Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure

At ~30.000 feet it is ~1/3 already.

I guess what you both mean is that thrust lessens not sfc?

You are wrong at SFC. SFC = Specific Fuel Consumption. SFC is a static value typical for for the static thrust (in this case 60 kN/90 kN to stick with official data). At altitude the thrust produced reduces, while with airspeed the consumption goes up. That’s the reason why the supercruise radius is also considerabley lower than at subsonic speeds. Basically you can’t convert SFC in range as this is the consumption at max dry or reheat thrust in static conditions (normal 0 level with ISO standard 15° C etc.). At altitude both thrust and fuel consumption are way lower than at low level. That’s also the reason why the given mission radius at sea level is much lower than the mission radius at altitude, simply as the consumption is much lower there. Hope that helps.

Quite! And thanx for the answer.
But can it be as low as 3 time the static value?

This is the actual page I was referring to.
If using full mil thrust, with a SFC of 23g/kN.s, a pair of ej200s will consume abt 3300 kg from the 5000 available, leaving 1700kg for 30 minutes loiter, battle, and return to base. Marginal I should say :confused:

In a max supersonic scramble though my calculations are even more problematic.
With a SFC of 49g/kN.s a pair of EJs will burn no less than 10500Kg!!!

Where am I wrong?

………………..

For the benefit of the interested and due to obvious misunderstanding:
Re Typhoon + supercruise:
A supercruise capability for the Typhoon was ackknowledged back in the earlier 90s when the prototypes haven’t even demonstrated that capability and when marketing was not present, as not even the customer nations ordered the aircraft. That wasn’t recognised by the broad public however, as it wasn’t widely reported. The situation changed in the later 90s when prototypes (DA4 & 7) demonstrated that capability a reached a supercruise speed ~ mach 1.2. A value we can still read in many official publications. The term supercruise itself was better known by the broad public at that time due the F-22 and Eurofighter started to point out this capability more often as the first foreign marketing campaigns were underway.
A MTU engeneer said back then that mach 1.3 was realistic with speeds up to mach 1.5 with improved engines. Fact is all production Typhoons since block 2 are powered by the EJ200 Mk101 FOC version which features new components and is stronger than any earlier versions including the EIS version of block 1 aircraft, pre-production and prototype engines.
Mach 1.4-1.5 has been “verbaly” stated and reported for some time now and the eurofighter website just recently stats mach 1.5 as possible supercruise speed. What has been consistently said is that this is a max figure, not necessarily sustained for longer periods and definitely not in an operational configuration! That is what some here got wrong. Operational applicable supercruise speed is ~mach 1.2-1.3 depending on the configuration and including AAMs and drop tanks (BTW 1000 l, not 1500 l as Typhoon11 said).

……………

Hope that this clears something up.

Just 3 questions

1. Does the EF need A/B to exceed M1.0?
2. For how long period can SC be sustained. In the famous eurofighter_capability.pdf clearly stated, that it can hold SC for 25 minutes with max range 250nm. Is this credible?
Does this has anything to do with compressor blades temperature (not turbine temp)
3. (most difficult to answer) On SC does the EF uses max military power, or reduces RPM to lower temperatures (and consumption)?

I believe the French just listed Greece as a likely export customer in the coming year. If, what you said was true why would Greece purchase the aircraft over more F-16’s…………Especially, considering the latter is already in service and likely cheaper :confused:

Greece being a small country often uses military purchase programs for political influence.
The rafale is amongst the candidates and if Pr Sarkozy support to Greece proves solid he might also get a rafale contract along with the FREMM frigates.

In fact he proposed an exchange, Hellenic M2000 for Rafales.
The later proposal though is not a good one as HAF also needs quantity along with next generation fighters.

greg,

HAF pilots have been very impressed by the rafale. I must find that article where HAF pilots are quoted and praise rafale cokpit datafusion and EW.

If another poster has tihs article can you post it ?

thanks in advance.

No need.
I do confirm that.

HAF pilots were impressed by the cockpit data fusion and EW, and only had minor objections, like there was no countdown display on missile launch.

In my post I was referring to the actual results from the DACT.
In Larrisa where 5 rafales of AdlA came, there were 2 vs 2 and 4 vs 4.
In Andravida a defending force of 4 F-16 and 4 F-4 was protecting the airport from an incoming COMAO of 6 rafales + 10 etendars.

Okay I’ve been too far, I apologise.

I’ll just stick to the fact that the Jon Lake article is pretty much biased to me and that it goes along the lines of your many posts here when it comes to the Rafale and the Typhoon. The rest was uncalled for. That said the fact that you are Jon Lake or not doesn’t really matter does it?

Nic

Nic
I ve read the article (from the original) and I didn t find it biased.
On the contrary. It was as if Lake wanted to keep even distances and didnt want to offend either side.
In fact I was annoyed by that!