Eurofighter relative flight performance, feat. Gero Finke

[Hummingbird]

17 hours ago, Spectre11 said:

The question has been answered before. The limits are dynamically adapted.

 

Well just stating it without providing any source doesn't say much. What does he base it on? 

 

Again not saying he's wrong, but a source to confirm that it's not just hearsay would be nice. Also if this is known, then some limitations should also be known, i.e. when (at what weight) does 9 G become unavailable.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Thinder]

On 9/22/2020 at 6:17 PM, Spurts said:

I'm seeing 130-140 for the Hornet based on weight and ~140 for the Typhoon (no weight listed)

 

 

Edit: read another article on the Tiffy that said Approach is above 135. So it may be reasonable to say at comparable landing conditions the Hornet is ~5kt slower. No surprise to me. Straight wing with tons of camber vs delta with very little camber.

 

 

The Hornet is designed for a lower approach speed but much higher vertical speed, visibility is way more important in order to avoid hitting the back of the carrier and been able to see the mirrors and cables, hence reduced AoA for a good downward visibility, as for Typhoon, low speeds are not its fortes, it is not conceived for short take off and landing or high AoA but high acceleration rates, climb rate and supercruise.

 

 

[Thinder]

2 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

Also if this is known, then some limitations should also be known, i.e. when (at what weight) does 9 G become unavailable.

 

 

Not necesarily what Eurofighter wants everyone to know, in particular out of CG and assymetric load limitations which an adversary can take advantage of.

 

Best example are the SU-27 and F-16 transonic G-limits with assymetric load, pulling Gs on them after firing a BVR AAM is like applying full ruder and at high AoA in transonic above 30.000Ft, it's departure guaranteed.

 

So if you want to take on those two A-Cs in BVR, bring them into the flight regime where they are G-limited before firing your AAMs, they will have a hard time taking efficient evasive maneuvers, if i was eurogihter I'd keep those infos squadron-level classified, because the long moment arm is not particularly good with out of Cg and assymetric load either...

Edited June 27, 2021 by Thinder

[Hummingbird]

Ooh boy, here we go again...

[Spectre11]

6 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

 

Well just stating it without providing any source doesn't say much. What does he base it on? 

 

Again not saying he's wrong, but a source to confirm that it's not just hearsay would be nice. Also if this is known, then some limitations should also be known, i.e. when (at what weight) does 9 G become unavailable.

 

 

 

IIRC there have been a number of hints about 9 g capability with tanks attached (at various airshows for example). That's only true if the tank isn't full, but at least near to empty.

[Hummingbird]

2 hours ago, Spectre11 said:

IIRC there have been a number of hints about 9 g capability with tanks attached (at various airshows for example). That's only true if the tank isn't full, but at least near to empty.

 

I don't remember if it was Gero or some other EF pilot, but I'm pretty sure an EF pilot talked about full 9 G capability with a full A2A load out (I assume that's 4x AIM120's + 4x IRIS-T's) and full internal fuel + centerline tank. 

 

Some websites claim +9/-3 G with full internal fuel + 2x AIM-120's, but no sources are listed.

 

Would be interesting with some insight on this from the real experts (the SME's), shouldn't be a problem considering we'll know once the module is released anyway

Edited June 27, 2021 by Hummingbird

[QuiGon]

3 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

I don't remember if it was Gero or some other EF pilot, but I'm pretty sure an EF pilot talked about full 9 G capability with a full A2A load out (I assume that's 4x AIM120's + 4x IRIS-T's) and full internal fuel + centerline tank.

 

That was here on the Fighter Pilot Podcast (37:54) and it wasn't Gero.

Edited June 27, 2021 by QuiGon

[Hummingbird]

Thanks QuiGon. So that is actually more than I remembered, i.e. A2A load out with two external bags of gas, not just one, and still 9 G available. That's impressive. 

[Spectre11]

2 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

Thanks QuiGon. So that is actually more than I remembered, i.e. A2A load out with two external bags of gas, not just one, and still 9 G available. That's impressive. 

The weight of an empty 1000 l SFT is similar to that of an AMRAAM...

[Hummingbird]

3 hours ago, Spectre11 said:

The weight of an empty 1000 l SFT is similar to that of an AMRAAM...

 

I doubt he means with empty tanks. Based on displays with way more stuff hanging underneath, I'd venture saying 9 G is most likely available with a full A2A load out + 2x 1,000 L atleast partially filled bags. That's merely an assumption though, the SME's know the actual answer. 

 

That said the EF's structure, due to more extensive use of composite materials, on top of being lighter probably features a very high plastic deformation limit, allowing for a higher operational load limit across different weights to be maintained - eventhough the ultimate load limit might at the same time actually be lower than with conventional materials. 

