I was considering wether or not to include it but decided not to because it was too far away (not instantly relevant) and i didn’t see him continuing it after that. Ofcourse everyone can continue to debate without such acts as it has been addressed.
mig23m and handclap have been having a good debate for some time now
In which case I might plead that my above comments be disregarded, I don’t feel that it’s useful or relevant to kick the dead horse… which is essentially what i’ve just done haha.
You’ve said I’m wrong, the devs said they think the RM12 has higher thrust… none of us are experts in the field and the sources speak for themselves imo, you’ve refuted precisely nothing in regards to the discussion.
You literally stated the F404-GE-402 is before the RM12 and has less static thrust therefore is worse. That’s exactly what you did, with the full knowledge that it was already pointed out and discussed as to why that was erroneous thinking.
The other sources show this as well, but I’m confirming it via the primary source.
You haven’t so much as acknowledged them let alone entertained them.
I’ve provided thrust datapoints for RM12 as well as the full plot for -400 from which it improves on. +11% at static speeds and 20% at mach 1.2.
Nothing classified was referenced at all, period.
It’s not classified, just as the F-16 block 50/52 documents available on the internet aren’t but due to that “export restricted” tag it’s unusable on the forum.
I’d link it otherwise.
You’re always more than welcome to talk to me on discord.
No you haven’t, you made them up.
I typo’d, the -402 is what I meant in that excerpt. As we know it produces +11% thrust at static and +20% at 1.2 mach.
If you’d please answer the previous point.
Which point?
^ This, that is how it is supposed to work
If I say 1+3=5…
Then really what should happen is that people should point how how that is flawed, and not that I am “clueless” or “dont know what I am talking about”…
because that does nothing to set the facts straight… and you will just go around and around in circles with the same problem at hand and nothing to work out what the problem is…
So… if some have nothing to contribute to the discussion, or how to solve the problem ?.. then say nothing at all…
So… enough of this type of nonsense… take this type of personal dispute to PM, it is only Trolling and derailing the thread… Thanks!
I don’t know if you’ve discussed this here, but I was wondering, don’t you actually deal with three engines ?
First the F-404 GE 402, then the RM-12 and then the F-404 GE 402 EPE engine ?
The first is the oldest and the last is the youngest?
F-404-GE-400, which is the F/A-18A/B engine.
Then the F-404/RM12, a version improved for the JAS 39
Then the F-404-GE-402, the EPE engine for the F/A-18C/D.
mig23m has implied that because it’s slightly newer, the 402 should have all the improvements of the RM12 plus more improvements. The fact that it has a lower static thrust, and a lower flowmass even with a higher bypass ratio is indicative it is worse than the RM12 across the board. For example the F-414 engine for the SuperHornet, which produces much more thrust than any of these engines, has a much lower bypass ratio, meaning more of the air is getting used with fuel in the combustion chamber of the turbine.
EPE only had the last series of Hornet C and then the Swiss
You’d know more than me. I don’t know the details of which versions received which improvements and when.
The hornet will be a good plane when it comes, it just won’t be a pure dogfighter like the F-16 and Gripen. It wasn’t designed to be though, it’s much more of a multi-role aircraft. It should be able to pull incredible alpha though, so I can’t wait to see what the flight model looks like when it arrives.
MiG-23M making up a million data points and traveling back in time to publish them to win an argument about the Grippen apparently.
No, I haven’t implied anything. The sources discuss explicitly what was changed between the models. The F404-GE-402 has all of the improvements of the RM12, except in areas where it further improved upon the changes done to the RM12.
The RM12 has a higher flow fan, as expected, this results in a higher uninstalled static thrust. The -402 has the original fan, modified, with a better flowing core and higher RPM. The bypass ratio is higher… so more fresh air is usable for the afterburner section and temps are managed better until higher airspeeds. The lower pressure ratio means that friction heating is less of an issue, turbine inlet temperature is likely lower at the same speeds as that of the RM12.
Time travel baby ;)
The “EPE” or “enhanced performance engine” is the F404-GE-402. They are not two separate models. Simply put, the GE-402 utilizes a 2nd gen core for the F404 series which has +200 degree turbine inlet temps limit and flows air better with a lower pressure ratio than that of the RM12 to produce similar (likely better) peak thrust. The bypass ratio is lower, which means more air flows around the engine (improving cooling) but also providing more fresh air for the afterburner. This indicates to me that the F404-GE-402 should have a higher peak thrust ceiling than that of the RM12.
Yes, that’s right, somehow I thought it was the -GE 402 model and the EPE is its stronger variant.
I think the GE 402 may be slightly more powerful than the RM-12 at a certain speed and altitude. But the RM-12 will have the same, maybe with a bigger difference for Volvo
I see two problems :
The performance of an engine varies greatly depending on its speed and altitude (air pressure/density). If we don’t have graphs, it will be hard to compare engines purely based on uninstalled thrust.
But moreover, we don’t know what the installed thrust is for the Hornet and Gripen :-/
The sources directly contradict this. For example it doesn’t incorporate the better intake fan from the RM12.
Using all of this logic the F-414, which they replaced the 402 with in the Super Hornet, would be worse. It has a higher pressure ratio, a higher static thrust, and a much lower bypass ratio than the 400/402.
Seeing we know they went with the F-141, we know who is right here.
The reality is that Saab and later BAe made improvements to the 400, resulting in the RM12, which far exceeded what GE were able to achieve in the 402 EPE program. Probably for cost reasons. Remember the Hornet was the ugly duckling of the US military-industrial complex for a long time.
One interesting reason I can think of is fuel consumption; the Hornet didn’t meet range criteria, so a more fuel-efficient engine almost as powerful as the RM-12 would have been useful. And the -402 has a slightly lower fuel consumption than the RM-12.
Already discussed, the better intake fan only improves performance in the upper left hand of the flight envelope.
The F414 has a much larger fan with 16% higher flow… the fan is also longer by 5 inches. Among a myriad of other changes it is a much different engine than the RM12 and F404-GE-402 which are quite similar (with the exception of the improvements the -402 made)…
That’s not true actually. It specifically makes a large improvement in the upper left of the envelope. But it provides a higher mass flow across the board according to the sources.