Jump to content

Engine Power


Neor

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

as far as i know there are different Engine configurations. The max thrust is different betwen Training configuration and Combat ready!?

Will we get the „More Trust“ (combat ready) Version?


Edited by Neor
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/25/2021 at 2:07 PM, Neor said:

Hi,

 

as far as i know there are different Engine configurations. The max thrust is different betwen Training configuration and Combat ready!?

Will we get the „More Trust“ (combat ready) Version?

 

 

IIRC some Eurofighter pilot said during the YT interview it's about this official 90kN but it can be increased by some 10% with some emergency power switch or something.

But this is only an anecdotal knowledge and zero documentation or data.

Or maybe this engine regime is classified?


Edited by bies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“The normal performance of the engine can be increased by a so-called "war setting" (battle setting), which, however, leads to greatly increased maintenance costs and a shorter service life of the engine. 
Presumably, this additional output is achieved by increasing the temperature and pressure in the combustion chamber. In this way, an increase in the dry thrust of 15% to 69kN per engine and an increase in the afterburner thrust of 5% to 95kN per engine is achieved. 
For a few seconds, even up to 102kN thrust can be achieved without damaging the engine.”

 

https://eurofighter-airpower-at.translate.goog/technik-triebwerke.htm?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=ajax,nv,elem

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow this is verry intresting. Now I wonder how much thrust we will get^^

90kn and 60kn is already awesome, but 69kn and 102kn would be well appreciated 😀


Edited by Neor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2021 at 6:49 PM, F-2 said:

 

Nice.

 

Didn't know of such "extra boost" capabilities. Makes the thing even more deadly I guess...


Edited by Eldur
  • Like 2

dcsdashie-hb-ed.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/the-eurofighter-ecr-and-the-luftwaffe-electronic-attack-concept
 

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/ila-eurofighter-to-upgrade-typhoon-engine-to-lift-sales/127883.article
 

their was somewhat recent talk about upgrading to the 23000lbf EJ230 for the ECR upgrade and possibly new build aircraft. If that upgrade does hit it would be very exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, F-2 said:

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/the-eurofighter-ecr-and-the-luftwaffe-electronic-attack-concept
 

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/ila-eurofighter-to-upgrade-typhoon-engine-to-lift-sales/127883.article
 

their was somewhat recent talk about upgrading to the 23000lbf EJ230 for the ECR upgrade and possibly new build aircraft. If that upgrade does hit it would be very exciting.

hmm they might try to implement some of the EJ2x0's improvements but without the thrust vectoring...

 

actually maybe not - that thing is a whole different beast

 

Eurofighter Technology and Performance : Propulsion (archive.org) here's an article about the EJ200 and its development with regards to the J2x0.... predicted thrust of 120kN with reheat. jeez


Edited by Zahnatom
  • Like 1

image.png My beloved ❤️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
4 hours ago, Spectre11 said:

Looks ridiculous. More than twice the thrust at 10k, a massive jump from 8k to 10k and then down at 15k and another notable jump at 20k. That makes no sense.

Yea, after this I went looking on a web archive of the old Rolls Royce website they cite in the paper but I can’t seem to find what they used to model the engine performance. I do have some numbers from a GAO report on the F414 which is probably the closest thrust class engine. I know the EJ200 has much greater power supersonic but perhaps they are similar subsonic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, F-2 said:

Yea, after this I went looking on a web archive of the old Rolls Royce website they cite in the paper but I can’t seem to find what they used to model the engine performance. I do have some numbers from a GAO report on the F414 which is probably the closest thrust class engine. I know the EJ200 has much greater power supersonic but perhaps they are similar subsonic?

The airintake configuration plays an important role. The same engine may perform quite differently in different airframes. Just take a look at the Mach limits of the F/A-18, Tejas and Gripen, which are all powered by the F-404, not always the exactly same variant though. Same is true for the F-414 in the Gripen E/F vs Super Hornet. Or compare the Mach limits of F-100 or F-110 powered F-15s and F-16s. Differences in aerodynamics apart, the intake configuration is important and makes a huge difference. Many people falsley believe that the S-curved intakes on the Typhoon and other contemporary aircraft are for minimising the RCS, but that's only a side effect. The primary reason is to slow the air down to subsonic speeds before it hits the engine compressor. Engine pressure characteristics can thus be maintained at higher Mach numbers without complex moving ramps, nevertheless airframe heating, but also pressure recovery characteristics limit aircraft like the Typhoon to around Mach 2. In another airframe this might be different, positive and negative alike. You can find a reasonably accurate Mach/Altitude envelope graph for the Typhoon on the airpower.at website. From here yoj can deduce what Mach numbers are eligable at various altitudes and you will find out that the graph you posted doesn't match at all. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Spectre11 said:

The airintake configuration plays an important role. The same engine may perform quite differently in different airframes. Just take a look at the Mach limits of the F/A-18, Tejas and Gripen, which are all powered by the F-404, not always the exactly same variant though. Same is true for the F-414 in the Gripen E/F vs Super Hornet. Or compare the Mach limits of F-100 or F-110 powered F-15s and F-16s. Differences in aerodynamics apart, the intake configuration is important and makes a huge difference. Many people falsley believe that the S-curved intakes on the Typhoon and other contemporary aircraft are for minimising the RCS, but that's only a side effect. The primary reason is to slow the air down to subsonic speeds before it hits the engine compressor. Engine pressure characteristics can thus be maintained at higher Mach numbers without complex moving ramps, nevertheless airframe heating, but also pressure recovery characteristics limit aircraft like the Typhoon to around Mach 2. In another airframe this might be different, positive and negative alike. You can find a reasonably accurate Mach/Altitude envelope graph for the Typhoon on the airpower.at website. From here yoj can deduce what Mach numbers are eligable at various altitudes and you will find out that the graph you posted doesn't match at all. 

This. The T-38C received the performance modification program (PMP) upgrades which improved low altitude performance and reduced takeoff distance. But the intake design chosen dropped the max mach from 1.6 at altitude to 1.15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...