to clarify 43lbs is slightly less than 20kg, implying that they can’t develop an engine that produces ~195N of thrust is funny
3 Likes
It is funny considering the mock-up they showed is 1/1 scale GE-110-29 engine that is used on their F-16’s.
Keep in mind 110-132 an engine that is successor of 29 could achieve 33k lbs under optimal conditions.
Somehow Turkey managed to modify their GE engines to achieve same thrust that F-35’s PW engines produce? I wonder why USA couldn’t achieve the same thing with their GE engines considering they are the one who invented in the first place.
Stupid USA engineers/s.
2 Likes
At least China actually produce their domestic engines and use them on their jets, not to mention those WS-10 engines achieve similiar results that Russian Al series can and their numbers are publicly available.
Meanwhile Turkey suddenly comes out, show us a GE-110-29 engine mockup and claims it can produce almost double amount of thrust that original engine can while having no concrete data, bench thrust figures or actual tests on airframe.
2 Likes
Playing devils advocate - they may well have. It’s just that the engine maybe didn’t survive the experience…
After all, it’s fairly easy to dump vast quantities of fuel into a jet pipe and blast it out the back - we call them rockets. It is less easy to make an engine that can deliver lots of thrust, sustained, without bits of it blowing out the back in the process.
2 Likes
Issue isn’t achieving those thrust for single burst, its about achieving same figures while bein sustainable.
I’m pretty sure current engines on our fighters could produce much higher thrust values in exchange for single use, that doesn’t mean its realisticly achievable tho.
3 Likes
you forgot to include the “k” in “43k lbf” implying that they can’t make a jet with enough thrust to lift a small child
1 Like
Turkey surely claims it has GTA6 in its basement, trust.
1 Like
Real
Unless you’re act different or having bad faith you should be able to understand the figures what I’m talking about.
i thought “:p” would have been enough of a clue that im just poking a little fun
2 Likes
My bad then, didn’t noticed.
1 Like
Regarding the Meteor: have any sources been found that allow us to estimate the booster’s Δv or cruise speed? How good is its cruise performance supposed to be — around Mach 3.7? Mach 4?
In general, faster is better, of course, but if it uses the sustainer to gradually build up speed, it feels like that might not be especially effective within this game’s combat ranges.
1 Like
If I recall correctly, the only known figure is that it can do 100km in 90 seconds.
Remember, the core strength isnt necessarily its top speed, but rather the fact it maintains that speed over a considerably longer distance.
Yes, that is true. However, the Meteor should fundamentally still have the same seeker activation distance as other ARH missiles — around 20 km, correct? If so, then at engagement ranges of roughly 30 km, without strong acceleration performance, the target would end up with a longer evasion window compared to other ARH missiles. That seems to imply the missile could become relatively vulnerable.
What I am concerned about is the possibility of it ending up with a speed profile similar to the AIM-54A shown in the chart below. Sustained speed retention is certainly important, but acceleration performance may be just as important — if not even more so.
I could be wrong, but I would suspect Meteor would look a little like that in yellow
Yeah, In War Thunder, its max range is heavily mitigated by how simple it will probably be to defeat using a notch, but its kinematic performance basically wont be changed. Something like AMRAAM is fairly easy to defeat when fired at 60km vs it fired at 15km. Meteor wont really matter what range its fired at, it will have the same kinematic performance.
I also hope its performance ends up being close to the yellow line. However, the R-77-1 achieves that level of acceleration while using almost the entire missile body as the booster section despite having nearly the same weight. Can the Meteor’s first-stage booster really achieve the same thing…?
I do want to be optimistic about it overall, but at the same time I am probably about half worried as well.
Im just assuming that at some point the Ramjet takes over and its acceleration is probably fairly reasonable
So maybe this would be more reasonable.
but would still be good.
Its shorter range performance probably wont be great, but hopefully by then we’ll have ASRAAM for that theatre so im not that concerned
The reason I’m like this right now is probably because I was just playing the Eurofighter earlier. The AMRAAM (C-5) feels so weak that it’s driving me insane. I really want something with GNSS guidance already, like the C-8 or the D variant.
Also, my radar has been acting up lately. For some reason, it stops maintaining the DL on enemies on the radar scope.
The best way to make C5s feel a lot better is to fire them high and fast.
Try and avoid launching below Mach 1.5 and if you can, fire as fast as you can. Also firing from 25k ft is also quite good (below contrail height, but as high as you can get)
Firing also when the missile is within the LSZ helps a lot though is still bugged
But yeah, GNSS would be great for the Typhoon’s Fox-3, though the Meteor isnt GNSS
We can guestimate the mass of propellent is probably circa 40-50kg due to it being constrained within the combustion chamber, it only needs to be enough to to accelerate the missile to >M2, given its employment range is >>100km, the expectation is likely that the launch a/c will be supersonic or close to it upon launch.
2 Likes