 

That's generally the advantage of using composites anyway, the practical load limits being much closer to the ultimate limit, allowing for structural weight reductions. 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Spectre11]

It's simple math. One full 1000 l tank equates to around 950 kg of weight dependent on the actual fuel density. That's equivalent to a Mk84 2000 lb class store. You already have notable load limit restrictions with 1000 lb class stores like Mk83 and derived stores and that's approx. a half full tank... don't expect a 9 g capability with much more than maybe 10% of fuel left. Everything else is wishful thinking.

[Hummingbird]

12 hours ago, Spectre11 said:

It's simple math. One full 1000 l tank equates to around 950 kg of weight dependent on the actual fuel density. That's equivalent to a Mk84 2000 lb class store. You already have notable load limit restrictions with 1000 lb class stores like Mk83 and derived stores and that's approx. a half full tank... don't expect a 9 g capability with much more than maybe 10% of fuel left. Everything else is wishful thinking.

 

Well without knowing the load restrictions with those stores, we can't say. Math is only good if you have a baseline figure to start from.

 

That said, I haven't seen many other aircraft do airshow demos with load outs like these:

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Spurts]

Most airshow routines also don't go above 7G, even if the announcer says otherwise.  a 250kg class LGB isn't THAT much heavier than a Meteor.  Those are also going to be inert rounds, so there is no consideration about "how many Gs can the bomb components take and still function".

[Hummingbird]

Yes, also not saying Spectre is wrong, it's just hard to say anything definitive without a baseline figure to go from.

 

That said I have it from two inside sources now that full 9 G capability is available with full internal fuel + 4x AIM-120's + 4x IRIS-T's. So we know that much. Wether it goes down from there, or 9 G is still available with a full centerline tank on top, that I don't know however (couldn't get an answer on that). With two wing tanks on top 9 G is likely not be available anymore, Spectre expressed it wasn't, and based on a PM discussion with him, he's convinced me he is probably right about that.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Rayak]

Just for info, most of the time when a manufacturer says "full AA load", it usually means a full loadout of AA missile, empty centerline tank and half fuel load as it is suppose to represent the performances of the aircraft in actual combat situation, so after take-off, climb and cruise toward the mission area.

[Hummingbird]

Yes, in the case of the EF however 9 G capability is there with full internal fuel + 8x AAM's. Wether it's still there with a centerline tank as well, I don't know.

[Stefem]

On 9/16/2020 at 1:04 PM, Hummingbird said:

 

Only instantaneous or also sustained?

AFAIK (based on actual pilots) it can stay in a constant 9G turn until it run out of fuel or the pilot pass out

[F-2]

At 5000 feet the Eurofighter has a 16.2 degree per second turn rate vs the super hornets 15. It does not specify the load or fuel state. However compared to the GAO report we have it seems like the Eurofighter and our 402 powered legacy hornet should very similar in terms of STR.

https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Decoding_Indias_MMRCA_Decision.pdf
 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XCcLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=F/A-18E+sustained+turn&source=bl&ots=VDPtcyELXn&sig=UJf5CawaEWf0_qeoPm5grVY5xT4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBWoVChMI5OyCgpmLyQIVTzqICh1-KQ9S#v=onepage&q=F%2FA-18E sustained turn&f=true

 

[F-2]

Quote

Supercruise (supersonic speed without afterburner): Make 1.2 to 10,973 m (36,000 ft)
max. Mach speed in horizontal flight: 2+ from 8,537m (28,000ft) to 16,768m (55,000ft)
max. Speed near the ground: Make 1.15 (1,390km/h)
Service summit height: 55,000ft to 65.000ft
Acceleration from standstill to takeoff: less than 8 seconds
Initial climb capacity: 17,567m/min
Ascent to 9,146 m from a standstill: 86 seconds (official factory specification)
Ascent to 13,000 m from standstill: 70 seconds (fruit. Katz, JG73 in abendblatt.de)
Ascent to 10,670 m and acceleration onMake 1.5 out of standstill: under 2.5 minutes
Acceleration of 200 knots (~370 km/h) onMake 1 (~1,240 km/h) at sea level: 30 sec.
Acceleration from Mach 0.9 (~951 km/h) to Mach 1.2 (~1.267 km/h) in tropopause: 40 sec.
Acceleration from Mach 0.9 (~951 km/h) to Mach 1.4 (~1,479 km/h) during tropopause: 62 sec.
Fuel consumption at 1,500m altitude at Mach 0.9 (~1,050 km/h) : 85 kg/min
Required runway length (sea level, 15°C): below 700 m
Launch route with hunter armament: ~300 m
Landing distance with hunting armament: ~600 m
max. Load multiples: +9 g / -3 g
max. Load capacity: 470 kg/m2
max. Thrust/weight ratio: 130 kg/kN

http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm

[maxsin72]

Eurofighter has "only" 150 gun rounds who last about 5 seconds, how does the gun aiming system works? Does the Eurofighter has a system who automatically gun shot when there is a high possibility to hit the enemy plane in bfm? Thx

[Dragon1-1]

I don't think so, but it's not a problem. Try the Mirage, its DEFA cannons have a similar rate of fire to Eurofighter's BK-27, and it's got just 125 rounds per gun. No automatic shooting on that one, in fact, its gunsight is kind of crap. It's plenty for the purpose, though, 5 seconds of trigger time is enough to score a kill, even with Mirage's laggy sight. It's not the A-10, it doesn't need a lot of bullets.

