Eurofighter Typhoon (UK versions) - Technical data and discussion

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
1882

If you do not personally believe that the typhoon can supercruise. Please provide a primary sources supporting your claim. You have yet to do so and your argument so far is that the typhoon uses a different engine to other aircraft that can supercruise.

Also,

And interesring that the f22 can supercruise at Mach 1.7 at sea level when it’s max speed at sea level is Mach 1.2. You made a statement that implies the Typhoon is limited in someway to only being able to supercruise at high altitiude, but is that not the case with all aircraft. The source you provided for the F-22 being able to supercruise at mach 1.7 does not state what altitude they were at. For all we know, they were at 45k ft to achieve that speed.

10 Likes
1883

True, not when they have a certain track record though…

1 Like
1886

Not to jump on you, but with reference to the document he posted, is in reference to the SHAR Replacement, which was JSF and later became F-35B.

It is definitely in regards to that project, as until the paragraph specifically below the excerpt he refers to, the RAF hasn’t even got a word in edgeways, and even still that spec, the “Future Offensive Aircraft” is clearly not the EFT (as was intended) since it refers to a replacement for the Harrier and Tornado, which was not EFT particularly (although, I must admit, talking about a replacement for Harrier and Tornado, without qualifying which Tornado it is, is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.)

We all have to keep up the pretences old chap… :)

1 Like
1887

Yeah… by not arguing and burrying him under tons of facts, will result in fabricated voodoo math, claims and comparisons to totally unrelated airframes with aim of fabricated nerfs of anything of european origin.
Gripen was nice example. He compared it to 2000C and Viggen, making his claims on HORNET engine (which is substantially changed in gripen on top of its dragless design) AND flight performance of two totally different designs with bogus math, resulting in questionable nerfs (energy retention nerf was fine, anything beyond that was pure fiction of his and devs somehow trusting it). Due to his doing, it barely gets up to speed up high and it literally drops all of it within 45° turn.
You let him yap, you will end up with unhistorical nerfs to typhoon and i bet rafale too.
Thanks god theres more info about typhoon than on gripen and we have lads like flame and gunjob doing the gods work.

4 Likes
1888

nup, because u dont need to convince him. gunjob and flame have everything gathered and believe that special class guy and gunjob take a guess which ones informations gonna reach and be prefered by gajin.
even this part shows it nicely

image
image1065×305 46.9 KB

i wouldnt worry about gibberish of those guys and just trust gunjob, because i propably wont let it stand if the typhoons in a bad situation

2 Likes
1889

Yep, thankfully the National Archives contains plenty of info for the Typhoon. Not so much on the Gripen

4 Likes
1890

Its a shame because now, its high alt performance is outright meme, barely gets to 1.4 with 6 missiles and then if you even touch the stick, it bleeds energy like crazy.

1891

Yeah, and its not just FM, BOL, MAWS, Centre line A2G. They really didnt like another nation being better at top tier air

1892

I pray for bol fix this patch… gripen is bearable as you can run 500 chaffs on it but on typhoon, you will have like half of them in decent flare/chaff setup and they wont ever add towed decoy.
Imagine russian and US mains having their missiles ignoring plane 2 times because of decoy, and thats counting with them being always destroyed by missile hits which is something i highly doubt is possible irl in combination with chaffing.

1 Like
1893

I didn’t say anything about sea level, you can’t fight my argument by putting words in my mouth. Your entire counter must be more substantial than “nuh uh”.

You’re welcome for buffs to M2K and Gripen ig

This paragraph is a fiction

In reality the aircraft tops out at 1.4 mach with four missiles and a drop tank so this isn’t unrealistic to be honest, and the thrust curve was extrapolated from an engine with identical core and then modulated to give the aircraft correct acceleration time in both sea level and altitude scenarios so I’d say it’s about as accurate as it can get until gaijin models the relaxed stability. This will also be something not correctly modeled on the Typhoon - the stability.

1894

You stated that the Typhoon can only likely supercruise at 36k+ ft in such a manner that hinted at that being a negative exclusive to the Typhoon and that EVERYTHING else can supercruise at any altitude. I asked “can the F-22 supercruise at sea-level” and you respond with “Yes, it can exceed mach 1.7 in supercruise handidly”

So for someone who accuses people of "not reading comments properly, you really need to start reading comments properly

6 Likes
1895

No, you simply ignored what I said and then decided to try and stuff words in my mouth after hitting us with a “nuh uh”. Responding to opinions that you pretend to be mine is no way to continue a discussion.

This has been a matter of fact discussion on what gives low bypass turbofans good efficiency in supercruise conditions and the EJ200 is simply not well optimized for this. I’ve stated multiple times that the Eurofighter is known to supercruise at 36,000 feet. We know it can go from subsonic to supersonic in dry setting. These are facts supported by proper documentation. My argument has been that the aircraft will not be doing so as fuel efficiently as its’ peers and likely considerably reducing the lifespan of the engine in comparison when doing so.

