Wiki page (not sure how well source it is) for the EFT put the flat fuel consumption on reheat at ~3x that of mil power, and the specific fuel consumption at ~2x, so it really shouldnt be that thirsty compared to some other jets, such as the american ones…
Allegedly this is data straight from RR’s fact sheet on the EJ200 as well, tho I cant find the fact sheet, so I cant speak to its veracity.
Should be about 18 minutes on reheat and 59 minutes on dry. But fuel consumption is a FM thing and we’re placeholder.
5 Likes
Wait seriously? 59 mins on dry? Considering the fuel load of the EFT (no bags) and the burn rate on the wiki, I calculated itd be ~30-32min on dry, since there are 2 engines being used?
2 Likes
Lmfao basically gaijin don’t understand how it’s possible so therefore it’s a lie from the manufacturers
The fuel section Flame wrote
"The fuel consumption of the EJ200 is listed in the Eurojet EJ200 Brochure as 47-49 g/kNs with reheat and 21-23 g/kNs without reheat.
This means that when operating in reheat (afterburner) the engine will burn 47-49 grams of fuel per second for each kilonewton of thrust it produces; and when operating without afterburner it will burn 21-23 grams of fuel per second for each kilonewton of thrust it produces.So for example if the EJ200 is operating at its full 90 kN of afterburner thrust it will burn 4.23 - 4.41 kg of fuel per second, or 253.8 - 264.6 kg of fuel per minute. This means that with the engine producing its maximum 90 kN of static thrust in afterburner the Eurofighter’s fuel load of ~4,700 kg would last for around 18 minutes. And with the engine producing its maximum dry thrust of 60 kN the fuel load would last for about 59 minutes."
1 Like
I messed my math up there. That was assuming there was only one engine using the fuel. There are two engines so the endurance is 1/2 what I estimated.
6 Likes
Ahaha no worries mate, happens to us all.
4 Likes
Seems you had it on the money mate. Ahaha
4 Likes
The devs straight up looked at a primary source and called it a lie? xD
2 Likes
Not the first time.
2 Likes
Cheers Gunjob - a question regarding the inboard wing pylon (the one that can only be occupied with A/G ordnance so far) - are there any plans currently to permit A/A Weaponry usage from that pylon, and if not, what is the reason?
That’s erm… interesting, considering the legal repercussions of selling something when it can’t do what they say it can
1 Like
@Flame2512 this is another potential data point to look into regarding the EFT’s supercruise capabilities:
Havent been able to find the referenced source tho, nor the altitude it was done at:
2 Likes
It’s not the first it stinks of the stinger missile excuse gaijin gave. They don’t understand how the stinger can pull more G than a igla so we’re like must be a lie. So situation here they dont understand how it can Mach 1.5 supercruise with a full air to air loadout so they just say the manufacturer is lying 😂
2 Likes
Air Forces Monthly September '04, which has this cover I believe? (Christ anyone who has an original has paper older than me lmaoooo)
Oh, and it’s out of print. Has been for some time as I’m sure was guessed, but uh, good luck finding a copy.
The performance report itself from the Singapore tests might be available if a magazine was able to get their hands on the numbers.
Idk how im gonna sleep tonight with the sheer idiocy that is gaijin saying primary sources are lies…
This is why I dont waste my time bug reporting anymore.
I’m used to it already.
1 Like
could you link that report?