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.
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
Comparing rate at M0.9 and M0.65 is also not particularly useful…
1 Like
Of course you would, however a 1.5 deg/s loss from SL to 1500m is not possible.
You haven’t flown a tornado ;)
2 Likes
Also Mach 0.9 is a different speed to Mach 0.65.
You’re comparing apples to oranges
3 Likes
I’m seeing 18.2°/s sustained, compared to MOD PE of 18.5?
1 Like
This is with 71kN as I said above, attempting to match the performance setpoint with a thrust level. 104% would make it too high, 107% is accurate and it gets ~1deg/s (19.4) or greater (increasing with altitude) with that thrust setting.
So it’s 1deg/s higher, with equal thrust, could that be accounted for with aero improvements? Absolutely.
1 Like
I’m sure that potentially it could. But it could just as easily not be optimized for this and design changes could have been made to suit mass production and its service life. At the end of the day anyone can make wild guesses on how the values changed after this document was made, but those are not reasonable ways of assessing the aircraft’s performance.
Watch accel | Streamable 63s from 0.9-1.6 @ 11,000m on 107% THR compared to the estimated 80.4s. The EFA MOD PE is a 27% increase in acceleration time.
If you go off of the requirement vs the aircraft in afterburner the difference is bigger. Neither of these values resemble the in-game performance.
Iirc 106% is closest for accurate thrust. Also 2 amraam instead of the extra 2 9M’s, or is that just the UI.
1 Like
The closest value from the thrust reduction given in the document is 107%, and I cycle through my weapons groups halfway through the video…
You are comparing the aircraft in game to the 1987 performance estimates, it is a known fact that various refinements were made to the aerodynamic and engine design after 1987 in order to improve the aircraft’s performance. In addition it would appear that there is good reason to believe the finished Eurofighter design met the flight performance requirements. A more accurate approach would likely therefore be to compare the in game vehicle to the STR requirements (which based on the evidence were likely met) rather than the 1987 predicted values which are known to be outdated. And if you do that you will see that it is with a couple of exceptions it is either correct or under performing in game.
The 1987 estimates used an empty mass of 10,570 kg and 4,300 kg of fuel for a total empty mass + fuel of 14,870 kg. The Eurofighter in game has an empty mass of 11,220 kg (no idea where Gaijin got that number from), so it requires 3,650 kg of fuel to have the same empty mass + fuel of 14,870 kg.
The 1987 estimates used a static thrust of 82,132 N (8,375 kgf) per engine, channel losses were then applied on top of that figure. We don’t know what the real channel losses were so we’ll just have to run with what Gaijin’s given us. The uninstalled thrust of the finished EJ200 is 90,000 N (9,177 kgf); in game the installed static thrust of each engine is 8,645 kgf giving a channel loss of about 5.8%. If we apply a 5.8% reduce to 8,375 kgf we get a thrust of 7,889 kgf stationary at sea level; the closest I could get to that in game is 106% throttle.
So as far as I can see the closest we can get to the conditions of the 1987 estimates in game are as follows. And as such I’ll use these for my testing:
- Fuel mass: 3,650 kg
- Throttle: 106%
- Loadout: 2 x AIM-9, 2 x AMRAAM, 150 rounds of ammo
The results are as follows:
| Condition | 1987 Estimated Time (s) | Time measured in game (s) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 200 KEAS to Mach 0.9 @ 6,096 m | 28.7 | 25.6 | 10.8% |
| Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.6 @ 11,000 m | 80.4 | 69.6 | 13.4% |
So I agree that compared to the 1987 estimates the Eurofighter is indeed over performing, but certainly not the sensationalised 30% and 45% you claim.
However especially regarding the 11,000 m results I would also consider a couple of other points:
- With the aircraft configured as above to match the 1987 estimates at Mach 1.6 @ 11,000 m the SEP (according to WTRTI) is less than the 1987 estimated value (fluctuating around 120-125 vs 137.1).
- With the aircraft configured as above to match the 1987 estimates the time from brake release to Mach 1.6 @ 11,000 m is worse than the 1987 estimates (160s vs 144s) if you follow a fairly typical RAF climb profile (constant speed 450 KIAS / Mach 0.9). Video
- At Mach 1.6 @ 11,000 m the sustained turn rate is within margin of error (5%) of the requirement.
- Gaijin have in the past stated that they do not adjust aircraft performance exactly near the tropopause
So it may be the case that the acceleration over-performing is a side effect of Gaijin trying to get the other performance figures to be about right in a region where the game engine limits the accuracy they can achieve.
10 Likes
You need to take your channel loss % from 86.3kN, the stationary thrust with the convergent divergent nozzles installed, as this penalty is also included in the PE. Using this number the correct thrust to test with is at 107%. Eurofighter Typhoon (UK versions) - Technical data and discussion (Part 1) - #7833 by piiot
If you use the correct power setting, it overperforms at all altitudes against this metric.
The SEP being marginally too low at end of the speed range (and in the tropopause) does not preclude it being too high in other regimes, essentially it accelerates too fast at low speed, but marginally too slow at high speed given its acceleration in-game.
You can meet the time to climb benchmark with time to spare if you climb faster than 0.9M, choosing a suboptimal climb profile used for noise abatement and to make efficient use of airspace makes no sense against this benchmark.
Its STR compared to the requirement is not relevant for anything other than the MIL thrust STR at 0.9M/1500m. It overperforms against any required STR at altitude regardless, its not specific to one point. When comparing STR to the PE, it only matches at 103% throttle, meaning that any “aerodynamic improvements” would have to remove 7-8kN of induced drag on the aircraft, which is not possible.
Reports have been made accepted and implemented for the EF2000 to have it gain supercruise performance at 11,000m, saying that they dont adjust performance in the tropopause is outright false.
You cannot simply hand wave the PE because it is from 1987 when there is simply no newer data to base anything off of, ESR-D is even older and is is unclear what the “contractual requirements” even are, its more than likely those are the “key requirements” as seen in the GAO, which do not include most of the ESR-D’s long list of point performance and other equipment specs. There are also other ways in which the EF never met the ESR-Ds strict requirements that arent outlined in GAO, which should go to show that using ESR-D is a bad metric.
Also I’m not sure if you understood 45% @11,000m /30% @ 6000m correctly, thats for the aircraft at 110% vs ESR-D figures for acceleration. Against the performance estimate the difference is smaller, but still consistent across the board. There isn’t a factual basis for the aircraft performing better than both the PE and ESR-D, the only way to justify this is with heavy amounts of guesses and assumptions.
1 Like
Some screenshots of Moggy in-game
Also as a bonus I spent a stupid amount of time trying to re-create the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight in Mission Editor to fly with Moggy. (Spent around 6 hours trying to get the stupid AI to follow the waypoint, then a further 2 hours trying to get them to fly in a formation but that seems to have been a hard limit so I gave up on that part.)
5 Likes
Hi @Smin1080p_WT hope you’re doing well, as you mentioned a few days ago, I put together a good report with evidence and an explanation of the issue so the devs can take a look. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks!
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Bab8bHrFYN8n
Honestly, I think this is the problem of all HMD capable aircraft, Rafale also suffer from this, Gripen too, the only HMD I think that’s pretty reliable was unironically Soviet.