Show me a single book on turbofans that shows less than 9% installed thrust losses.
For example; MIL-E curve as outlined in ‘MIL-E-5007’; It should be noted that this document was replaced in 1997 and also shows the document is approved for public distribution.
This is the methods for calculating installed thrust and how the US should detail the performances of their turbines in the classified manuals. It doesn’t share actual engine data, only how it must be calculated and displayed. It has an entire section explaining how installed thrust must be calculated and shown in the relevant performance documentation.
Spoiler
(Source for graph)
Intake losses usually around 9-10% sometimes higher depending on design. Not less.
If Typhoon thrust is 90kN on the bench it cannot be 90kN installed, that is just how the world works. @BBCRF knows more of the Russian side of things, but the thrust losses are calculated the same way because physics works the same for Russians as it does Americans. Europe is not special.
You DO realise that computational abilities and aviation design in general has moved since 1997 don’t you…
Your logic is akin to arguing that cars were calculated as having long braking distances in the 1960s (with drum brakes and cross-ply tyres) so ergo that same calculation MUST surely apply to a vehicle designed in 2024.
If you want an example from the late Cold War with minimal losses from the ground rig to as-installed - look no further than the RB199 as applied to the Tornado. Quite a clever bit of kit - which also powered the EAP (Typhoon progenitor until the superior EJ200 became available).
However if you want to abide by the calculations that were rendered defunct literally two generations ago - then knock yourself right out.
Comparing 1960’s brakes to 2024 brakes is a stretch when comparing a 1997 document to an engine that was first run in 1991 on an airframe that flew in 1994.
The RB199 is not special, the thrust rating was incorrectly stated for bench vs installed as they must not have followed a similar doctrinal system as the US DOD’s MIL-E-5007/8 standards. The new restricted documents will show the same, physics didn’t just change just because the currently in-use documentation is restricted.
The RB199 is not special, the thrust rating was incorrectly stated for bench vs installed as they must not have followed a similar doctrinal system as the US DOD’s MIL-E-5007/8 standards. The new restricted documents will show the same, physics didn’t just change just because the currently in-use documentation is restricted.
Oh dear. We’re showing a bit of the WT dev mindset here aren’t we. 'Well I can’t work out they did it so it MUST be impossible!'. Allow me to assist.
Firstly - the calcs were only derated for public viewing in 1997 - not produced at that date. They pre-date far further back than that. My illustration was dated as such for a reason…
Secondly - you don’t know what efficiency metrics they used for calculating intake/channel/other losses. If you did, you wouldn’t be daft enough to post on the WT forum. There ARE losses on any gas turbine - but not the arbitrary 10% you claim must apply to every engine, irrespective of design, technology and overall config.
Thirdly - you don’t know what the restricted documents say so you really can’t go pontificating what they WILL say.
You tell me how an engine that was calculated with uninstalled thrust can turn around and have zero inlet or nozzle loss coefficient? Physics does not work this way.
The document was updated almost yearly since 1973, I assure you it was “with the times”.
WE do know, and they’re public information. Turbofans are not some magic hidden technology. What is secretive is the materials technology that allows the temperature and pressure limits. Unless you are talking about the EJ200 or F404, they pretty much laid that all out to bare for the public.
If the previously restricted document says gravity’s pull is 9.81 m/s and the new document says otherwise I would question who wrote the new document. Likewise, if the new document says there is no such thing as intake losses or nozzle drag coefficients - then I would question who wrote the new document. These factors are not frictionless. Pick up a book or find a source that agrees with your nonsense. If the EJ200 was incorrectly calculated for uninstalled thrust and matches the installed thrust, that is an error on their part when doing the calculations.
you wanna redo your report your ammo belt report for the typhoons? we might get them trough now.
Just if possible get the PT round changed for PELE-T as well?
or for starters @Gunjob couldnt we link this existing report to the eurofighters and bump it since they use the same cannon and belts?
i think this is what they did for the puma cannon and kf41 as well
On another matter, do we have anything on the SAPHEI fuze delay?
What about the standard texture? Is that a work in progress, because it looks more like a temporary version at the moment with British insignia slapped on without much attention given to size and placement
I was thinking of doing a bug report on it, but the way it is I figured it’s just placeholder and not intended as the finished production skin
