Static thrust from brochure is different from installed thrust.
3 Likes
Does the brochure facture in channel loss?
I think it needs to be tuned up a little more. I did a brakes off to 36k ft and mach 1.6 test and it was around 2:34, though I want to run it again because I think I made a minor mistake in my climb angle
1 Like
if you go to the engine thrust of an other jet for example the Rb 199 34R mk 104 thrust
wouldn’t that be incorrect ??
Is that wiki
1 Like
yes but i can find the same KN of thrust to other places too
1 Like
From what Ive heard its still underperforming.
I think they actually got it yesterday to the point where it was underperforming more than it overperforming originally but i don’t know for sure.
Ill add it to the list of things to report, i believe channel loss should be sub 3% but they might change it to fit charts or perf figures?
6 Likes
Those figures are uninstalled thrust. Installed thrust losses is almost always ~9% regardless of airframe or intake. Few exceptions exist, for example A-10 or B-52.
What’s the empty weight of the EFT in the dev as of now?
1 Like
Idk if it was Gunjob or flame they said static installed thrust in-game was modeled after documentation and is accurate already.
1 Like
I think I recall seeing something saying the installed thrust be a little to low I think it was fireball but it means digging back deep into the thread
You could be right, haven’t seen it myself but I’ll ask around, I was under the impression it should be >3%, but probably more than the 0.75% it originally had though.
Yeah, that’s just a statcard thing.
You need to check thrust values with WRTI in game.
Sorry - but this is plainly incorrect and a number of aeronautics types would probably hurl their technical books at you if you dared utter such a thing in their presence. At worst, you are looking sub 5% if the work is sloppy.
It might be the case that Russian technology loses almost 10% of actionable thrust due to dubious airframe design - however I can’t think of any Western high-performance airframe that knobbles the efficiency of it’s engines to the degree you claim. If anything, it would make an utter mockery of the thousands of hours spent in wind-tunnels expressly crafting an aircraft to match it’s intended powerplant.*
*Which is why so many aircraft programs have been buggered by some bright spark deciding to swap the engine type/configuration AFTER the airframe design…
Long story - don’t go there.
5 Likes
any updates to the typhoon regarding cockpit & hmd for the fgr? or is it still only the german one
still on the German one
💔 man i just wanna see my silly mfds…
2 Likes
they also f the thrust to weight of it
1 Like
EF dosent display locked Targets on HUD in Simulator battles
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/SbH326FO8val
2 Likes
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.