Maybe, there is also the thrust recovery time which seems substantially greater in the Typhoon from what others have said before on this matter and in my own personal experience, it feels rather sluggish to begin accelerating at times.
It is certainly worth a thorough investigation
Wow what a trip!
That lead pilot could fly this route with his eyes closed
I do like the blue/grey scheme the Luftwaffe use for Typhoons.
OK, so why is the thrust 10% lower than when you are at 0 speed.
what?
it the first one zero airspeed/ static thrust?
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
“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.
