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.
I mean, theres a few reasons that the EFT could have higher drag than the Rafale, I just dont see why it would have substantially more drag if it did considering their similar sizes and layouts.
The thing is they don’t I looked at a few thrust curves relevant for top tier and only the EF and Rafale had those “valleys” in their thrust curve.
I looked at:
F-15e
F-16a
F-18C late
Su-27Sm
J-10
And none of those jets have speeds where they produce less than static thrust
Iam going to look at a few more later but rn, it seems like the EF and Rafale are the only ones that have that valley in their thrust curve
Gripen may also be similar, but honestly my main issue is the delay in acceleration when you level out from a high G turn which first brought my attention to it.
I have not been able to replicate this on anything other than the typhoon and the old flight model for the Javelin.
Intake cross section and the angle limits for the intake ramps are not optimised for high supersonic speeds.
Big mouth when traveling fast catching too much air.
The Rafael intakes are better optimised for high supersonic speeds, which is a result of not needing larger intakes for the smaller engines, but those engines cannot carry it to the speeds where it would matter.
Same thing for the FGR2 vs F4E
Same airframe with emphasized textmore powerful engines resulted in a lower top speed due to additional drag caused by enlarging the intakes.
Do you have any proof of that? Cuz just about everything about the EFT is optimized for supersonic speeds.
Theres also the EFT aerodynamics paper that states its ability to provide air for the EJ200’s is very good even at high speeds, so I’m really not sure where your claim is coming from…
This entire statement is contradictory in design concept, its also seemingly false, since the Rafale is one of the rare jets in-game capable of ripping in level flight at 10km alt.
Im not expert on the Spey engines but im 99.999% sure the engines themselves are optimized for low alt, which is why its top speed is lower (since your top speed is reached at high alt) and why nobody else wanted the engines. This is not the case for the EJ200 or the EFT, every source ive seen discussing its capabilities varying by altitude state it to be stellar at high altitude, retaining much more of its performance when compared to other 4th gen jets. Theyre pilot comments, so inadmissible for bug reports, but still worth mentionning.
In supersonic aircraft, the speed at the entrance to the engine is always subsonic. Thrust decreases because pressure losses in the inlet device increase, and traction efficiency decreases with increasing speed.
Are you sure the delay in acceleration is not due to your aircraft still pulling high aoa when leveling out? Especially from low speed turns the EF will still be pulling aoa that gradually goes to around 0 degrees.
