Not the best angle tbf
3 Likes
The slats never deploy enough
love it
heh It’s way too hard to make it accurate but yeah I also got the wrong loadout, my fault
Left is static, sea level thrust, right is high AOA/Low Speed.
There is absolutely no reason for the thrust to be lower
whats ur point
I meant to say it’s a game mechanic fault
thats just the thrust curve the EF and Rafale have ingame
but good luck explaining that it shouldnt drop below static thrust
his point is that engines should always have atleast their static thrust
In simple terms:
static thrust is achived by the engine itself sucking air in and useing that to generate thrust,
it is more or less impossible gicing a engine less air unless you are flying backwards or something stupid like that.
so it dosent make any sene for both the eurofighter and rafale to have speeds where they generate less than static thrust
2 Likes
“so it dosent make any sene for both the eurofighter and rafale to have speeds where they generate less than static thrust” every other jet powered plane in the game has areas where they make less than static thrust what are you talking about
That is a misconception that gets covered early on in aeronautical engineering class. The equation for the thrust of a jet engine relies (among other things) on the difference between the speed of the air exiting the engine and the speed of the air entering the engine. As a result (in the absence of ram effect) the thrust produced by an engine decreases as speed increases, eventually all the way down to zero thrust.
Now as you alluded to when an aircraft is flying, the forward movement of the aircraft compresses the air in the intake, which helps balance out the thrust loss due to increased speed and is known as ram effect (or various similar names). However the ram effect usually only starts to impact things in a meaningful way at speeds of around 300 kts, and you usually have to get to speeds of around 500 kts before ram effect completely cancels out losses due to speed and gives you a net thrust increase. Hence engine thrust curves often look something vaguely like this (thrust initially decreases with speed, then starts increasing, then exceeds static):
It should be noted however that the design of the engine / intake heavily impact the ram effect. For example these are real thrust curves for non-afterburning versions of the Rolls Royce Adour engine (taken from the Rolls Royce sales Brochure). You can see that both engines are impacted by Ram Effect in noticeably different ways, and that in this case neither engine manages to exceed static thrust.
So yes it is expected that there will be speeds where jet engines produce less thrust than they do static. If you know how to make a jet engine which always produces more thrust when moving than it does when static then I suggest you file a patent pronto.
13 Likes
Proper way to test if AOA negatively impacts the jets tbrust in-game would be to take a snapshot of the thrust at a given speed, and once again at the exact same speed but during a turn.
I’m not at my PC for a while tho, so I cant test it out myself.
1 Like
Altitude also has a very noticeable impact on thrust, so you need that to be the same too.
2 Likes
Yeah sorry, figured that was a given
1 Like
I don’t know but if I am looking at the graph isn’t it weird that the Rafale has that little drag at high supersonic speeds?
The Eurofighter has quite a bit more thrust than the Rafale and this graph seems to indicate (to me at least) that the Eurofighter has roughly 25% more drag at VNE of the Rafale. That gap keeps widening as well.
Is there any knowledge of how much more drag the Eurofighter has compared to the Rafale?
25% seems an awful lot to me for a design so similar and from the same time period. On the other hand, aerodynamics are no joke and even the smallest things can have a big impact, so this might be accurate.
Although I still don’t get how the Eurofighter can’t supercruise at M1.5 “Because it would need too little drag which is unrealistic” and then the Rafale seems to have 25% less drag than the Eurofighter :D
2 Likes
Both jets are roughly the same size in length, wingspan, and height, the EFT is a bit over 1000kg heavier empty weight, and the EFT has the more swept wing (53° vs 48°) so Id actually assume the EFT should have lower drag than the Rafale, particularly at supersonic speed, but maybe im wrong.
Afaik, gaijin doesnt have any aftual drag numbers for the EFT or the Rafalr tho, they base their drag numbers on the stated static thrust of the engines, gave them an arbitrary thrust curve (the raf now uses a real sourced thrust curve), and likely based the drag on what they thought made the performance match some sources.
Atm the “best” EFT sources we have are from the ESR-D specification, which are the bare minimum the EFT needed to achieve to be accepted (to my understanding), so its possible that its drag is too high, that its thrust curve is wrong, or both.
At worst case scenario both jets should have similar drag ratios.
What bothers me is that new limited pull capabilities, now I’m happy that my EFT’s doesn’t break their wings when turning around but with A2G ordinances it pulls way less than it should be.