“My 2km wide metal beam travels at Mach 2 on paper, why doesn’t it do it in real life”.
Lmao
1 Like
We all want a 2km metal beam, it falls out of the sky though because of drag.
Any proof for this? Because the F-15 could have just worse channel losses than the F-16
2 Likes
That’s not how that works.
Engine intakes would have to be identical in order for F-15 or F-16 to be performing incorrectly to the other.
Engine intakes are different.
F-15’s are designed for >2.5 mach.
F-16’s are designed for <2 mach.
So F-15’s engine intakes are going to cause more channel losses than F-16’s.
The faster a jet goes the more channel loss [namely at subsonic speeds] will occur.
This is one of the reasons the F-14B produces less thrust than the F-16C.
So of course the F-16A’s engines should be producing more thrust as the engine intake is better designed for subsonic thrust.
2 Likes
I would like to see how you slap an extra engine onto anything without changing the fuselage.
There will be different channel losses and engine efficiency as well. What exactly is this supposed to show or achieve?
2 Likes
SidewaysCube946 is currently right,… you can’t put a number and spit on everyone if you have no clues of other factors,…
you’re the one blinding yourself, as a chart is made accounting for specifics factors.
this goes through lot of experimentations, and recording any environnemental factors
2 Likes