@Flame2512 Have you figured out a way to make sense of the EF2000 in-game only matching the EFA MOD PE estimate with 71kN? Eurofighter Typhoon (UK versions) - Technical data and discussion (Part 1) - #7833 by piiot
And doing 30% better in acceleration than both the performance estimate and the requirement?
Just for clarification.
You have been testing the STR of the EF with less trust because in one of the few, if not the only, available documents about its flight performance it used the engines from the Tornado?
Would every engine mounted in the airframe, with the same nozle, have the same percentage of channel loss?
dont worry the F-15E is just hypersonic obviously
Added to the report. Thank you
The EFA MOD PE uses a lower thrust value on EJ-200s. It is data that was predicted using modelling methods and wind tunnel testing. It has nothing to do with RB.199s, this is a misconception.
The only way to match the performance in-game is to significantly reduce thrust, past what the PE calls for.
You can match the STR setpoint if you reduce thrust to 71kN, which coincidentally happens to be similar thrust to RB.199s. You should be able to match the STR at 78-80kN, with the most generous interpretation of the document. This just means that it is flat out over performing.
I’m confused how you are getting such high values/expectations for the STR, it’s been tested and is a mix of slightly overperforming and underperforming compared to the requirements.
Feel free to test it yourself, it is not underperforming against the performance estimate for any value.
Why are you comparing to the performance estimate. The aircraft design changed from the point those (NUMERICAL) estimations took place.
Using the requirements across the board makes even less sense, the only document to support that some of the point performance requirements were met is this:
Which as you know only specifies that it met “key requirements”. The STR in AB is not listed as a key requirement and cannot be verified.
Additionally subsequent references to EF2000 in other manufacturer material has point performance that is far below the 20deg/s requirement of ESR-D.
ITP
It is worth noting that ESR-D is just numbers on a page from almost a decade before the aircraft first took flight, they aren’t an estimate of its performance and don’t outline the aircrafts actual anything. That said, the aircraft still overperforms against them, by 30-45%
What is reheat
A British term for “Afterburner”
What configuration is this table?
When has peak sustained rate ever been near Mach 1 and > 9G’s.
I think a better question to ask is how do you know that it isn’t? There is no available data to answer this question either way. The requirement is not an outline of the aircraft’s complete performance.
Why are you testing at 110% throttle, of course it performs better when it has 86kn engines(with CL), compared to 77.5Kn(with CL), that’s 17Kn in total which is huge in terms of excess thrust…
I am not, you can match the PE STR point performance with 71kN.
The acceleration tests can be taken at full throttle to compare against ESR-D or at partial thrust to compare against MOD PE, and they are both much higher.
If you test with equal thrust, you get an acceleration of ≈70s to mach 1.6, which compares to 80s of the MOD PE… which is a far fetch from your claims of 45%. You could then argue that aerodynamic changes and numerical vs flight data can account for most of this.
I have a shocking revelation for you: 1,500 m altitude is in fact a different altitude to sea level, and you would expect STR to be lower at higher altitudes.
Comparing rate at M0.9 and M0.65 is also not particularly useful…
Of course you would, however a 1.5 deg/s loss from SL to 1500m is not possible.