What proof do you have?
US sources are more trustworthy?
Genuinely confused why you think every operator of Typhoon and the manufacturers would lie?
He’s not saying the typhoon can’t stay above Mach using only mil… he’s saying it’s not as efficient as other planes
Deception isn’t about outright lies, I didn’t say lie. Gaijin said lie.
They claim it can super cruise to give it parity with the F-22 in some areas, to market the vehicle better. The real world performance is extremely lackluster in that area by comparison – requiring full mil thrust to maintain supersonic cruise. It cannot drop to the cruise setting.
I’ve changed my opinion on it quite a bit, at first I didn’t believe it could super cruise at all and I changed my mind when presented evidence to the contrary. What I’m doing is stating an objective opinion based on the facts presented. They don’t like it. So now they mock my opinions as though it hasn’t been an unbiased reflection of what they’ve shown me.
I’ve stated what I think super cruise should be and why the Eurofighter doesn’t fit my definition. That’s all. You can go “erm, well it can” all you want, at least it has some other redeeming qualities… Right? … oh…
wdym non primary sources. This is from MTU’s own mouth.
And what is that based on?
What do you think the cD vs Mach curve looks like for typhoon then?
for what you say to be true, and what MTU say to be true, the peak drag would have to be >M1 probably around M1.1, acting as a bubble that cant be overcome without afterburner. Right? So its just fast enough to be able to claim supercruise without being anything useful per you.
1 Like
Badly
my “advanced modern infrared sensor” when 1mm of cloud cover
Yeah, I wasnt even referring to that issue. More the problems with things like F-5s on reheat being colder than an F-117.
But yeah, IRST systems being blocked by someone even mentioning a cloud is a major issue as well
F-5 reheat is colder than the G.91Y
even tho they have the same engines
It’s a canard delta, the coefficient of drag by mach curve will be better than the F-22. It simply falls behind in dry thrust in cruise conditions, and in fuel efficiency in that regime. The engines are not optimized for efficient supersonic cruise. Instead, they were tailored towards efficient afterburner operation and were expected to meet a number of other arbitrary requirements set by member nations of the consortium.
This is the problem with these consortiums, they cannot agree on things and without hindsight can make decisions that do not benefit the vehicle in a future conflict. Of course anyone can make that mistake… But they knew about stealth. They knew about super cruise. They couldn’t get everyone to agree and so it is deficient in both of those categories, arguably some of the most important.
My brother in christ the F-22 is a 19 metre long jet. It’s huge. Of course the engines produce more thrust. The flanker also produces more thrust but it’s not famous for its supercruise capability. What matters is the drag and shockingly enough the jet that’s almost 2x smaller produces significantly less drag.
I fail to see how that’s a problem, the Eurofighter is far and beyond better than the F-22 in regards to wave drag, it is not a matter of drag. It’s a matter of engine optimization and nothing else. Drag is not the limiting factor.
The Su-27 is a huge jet, poorly optimized for wave drag and even more so when equipped with a bunch of R-77’s, it is not even on the table to discuss effective super cruise because the required thrust to do so would be above and beyond what its engines could be made to do without burners.
The EJ200 is large enough to produce the needed dry thrust, but they would sacrifice afterburner performance a bit and so much like the F-22 would need to focus on a high super cruise top speed to make up for that. The bypass ratio of 0.4 is rather large, making it harder for the dry core thrust to accelerate the subsonic bypass airflow to the needed speeds at the nozzle.
It sounds like you’re assuming a result and trying to find a cause. You’ve assumed the eurofighter cannot supercruise, and acknowledging that it has exceptionally low wave drag have then consequently assumed that it’s thrust must be too low, despite lacking evidence for the claim which you’re basing it on.
By cruise here did you mean super cruise or normal cruise?
1 Like
would it break the forum rules to make a joke about taking a shot every time someone restarts the supercruise argument?
9 Likes
They did.? That was an active choice, that’s why the AB to Dry thrust ratio is lower than “normal”
1 Like
I conceded years ago when this conversation first started that Eurofighter is capable of going supersonic without burner, my point is that due to requirements from partner nations it does not super cruise as well as it potentially could have, nor does it even do it in the cruise throttle setting like the F-22 does.
I don’t even think there is a “cruise” throttle setting.
However we know it can cruise supersonicslly with 8 missiles. Which is pretty good going.,
2 Likes
They met the performance metrics required and it can detract from performance in other areas without making it totally worthless. I’m not saying it’s not an improvement over previous motors or abysmal, only that it suffered where it didn’t need to. Hindsight is beneficial for criticism.