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

[MythicPi]

@Flame2512

Gaijin’s response was that they could not make it match the numbers claimed in the sources while using sensible numbers in the FM

Still not sure why people are just taking that response at face value. The EFT’s thrust curve in-game is pretty bad when compared to other jets at its BR.

It has much less thrust gain from speed than the F-15E and Su-30SM, and has similar thrust output to the Rafales M88-2’s despite having a much higher thrust irl (50/75kN vs 60/90kN) for example, and the curve flattens out at a lower speed as well:

There was an aerodynamics paper discussing the EFT’s inlet design capability to continue supplying required air to the engines at speed which showed the engines were more in the ballpark of the Su-27 (yes I know, now what i used here, has a similar curve to the Su-27 in-game) than that of contemporary american aircrafts at speed posted in this discussion thread as well (tho afaik, that didnt go anywhere).

Its pretty silly of gaijin to pretend they couldnt improve the thrust curve on the jet in a realistic manner when its one of the worse ones at its BR.

Gaijin just went “EFT designers suck at designing engines” and everyone just took them at face value without checking.

[piiot]

So I tried to explain this to you before, but I’ll try to go through it again. The channel losses as present in-game are not 5.8%. The convergent-divergent nozzle design lowers the thrust of the final EJ200, meaning that the channel losses come out to be smaller than 5.8%. This is just due to its inherent design, you are still just assuming that the final aircraft accomplished every design goal, and in reality it did not. Again, the only proof that specific point performance requirements were met is the GAO, vague statements made in reference to the requirements at various points in its development are not conclusive of anything.

The steps you used for weight and thrust are correct, you just applied the wrong channel loss.

We need to factor in the convergent-divergent nozzle in to find actual channel loss.
The least generous penalty would be the 2.7kN as given in the EFA MOD PE, and the most generous would be 0.9kN as given by ITP.
*It is important to note that we do not know the actual value they eventually came to, engine manufacturers really like rounding.

With a final thrust at 87.3kN/8902kgf CL would be 2.7%
With a final thrust at 89.1kN/9085kgf CL would be 4.8%

Spoiler

*worth also noting here that the 20,000lb used in every EJ200 brochure ever made is equiv to 9071kgf

Final installed MOD PE thrust:
Using the MOD PE value 8148kgf
Using the ITP value 7973kgf

107% THR is 16,002kgf, or 8001kgf, using 106% is simply too low for either estimate, and doesn’t give you a valid result for any measurement in-game. I’m not going to try to antagonize you back over it.

Using this power setting we get 138s of the predicted 144s for time to climb vid

As shown previously, 60s of 80.4s for 0.9M-1.6M @ 11000m
and 24s of 28s for 200kts-0.9M @ 6000m

And again, we need to lower the throttle to 103% (71kN) in order to match the STR, to put this into perspective it would be the equivalent of removing an entire He-162A @ 800kph of included drag, there comes a point where handwaving everything because a guy said there were “aerodynamic improvements” just doesn’t make sense.

This isn’t a 15kt max sep0 speed difference at 15,000m, its a clear trend across all speed ranges and altitudes. You would be hard pressed to find setpoints where it underperforms at all. As I said before you can’t reject the PE because it predicts aircraft performance that falls below the ESR-D, there is nothing to factually substantiate most of ESR-D even being used. As a kind of off topic example,

Spoiler

Requirements were “extremely demanding” in this case for example:

(little tangent but in a later revision they added a caveat for the afterburner itself being a visible signature which I find hilarious but back to the point)

Afterburner selection and deselection has a “visual signature” on the final aircraft
https://youtu.be/Jfk3BYOJON8?t=252
https://youtu.be/Jfk3BYOJON8?t=264

This is also included in the EJ200 brochure as you know, but you simply cannot assume that every requirement was met-especially when you see manufacturer claims that you can verify with your own eyes.

I hope this clears up some misconceptions, have a marvelous monday 😎

[piiot]

Gaijin tunes thrust along with drag to achieve point performance targets, channel loss and thrust curves are inconsistent across airframes. If thrust curves are available for an aircraft they’ll start with those and adjust drag accordingly, but if there isn’t or it isn’t clear the result is completely random.

[luque13]

I will say this, why do you think Typhoon after near 20 years service has never had any changes to it’s power plants and flight control system…You continually underestimate how good the EJ200 engine is mounted to Typhoon and how good the aircraft is in terms of kinematics. As quoted by pilots from all airforces. Even F-22 guys…It’s like being mad a Ferrari is fast…

You are also trying to change Typhoons performance…Which if it is unrealistic is fine. What you and many other fail to realise if you change Typhoons performance you then need to reduce the F-15, F-16, F-2, Su-27 all other Gen 4s etc.

Otherwise we end up with what Gaijin have done to the Rafale where it now loses to a slightly larger winged F-16, is that realistic to you?

Picking and chosing which jets you want rebalanced/changed will be a never ending struggle what we do not need is a complete overhaul of the how the game interperates modern fly by wire systems and thrust.