This is not really a concern for the game, it is just something I was invited here to discuss by Flame so as not to derail another thread. The mob of players who are coming here to slander me is what got your thread locked last time. I’m trying to make an honest point and discussion but this is difficult when a dozen people who do not understand the topic at hand are putting forth their opinions on my character. and posting nonsense memes.

In any other thread, this nonsense gibberish from those offering no real substance to the conversation is cleaned up and people are warned but this has not happened here. I’m afraid the staff tends to let it go on far too long and it winds up becoming a larger issue and the threads end up locked like they did the last time.

1896

The irony of everything you say

Your points have been disproven and yet you keep going on and then try to gaslight people as well. You act like you are the reasonable one but we have seen how you talk in other places and you are far from reasonable. Like how you are banned from that server that leaks everything for that reason

5 Likes
1897

I’m banned from a discord server therefore my argument is disproven? Can you show me ANY proof that the Eurofighter can supercruise efficiently at 1.5 mach? My argument is that the EJ200 is not optimized for efficient flight in dry & supersonic conditions. This is supported quite well and no one thus far has made any effort to prove otherwise. Please, if you’re going to waste your time responding at least address the subject at hand instead of attacking my character. You’re doing yourself a disservice.

1898

Surely if it’s supported “quite well”, then you will be able to show evidence of that… unless of course, like always, you don’t actually have any proof of your words other than “because I said so” and “trust me bro”.

4 Likes
1899

Look at my replies to Flame2512, I did support it

1900

Honestly you have proven just as much as the other side.

You go by a single data point and conclude it’s not efficient. You don’t know what the engine is capable of and what performance it has in reality.

A high fan pressure is also beneficial to the ability to super cruise and the EJ200 has among the highest there is.

I appreciate the discussions you have and you seem to add a lot of useful sources to the mix, sometimes you just seem to be too sure of things you shouldn’t be able to accurately estimate.

You can make educated guesses but in the end, if you follow your comments up to this point you have changed your mind multiple times from

“The Eurofighter can’t super cruise at all”

to

“The Eurofighter needs it’s afterburner to reach supersonic speed and can then super cruise”

to

“The Eurofighter can super cruise but is doing this inefficiently”

It’s just hard to follow because you seem very adamant about what you think about the engine and it’s performance, yet you do seem to be able to be persuaded when you get enough evidence.

I just don’t know why you think that a lower bypass ratio is the be-all-end-all requirement for efficient supercruise… Fan pressure itself also has a very big impact if I understand it correctly and the 0.4 bypass value is still rather low.

It might not be able to supercruise as efficiently as the Raptor, but that not the same as being inefficient.

A lightweight, small engine petrol car will consume little fuel and is by definition very efficient in fuel consumption but it obviously wouldn’t beat a specifically designed low consumption car like the VW XL1 for example.

The Eurofighter has other advantages over the Raptor, and it’s design didn’t put as much focus on supercruise as the Raptor did.

16 Likes
1901

I hate the BOL nerf.

Because they applied it to everything that has BOL. So Harrier II and SHAR (with their stupidly high IR signature despite there being accounts of it being impossible to lock one from the top aspect) get gimped. Tornado F.3 gets gimped.

8 Likes
1902

I’m not using a single datapoint, rather just looking at the characteristics of the engine as a whole it is not conducive to supercruise as the peers. That was the entire point of my breakdown.

Larger bypass ratio like 0.4 as opposed to 0.3 or lower will have higher drag, less mass flow through core, worse cooling, slower exhaust velocity and worse SFC running dry at high mach numbers.

Pressure ratio is good for maintaining high thrust output and mass flow through core but comes at cost of increased temperatures. The study I linked discusses next generation engines and shows that with conventional low bypass turbofans with a ratio around 0.4, temps required for supercruise up to 1.35M were ~2000K+ which is the upper limit for the Eurofighter. A temp rating higher than 2150 was required for supercruise up to 1.5 mach and these are the upper limits, not the efficient range.

By comparison, the F119 pushes the F-22, a much draggier airframe, up to 1.7+ mach and the efficient range is lower at 1.5 mach.

Yes, when I was shown materials that didn’t support my position… my position changed. That’s how good discussion goes. Could we be respectful of that? I don’t suppose you’re omniscient by any chance?

I stated with that source that it is likely doing so simply to arrive at the speed quicker and that hypothesis was confirmed with a source from Flame, but once again you want to skew what I said to fit your opinion of me. This is not good discussion practice as I’ve stated a million times now.

The point of supercruise is to cruise while supersonic - that implies efficiency. If the Eurofighter cannot do so efficiently, why is it described as supercruise? Is it just propaganda? If no one questions these claims or tries to find evidence to support them all we are doing is echoing propaganda. I get that it is an arcade game but for the sake of discussion and understanding why is it villainous to question the almighty God of storms?

1903

Preflaring in the AV-8S
still can’t flare an Igla
please I just don’t want to die immediately to manpads

3 Likes