Basically every jet in game that isn’t russian does this
1 Like
As I said, was referring to static to peak thrust for the afterburner stuff. Its simplistic, but gives a decent idea of the thrust curve within game relevant speeds.
Its a real thing iirc, there begins to be an efficiency decrease in engines at a certain point, iirc its related to intake design and maybe compressor design, but not exactly something i have a ton of knowledge on.
That being said, of course glorious russian technology is immune to silly capitalist pigdog lies.
6 Likes
It is yes
funny to see flanker/fulcrum/flogger/foxbat just go through like 15 tons of thrust without a care in the world while everyone else starts seeing falloff at 1.1-1.3 though lol
7 Likes
yes it is a real thing
but should not be so pronounced on the F15E
3 Likes
Concorde is a good example of how you can counteract that to a certain degree. It could sit at Mach 2.0 without afterburner generating most of it’s thrust from Intake Trickery.
That was a particular realm where the Russians failed rather miserably at on their Concorde knock-off.
-Edit - Okay - what special someone was insulted by the mention of Concorde? Flagging posts - honestly.
9 Likes
Nice write-up. I think when people actually compare the EFT to only the Rafale, they assume the Rafale must be overperforming just because of how close the EFT is in performance to the Rafale, but when the EFT is compared to all top-tiers, it more so shows the EFT is underperforming. It has been said that the EFT comes closer to performance to the F-22 irl but I can’t imagine that being the case in-game when it eventually comes to how Gaijin will model the F-22.
4 Likes
compare
with the in game one slightly lighter
in game 190s to Mach 2, with it not breaking 2.1
while IRL ~115s to Mach 2, and ~140s to Mach 2.2, with it breaking Mach 2.3 in the same ~190s
IRL its less than 40s to go from 1.6 to 2, while in game its over 100s
7 Likes
idk about that, I know this is the -220 instead of the -229 on the F-15E, but the 30kft thrust curve does begin to fall off rather aggressively at ~M1.6:
In-game said drop-off for the -229 is pushed back to M1.92 roughly?
Not sure if there are available -229 thrust curves, but pushing the drop off back to near M2.0 seems reasonable, potentially even generous. They could’ve slapped on the same thrust curve just with increased base thrust and called it a day.
Has this been bug reported? Seems pretty eggregious.
might have something to do with this
also you are looking at lower altitude on that chart
but even if the 40k ft line was accurate you would expect acceleration to start to rapidly drop after M 1.75 where that only begins closer to Mach 2 and even then it still does not seem to fall off faster than could be explained by increases in drag
1 Like
Ty for catching that miss on my part o7
1 Like
this took way to long to find (because was from DITC), and is for the F-4E but its the only experimentally derived thrust curve I have that extends into Mach 2
note how that even without variable intakes the thrust does not start to fall off here, may be slightly different for the F15 depending on how much air flow the engines need, but at least in this example the thrust is beginning to reach its asymptote around Mach 2
(this chart also does show a major problem with your earlier comparison of thrust curves, in that you only looked at a single altitude while thrust is a function of both altitude and velocity)
also appears that this chart may be an estimate for installation on an F-16 at least from reverse image search, which lacks a variable intake system
while the F-15 has a very effective variable intake
1 Like
Not really, I was compairing thrust curves at the altitude relevant to what I was replying to. I could compare it for multiple altitudes, but thatd take a bunch more time, and wasnt relevant to gaijins comment on the EFT requiring “unrealistically high thrust” to achieve its advertised M1.5 supercruise
Also, grain of salt this, but iirc the thrust curve situation gets worse for the EFT the more alt is increased when compared to other jets
For example, at 12km alt, the Rafale now has MORE thrust than the EFT from M1.88+, and the J-10C gets reeeeeeal close, despite the Rafale starting with 16.3% less thrust, and the J-10C starting with ~50% less thrust!
6 Likes
Replica is damn awesome, that and P.125 (VTOL system would then go on to form the basis of the British contribution to the Liftfan system), were the UK’s buy-in for tier 1 partnership.
Shame the US threw that out the window though and it meant nothing.
Seems we learnt our lesson though, minimal F-35 purchases, and a new semi-domestic airframe in the works.
desperately needs a nerf, no way the Rafale intake is optimized for anything past like mach 1.5
To be fair, the UK’s investment into the F-35 program isn’t bad seeing as it was a tier 1 participant, so it does get some things out of the program.
While it should be getting a nerf at the topend speed due to its intake, it’s funny that the Rafale has actually the most realistic thrust curve from 0 to Mach 1.5 out of all the top tier aircraft besides perhaps the F-15E, just because the Rafale and the F-15E were actually modeled using engine thrust curve while there’s allegedly no public documentation of thrust curve for the engines for the rest of the top tier aircraft including the EFT, J-10C, SM2, and J-16.
Spoiler
Rafale’s overperformance at ~Mach 2 is actually a red herring just because it doesn’t operate in-game normally at those speeds unless you’re trying to get shot down from PL-12s/R-77s/AIM-120s while the rest of the top tier airframes get to run around with unrealistic thrust curves just because Gaijin made it up due to lack of documentation available.
Most planes including the EFT normally operate from 0 to Mach 1.5, and any unrealistic modeling in those areas are a problem.
I think F-16A is better the both