Well then, that way they fix the ones that fail. Since I fly the Eurofighter and we’re in the Eurofighter forum, I’ve only spoken about the Eurofighter.
1 Like
nope
they arent working as well unless you are locking them with the IRST and the nswitch to radar
2 Likes
Ok, lets work through this together. I’ll even go the extra mile and colour code it.
| Step | Description | Thrust |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nominal uninstalled thrust is 90 kN | 90 kN / 9,177 kg |
| 2 | This reduces to 87.3 kN due to the choice of nozzle | 87.3 kN / 8,902 kgf |
| 3 | Thrust losses are applied (in our case 5.8%) | 82.2366 kN / 8,386 kgf |
| 4 | A 4% thrust reduction is applied | 78.947136 kN /8,050 kgf |
| 5 | A 2% thrust reduction is applied | 77.36819328 kN / 7,889 kgf |
| 6 | Final thrust | 7,889 kgf |
So the correct thrust to match the 1987 estimates is 7,889 kgf, just like I said…
Oh and would you look at that 106% throttle in game is almost exactly 7,889 kgf. It’s almost as if I know what I’m talking about…
I took at look at SquishFace’s last Eurofighter video and he uses a climb speed of Mach 1.1-1.15 to demonstrate the climb rate in game. So lets try that with the previously discussed fuel and thrust to match the estimate conditions. And the result is: it took 149 seconds; which * checks notes * is longer than the 144 s estimated in 1987.
I mentioned those as a hypothesis for why Gaijin might have allowed the acceleration to be somewhat over-performing in that condition. If it is possible for them to adjust the acceleration downwards a tad, without messing up the other known data points that are about right (or even underperforming) I don’t have a problem with that.
In both my super-cruise report and top speed report Gaijin’s response was that they could not make it match the numbers claimed in the sources while using sensible numbers in the FM. So to this day the top speed with and without afterburner is noticeably worse than claimed in the sources used for the reports. I never claimed Gaijin “don’t adjust performance in the tropopause” I pointed out that by their own admission (and as conveniently demonstrated by the Eurofighter reports you mentioned) they seem to have a hard time making aircraft perform accurately there , and so they are willing to accept larger deviations than they would in other areas of the flight envelope.
The MOD(PE) estimates assumed a number of EJ200 performance shortfalls which did not materialise in the finished engine, and the aerodynamic deign of the aircraft is known to have been changed after the MOD(PE) numbers were calculated.
The ESR-D document contains the performance requirements for the Eurofighter aircraft. As shown in the bug report people have found sources which strongly suggest the flight performance requirements specifically were met. It is therefore more reliable to base the aircraft off the design requirements (which the available evidence suggests were met) rather than the MOD(PE) numbers which are based on an aircraft with weaker engines and different aerodynamics to the finished aircraft.
So you chose to base your percentages off of the ESR-D requirements, despite knowing that the MOD(PE) estimates had the aircraft performing quite a bit better than the requirements? As I said sensationalised.
And you’ll notice that:
- At no point in the past have I publicly criticised your acceleration bug report (other than when you explicitly asked for comments today and I said your percentages didn’t add up)
- I stated in my reply “I agree that compared to the 1987 estimates the Eurofighter is indeed over performing”
- I have at no point said the acceleration should not be fixed if it is over-performing. I just raised a concern that an adjustment to acceleration should be crafted as to not mess up the other known data points in that area of the flight envelope, and observed that Gaijin may be avoiding tinkering with it due to the difficulty they appear to have with making aircraft accurate at that altitude.
25 Likes
No problem, just saying it, hopefully the dev would also look for others as well since this also everyone’s problem.
Well it’s based on my experience though, yeah I could be wrong.
1 Like
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 curge flattens out at a lower speed as well:
There was an aerodynamics paper discussing the EFT’s inlet design capability to continuw supplying required air to the wngines at speed which shpwed 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 ingame) 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.
5 Likes
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 😎
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.
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.
1 Like
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.
6 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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…)
3 Likes
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
4 Likes
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
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.
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
Mfd also looks broken
9 Likes
Btw guys, I heard the in game typhoons are kinda Frankenstein monsters but what block do they most relate to?
They are suppose to be something like T2 B10/15 or something. But nations like Britain countinuously upgraded so it doesnt really mean much