but it sounds a little like the Russian claim that their RAM paint that can decrease RCS by 500%.

Now, hold on a second. When you reduce something by 100%, you are left with 0 if I’m not mistaken.

What do you get by reducing something 500%? What is less than no radar reflection?

Wow, somebody necro’d a five and a half years old thread.

Japan is different, they do borrow some things from China like the characters.. but they use them differently, and they often use their own way of pronouncing things. Like the word for Great in Chinese is Da or Dai. In Korean it is Dae, but in Japanese it is Oo. very different. the Japanese also can say Dai but they almost always use Oo. the Japanese culture still keep alot of pagan, old style beliefs, and worse is that they tried to force it on other people like the Koreans and Taiwanese.

Actually dai is used quite a bit in Japanese and they use two readings, onyomi (kind of “chinese style reading”) and kunyomi (kind of “japanese style reading”), with onyomi typically being the case for words that are kanji compounds.

BTW, I guess we’ll all agree that agility or speed aren’t the most important features of a modern air combat.

Well, there is no single most important feature, seeing as it a system within a combat space with several important and defining factors. But, agility and speed are still pretty damn important.

I wasn’t really looking to compare both aircrafts as a whole again. I just wanted to see whether their technology regarding SFC was anywhere near equal.

And a B747 is more powerfull than a Typhoon. So it’ll beat it in dogfight uh?

Did I say anything about one plane beating the other in a fight? No. I was rather thinking in terms of packages, speeds and relative consumption.

The Rafale engines may be 20% less powerfull but the plane is also 20% lighter.

Yes, and still goes about 15% slower when ordered to go somewhere at full military in A2A config.
As for the weight, from ~M0.6 on thrust:drag is more important than thrust:weight. That’s where they break even and where the advantage shifts from the Rafale to the Typhoon, assuming there are no freak physics or oddities in thrust from installed thrust to thrust at speed.

And since both SFC are equivalent, the Rafale consume 20% less.

While going slower. At equal speeds both should produce about the same amount of thrust and should have comparable consumption.

I remember somebody claiming the other way around.

Jackonicko claimed marginally higher SFC for the M88. Seeing as M88-2 and EJ200 are nearly identical in that regard, one could speculate that the M88 could indeed be a tad worse. Would still be about eye level and probably not worth mentioning.

Foofone though, for whatever little it’s worth, claimed the EJ200 had twice the SFC of the M88.

The M88-2 had these figures :
AB : 1,7 kg/daN.h
Dry : 0.8 kg/daN.h

The currently used M88-2 E4 (“Etape 4″=Step 4) has an overall consumption 2 to 4% lower…

I gave it another run. Don’t know where I screwed up before.

For the M88-2:
Dry: 0.8 kg/daN.h = ~22.21 g/kNs
Reheat: 1.7 kg/daN.h = 1700 g/(10N*h) = 170 g/Nh = ~0.0472 g/Nh = 47.2 g/kNs

Interestingly, this is pretty much on par with the quoted figures for the EJ200:
Dry: 21 – 23 g/kNs
Reheat: 47 – 49 g/kNs

The M88-2 E4 should be a bit lower then, but still comparable:
Dry: 21.3 g/kNs – 21.7 g/kNs
Reheat: 45.3 g/kNs – 46.3 g/kNs

I remember somebody claiming the M88 family to be wildly superior in terms of consumption, but as it pans out they are very much on eye level.

I just may go back the second day with my digital video camera and tape the Raptor demo…

May? MAY? MAY?!

This is an order! 😀