Eurofighter Typhoon (UK versions) - Technical data and discussion (Part 2)

[kensai16]

@vizender

For example, the EFT uses bigger, heavier engines. It also needs leads to added weight for the structure to support those engines. Plus, as you said, the EFT is also bigger than the rafale in all 3 dimensions, so the weight/scale ratio increases at the cube of the size difference.

The engines are only 100 kg heavier for 1/1,5 tons more thrust. (EJ200 → ~1.000 kg, M88 → 897 kg).
Ironically the Rafale is higher than the EF even if the Rafale is built for carrier hangars where height usually is a problem. And the dimensions are not that different (the EF is 0,69 m longer, 0,15 m wider and 0,06 m lower with 4,3 m² more wing surface).

@vizender

Edit 2 : it seems you are comparing the rapetitiln of composite per weight for the rafale (30% of carbon composite), to the equivalent surface of composite of the EFT (82%). If you want better comparaison the rafale has 75% of its surfaces made of carbon composite, which makes the comparaison drastically different

I (think I) used the composite usage by weight and not by surface. The Rafale portion I took from here:

75 % de la surface “mouillée” du Rafale est en matériaux composites. Ils représentent 1000 kg, soit 30 % de la masse de la cellule ", rappelle Jean-Michel Estrade.

75% of the Rafale’s “wet” surface is made of composite materials. They represent 1,000 kg, or 30% of the airframe’s mass," recalls Jean-Michel Estrade.

I interpret this as 30% mass portion for composites for the airframe.

[vizender]

@kensai16

The engines are only 100 kg heavier for 1/1,5 tons more thrust. (EJ200 → ~1.000 kg, M88 → 897 kg).

So, 200kg for both engines, and a structure that needs to support those 1.5 tons of increased thrust.

@kensai16

(the EF is 0,69 m longer, 0,15 m wider and 0,06 m lower with 4,3 m² more wing surface)

Which makes the aircraft overall much heavier. ~70cm longer is still quite significant. Plus the wing area means worse wing loading at high G which also needs heavier structure to hold everything.

@kensai16

think I) used the composite usage by weight and not by surface. The Rafale portion I took from

Yes, but it’s impossible for the EFT to have 80+% mass of composite. You are most likely referring to surface area, in which case you need to use the same metric for the rafale. This would be 75% of the area of the rafale being composites. This is much more in line with the EFT

[ShOt_MaCkEr]

It’s pretty simple, Eurofighter is carrying the weight of being the sexiest top tier aircraft + the sheer mass of all the nerfs they needed to hit it with to let everyone else win sometimes.

[ron_23]

@Morvran

The Typhoon is 225kg too heavy

Trust me it isnt

[Morvran]

@kensai16

Where is all this weight of the EF coming from if it’s nearly 2 tons heavier than the Rafale (11,220 kg vs 9,481 kg)? It’s either the modules integrated into the EF are that much heavier, the Rafale is way too light or the EF weight is stated way too heavy. Something doesn’t add up here in my opinion

I agree. Rafale is almsot certainly should be heavier. Most sources state 10 tons including the mnaufactorer, So its probably 500 kg too light.

[Mytho-GR1]

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/D32jwFfYLKDZ

Sources say it is 11,000 kg Gajin say other wise

3 Brochures and a data sheet

[ron_23]

i have a source that more likely than not, cant be posted here

hence why i said:

@ron_23

Trust me it isnt

[ShOt_MaCkEr]

Jarvis, summon feds at this guy’s porch.

[Morvran]

Well, with that source not an option, all remaining sources state 11’000kg. therefore it should be set to 11’000kg.

Not the current 11’250 kg? that they either used classified sources for or made up.

[Mytho-GR1]

Da7 isn’t a production aircraft

[Morvran]

And there is that as well

[kizvy]

Low key it makes sense that the prototypes would be heavier than the production variant as the prototypes would have to test a lot of various subsystems and weapons and such that wouldn’t be on the final product

[ShOt_MaCkEr]

Plus additional sensors + not streamlined design for some parts

[ron_23]

there isnt only the DA.7 manual out there, there are ones closer to production aircrafts

i just sent the DA.7 gif bc i had it on hand

[Flame2512]

@ron_23

All I will say is that the empty weight listed in certain documents includes things that the empty weight in game does not include. And I strongly suspect that if you properly account for those factors, you will find out that the empty mass in the your document actually shows the aircraft to be too heavy in game.

[ron_23]

@Flame2512

you will find out that the empty mass in the your document actually shows the aircraft to be too heavy in game

no not really

[Morvran]

What does that prove?

[ron_23]

flame seems to have the neccessary context that cant be posted here

@Morvran

What does that prove?

also that the EFs true ingame empty weight is 11340kg

[Morvran]

and Flame has multiple sources for it too be 340kg lighter

[ron_23]

and there are at least 2 sources which cant be posted here, that say the current weight is correct

i wonder which of the sources might be more correct