
honestly i am a bit shocked, EJ200 supposed to be super reliable and long lived
The time between overhauls is dependent on so many variables. Like the load on each compressor- and turbineblade, temperatures, etc. so you could build a much more inefficient engine which has less compression ratio, less RPM, less combustion temperature but a much higher time between overhauls as the load on all components is less.
The power rating of the EJ200 is, compared to other engines (weight and size), at the upper end of so it doesn’t really suprise me that they have shorter timespans between overhauls. The load on all components is just that high.
Comparison:
F100-200:
Compression ratio of 24:1 with a 88 cm inlet with 3 + 10 compressor stages and 2 + 2 turbine stages with a turbine inlet temperature of less than 1620 K (the 229 has 1620 K so I assume the 200 has less).
EJ200:
Compression ratio of 26:1 with a 74 cm inlet with 3 + 5 compressor stages and 1 + 1 turbine stages with a turbine inlet temperature of ~1800 K.
How?
The F100 paper specifies “depot level” overhauls, while the EJ200 article specifies “any” overhaul. Is that distinction worthy of note?
yeah having a smaller engine running hotter is what i thought as well.
just that ive seen exceptional reliability/life etc. etc. said a bit when talking about EJ200 when clearly it isnt really the case
Meh, to me it seems reasonable, the engine was designed for a 6000 hour lifespan, which is 30 years of operation according to MTU, so a major overhaul every 10 years.
used this to convert since it has years/hours and years/cycles
also the EJ200 thing says “major overhaul” so maybe you should make that distinction
The question is: Compared to what? An old or a comparably modern engine (F119/F135)? The thorttled version of the EJ200 (60/90 kN) or the unthrottled variant (69/95 kN)?
well the article compares it to commerical engines
That is a very flawed methodology. There is no good way to compare TACs to flight hours because the number of TACs consumed per flight hour varies MASSIVELY depending on the type of flying being conducted.
And you can’t use servicing intervals to compare TACs to hours because some tasks need doing depending on engine run time and others depending on the cycles. Hence you never see that table directly compared TACs to hours.
1 Like
fair enough, do you have cycles for the EJ200 then?
I’ve been looking but not found anything yet. Off to bed now.
1 Like
The GNSS report was from more than 5 months ago …
(I did later add the brochure as additional evidence though)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/VmDVm6m2gZxP
1 Like
Its maximum range against vehicles is 20km in the game, but in practice you get like 2/3 of that …
Anyways, I think they should at least add Brimstone 2 SAL, though mmW would also be fine IMO
The question is. Will we get either?
The community seems to be entirely against aircraft getting a single bug fix. All the people in the BOL Thread with lines like “CAS must suffer” is rather funny, but also really sad. Let alone even mention of A2G buffs
Likewise, we’ll have to wait and see if we even get Aim-120C5s. The Typhoon might be about to officially become the second weakest 14.0 in the game, maybe even the weakest if PL-12 and AAM-4 get buffed
One of these things is not like the others…
Spoiler
Yes, while I am fairly certain as to what the paper is referring to, that is certainly a unique phrase to describe premature failure.
1 Like
Here I could be wrong, but I don’t think it’s really nessecary to state a fixed number of cycles for the EJ200 as this engine has a rather extreme amount of sensors built in and a control unit which monitors all engine parameters in realtime and in turn calculates the wear of the components. So only if a certain value of one or multiple parameters is reached, maintenance or an overhaul is nessecary. It even records the history of that said engine from environment parameters over g-forces to engine settings. This would be called “predictive maintenance” and is dependent on the actual wear the engine was submitted to and not some fixed expected numbers like cycles or flight hours for “this type of engine”.