I saw this chart for the first time. Yes. Now I see that everything is set up correctly.
1 Like
The F/A-18 engines experience zero/inverted channel losses and are already severly overperforming. No.
In response to the statement saying that the max speed of mach 1.06 is incorrect.
Imagine my shock, yeah thats a thing, however.
There is a very notable difference between the F/A-18A and the Swiss F/A-18C premium, that being the premium has superior engines.
It’s performance is not indicative of the US F/A-18A or C Early.
Finally a actual piece of information in this thread that directly addresses the issue.
Not necessarily, if the sustained thrust of the EPE is as it is, the F/A-18E could in theory almost super cruise and carry a even heavier payload, which are two things the navy would be quite interested in.
More thrust =/= more fuel burn, the EPE is already claimed to have superior fuel efficiency to the existing F414s.
Thats outright what the EPE is doing, its got a redesigned core, compressor and fan assembly, providing more efficient flow.
I’m going to doubt that is an actual hard limit as the F414 exists on the gripen, which exceeds mach 1.2 on the deck and it’s F414, which is nearly identical to the base F414-GE-400.
It makes 0 sense for the same exact engine bar some external gubbins, being able to exceed mach 1.2 on one airframe and not the other if such is a engine design limitation, a different inlet would not solve said issue.
God I wish people would stop propping up the myth of “channel loss”. “Channel loss” does not exist and is a term made up by gaijin, it is just installed loss and primarily comes from engine driven components and not the actual inlets / flow into said engines.
My favorite recent example is gaijin reducing the motor power of the recently added SLAM, only for me to find a literal study done on the inlet design of said missile for them to say the inlet design has no impact on motor operation.
To that same end, the F/A-18E does have installed loss, each engine is missing around 2000 LBF of thrust, while the legacy hornets are around like only 90 ish LBF of loss per engine.
Sadly it does not say exactly what it does
It could also increase the pressure ratio or something else
Or just pull a palavia tornado
Which is one of the most inefficient planes while afterburning 70.9 g/kn/s
But is one of the most efficient dry 16.9 g/kn/s
Almost same has the b1b
Compared to the gripen a engine which sits at
50 vs 24
Lower is better
Ron presented more reasonable line of thought and evidence.
provide source proving him wrong, otherwise youre making yourself to look like fool.
Big sad the f18e will feel even more like a top tier su25 once its fixed
Ravioli food
surprised how close the f404 is compared to the tf30 in regards to efficiency despite being a completely different engine
both wet and dry
THRUST, MAX. A/B 16000 20000 (+25%)
" MAX. NON-A/B 10600 10750 (+1%)
SFC, MAX. A/B, LB/HR/LB. 1.84 1.80 (-2%)
MAX. NON-A/B " 0.78 0.80 (+2%)
first number f404 and second number tf30