[TLTeo]

On 2/11/2022 at 3:26 AM, maxsin72 said:

Does the Eurofighter has a system who automatically gun shot when there is a high possibility to hit the enemy plane in bfm?

Nop, Dassault tried that with the Rafale but it never worked iirc.

And yeah the rate of fire is way lower than an M61 (~1000/1700 rpm vs 4500/6000rpm), so you have about the same firing time as in the Viper or Hornet.

[maxsin72]

On 2/23/2022 at 9:08 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

I don't think so, but it's not a problem. Try the Mirage, its DEFA cannons have a similar rate of fire to Eurofighter's BK-27, and it's got just 125 rounds per gun. No automatic shooting on that one, in fact, its gunsight is kind of crap. It's plenty for the purpose, though, 5 seconds of trigger time is enough to score a kill, even with Mirage's laggy sight. It's not the A-10, it doesn't need a lot of bullets.

 

On 2/24/2022 at 12:51 AM, TLTeo said:

Nop, Dassault tried that with the Rafale but it never worked iirc.

And yeah the rate of fire is way lower than an M61 (~1000/1700 rpm vs 4500/6000rpm), so you have about the same firing time as in the Viper or Hornet.

Thanks for the answers

[Hummingbird]

On 2/5/2022 at 3:36 PM, F-2 said:

At 5000 feet the Eurofighter has a 16.2 degree per second turn rate vs the super hornets 15. It does not specify the load or fuel state. However compared to the GAO report we have it seems like the Eurofighter and our 402 powered legacy hornet should very similar in terms of STR.

https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Decoding_Indias_MMRCA_Decision.pdf
 

https://books.google.com/books?id=XCcLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=F/A-18E+sustained+turn&source=bl&ots=VDPtcyELXn&sig=UJf5CawaEWf0_qeoPm5grVY5xT4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBWoVChMI5OyCgpmLyQIVTzqICh1-KQ9S#v=onepage&q=F%2FA-18E sustained turn&f=true

 

 

Considering the Eurofighter will outrate the F-16 (as pr. pilot testimony on here), I doubt the F/A-18C will be close in STR, let alone bleed rate. The EF is supposed to be a rate monster beyond even the F-16, and I think we'll see the F-16 start to mostly dominate over the F/A-18C now that it's FM has been corrected.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Hummingbird

[F-2]

On 3/17/2022 at 3:10 PM, Hummingbird said:

 

Considering the Eurofighter will outrate the F-16 (as pr. pilot testimony on here), I doubt the F/A-18C will be close in STR, let alone bleed rate. The EF is supposed to be a rate monster beyond even the F-16, and I think we'll see the F-16 start to mostly dominate over the F/A-18C now that it's FM has been corrected.

 

The GAO gives the Super hornet 18 degrees per second turn rate vs 19.2 per seconds on the 402 powered Hornet with equivalent loads at sea level. The super hornet has 93% of the hornet sustained turn rate under these conditions.

 

MMRCA gives 15 degrees per second for the super hornet and 16.2 for the Eurofighter at 5000 feet. The loads are unknown but presumably comparable as I know of no attempt by Boeing to complain about this. The super hornet has 93% the STR of the Eurofighter under these conditions.

 

the GAO report gives 11.6 degrees per second for the super hornet and 12.3 for the 402 powered f-18c at 15000. The super hornet has 94% the STR of the legacy hornet under these conditions.

At least at low level both seem to be equally better then the super hornet.

the F-16 mentioned is a Dutch F-16 MLU which has some weight gain but with an engine of similar thrust class. The Italian Air Force claims under 10000 feet their F-16 ADF and the Eurofighter are equivalent with the Eurofighter gaining advantage above that.

https://theaviationist.com/2012/12/10/viper-dogfight/
 

Quote

And how can the Viper perform against the Eurofighter Typhoon?

During more or less a decade of service with the Italian Air Force, the F-16 has been extensively used to train Typhoon pilots in WVR engagements. According to the Italian pilots, the F-16 matches the F-2000 under 10,000 feet. But above FL100 the Typhoon becomes quite difficult to beat since its superior aerodynamics give the Eurofighter can out maneuver the Viper at every engagement

This is to say nothing of the later vipers with enhanced engine options. Our block 50 should be somewhat comparable with more acceleration then the hornet or F-16a.