[MythicPi]

Gaijins specific statement on the issues were that the EFT could not be given the appropriate supercruise speed and top speed because it would require unrealistically high thrust or unrealistically low drag iirc. That isnt a statement saying that it doesnt fit their model, thats a statement saying they dont believe its possible. Its a similar stwtement to what they used to initially deny some Rafale buffs before they improved its thrust and lowered its drag anyways.

Also, the thrust curve being adjusted to have higher thrust outputs at higher speeds than it currently has should allow the aircraft to reach the relevant supercruise and top speed numbers while having minimal impact on performance numbers at other speeds.

[Fireball_2020]

@piiot_

(little tangent but in a later revision they added a caveat for the afterburner itself being a visible signature which I find hilarious but back to the point

No, this is in reference to the RB199, where selection and deselection of reheat would dump fuel and smoke out, making it plain clear to opposing pilots what the current state of the throttle was.

[Fireball_2020]

So… you are suggesting that the standard EJ200’s static thrust is not in fact… 90kN, but less, because of the choice of nozzle? (No possibility they could you know … make that thrust back to meet the design spec…)

[Mytho-GR1]

@piiot_

The channel losses as present in-game are not 5.8%. The convergent-divergent nozzle design lowers the thrust of the final EJ200, meaning that the channel losses come out to be smaller than 5.8%

No

You know an uninstalled EJ200 with 90kn of thurst has tbe nozzle right

So if uninstalled is 90kn it is with the nozzles on

[piiot]

this is what that tangent allots to, because an afterburner is bright, so they changed it, which i find funny, unless ur quoting smt else

[Fireball_2020]

I’m referring to the comment about visual emissions during reheat selection, that’s not referring to a minimising of the flame, but any trails behind. It’s just trying to prevent what was perceived as a serious flaw of the tornado.

[JFIESTASR]

Legend says the Eurofighter’s HUD once existed… but it’s been squshed for over a month and a half, and the Attitude Indicator doesn’t even fit on screen anymore.

Here’s another pic of what the HUD used to be like… playing sim with the current broken mess just ruins the whole experience.

Spoiler

[ILuvAnneHathaway]

Spoiler

[kitsune_qq]

Mfd also looks broken

[Il_Signor_Regio]

Italian air force is buying PW4 (assembled under license by RH Italy) and is integrating it in UK

[AydanL44100]

Btw guys, I heard the in game typhoons are kinda Frankenstein monsters but what block do they most relate to?

[Morvran]

They are suppose to be something like T2 B10/15 or something. But nations like Britain countinuously upgraded so it doesnt really mean much

[Il_Signor_Regio]

It kinda does, as the Typhoon in game features a weapon that has yet to be integrated (GBU54), so in theory the it is equipped with software standard that has yet to enter in service.

[Morvran]

But as far as I am aware, capabilities like CAPTOR-E, Stirker II or Spear-3 haven’t been denied on grounds of the Typhoon in-game not being a T3+ variant and the RAF’s FGR4s are compised of T1s, T2s and T3s Though the T1s are mostly used for QRA and Training.

So just because they are “suppose” to be T2B15s, doesnt really block them from getting upgrades in the future and liek you said, they already have GBU-54s and also I think GBU-62s they’ve yet to use IRL

The RAF currently operate three generations of the Typhoon known as Tranches One, Two and Three. Tranche Two and Three aircraft mostly equip front line squadrons and have been upgraded to a similar standard - with Tranche Three aircraft also having the ability to use conformal fuel tanks in required. The older Tranche One aircraft cannot be easily upgraded to the same standard and are currently used for training and the air defence of the United Kingdom however they are expected to be retired in 2025. The RAF operate the Typhoon from RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, RAF Lossiemouth in Morayshire, RAF Mount Pleasant in the Falkland Islands whilst also maintaining a combat deployment at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. The latter flies daily combat missions over Syria whilst also supporting NATO enhanced air policing missions along the Ukrainian border. - Source

[Il_Signor_Regio]

@Morvran

doesnt really block them from getting upgrades in the future

That off course depends on how the devs will decided to deal with the software of the typhoon (but as the example I previously mentioned prove (kinda), they will probably not consider it and add whatever weapon was tested or used on it).

@Morvran

GBU-62

Unlike GBU54, that is not even being considered in the slightest for any EFA irl. I’m surprised it was added in the first place.

[Morvran]

@Il_Signor_Regio

That off course depends on how the devs will decided to deal with the software of the typhoon (but as the example I previously mentioned prove (kinda), they will probably not consider it and add whatever weapon was tested or used on it).

Well, we are still fighting to get them up to DA standard… So… clearly not a fan

@Il_Signor_Regio

Unlike GBU54, that is not even being considered in the slightest for any EFA irl. I’m surprised it was added in the first place.

I think it was a “Take this and stop asking for MMW, Brimstone 2s or Spear-3s”