However are four sidewinders draggy enough to drop the top speed by 0.4 mach? And in the case of the in-game Tornado, are the engines modelled based on max reheat, or combat?
4 Sidewinders + the wing pylons, which are pretty hefty. Combat thrust would probably improve things slightly as flame has said.
Max reheat, combat isn’t modelled.
1 Like
Interesting - how come this is present where soviet jets, for example, are all assumed to be at their highest reheat setting even if said setting would have had a 3-5 minute limit?
Only one that springs to mind was the MIG-21Bis which was running at combat thrust as its max reheat, which was removed.
1 Like
Was it removed? I wasn’t aware
Yes once it was discovered a report was made and the combat power was taken away.
1 Like
Though that might be a good mechanic at some point to actually have modeled. prehaps along side variable reheat
Hmm, I remember someone on the old forum saying that the combat thrust with channel loss equals the current thrust in game
It might do, we aren’t sure
We have multiple figures:
Combat Thrust(potentially installed) - Manual - 16,500
Installed Reheat Min - Manual - 15,786
Reheat Thrust - Rolls Royce - 16,400
Interesting. It still raises the point - why is the thrust decreasing like this when the aircraft’s limitations should be relatively accurately replicated by the flight characteristics?
1 Like
Re-recorded & supplied the peak thrust at 16026.
My running hypothesis is the variable air intake isn’t being as efficient above that speed leading to less air molecules going into the engine per time unit vs 1800KPH, 684IAS IRL; Assuming WT’s thrust graph is accurate.
That’s the best explanation at this time that I can think of.
This is not realistic behaviour. What I suspect instead, as someone mentioned earlier, is this may simply be a leftover of the prop days and as the aircraft approaches it’s top speed, the engines begin to lose thrust because they are being treated like incredibly powerful propeller engines, not jets.
Don’t forget that, again, intakes cannot delete air. Faster = more air intake 100% of the time.
1 Like
It is realistic behavior tho.
F-16C’s engine has lower thrust closer to the aircraft’s top speed. I posted an illustration by General Electric in another thread, but I think I deleted it when it was flagged as off-topic.
I found a graph showcasing that Turbo Union’s engine has a peak fuel consumption in-between lower speeds & top speed, which would suggest a peak thrust as well; However, I did close that tab & felt that wasn’t evidence of a peak thrust.
Variable air intakes can control how much air enters the intake, as well as air pressure.
The F-16 does not have variable intake ramps.
Maybe not, but the F-14B does. In every vehicle the engine in within, it loses thrust [to varying levels] at higher aircraft speeds.
Which suggests that the intake isn’t allowing enough air through to continue feeding the engine.
Which makes a lot of sense for these aircraft whose doctrine changed from high top-speeds to efficiency from mach 0.7 - ~1.8.
I have no information on the F-14B (the books I have on the F-14 are before it even entered service) but the F-14A should not be experiencing a thrust decrease. Variable ramps cannot adjust the amount of air entering the engine - spill doors can, but this is mostly to avoid killing the engine when throttle adjustments are made.
Beginning your argument on the assumption that Gaijin’s implementation of this is correct is not particularly good.
2 Likes
