Which is why you don’t understand how and why this or that engine is fitted into a specific airframe.

That made no sense either? I said it can produce the same thrust as the M88 at a lower jet velocity due to higher mass flow rate. That does not prevent it from being able to generate a higher specific thrust and a higher jet velocity when required. It will not be flat out at all times.

SFC is SFC. Fuel consumption is another thing and depends on thrust setting which, for a given speed, is higher for an heavier aircraft.

As already mentioned, I’m talking about the engine not the aircraft. Bringing the aircraft into it makes it far too complicated to analyse because all the data isn’t available and their are too many variables.

In case you didn’t get it yet, the Typhoon weights about 15% more and that doesn’t come for free.

It weighs about 10% more. Rafale B weighs 33,000lbs, Rafale C 32,000lb, Typhoon 35,000lb.

The Rafale got a smaller (and less powerful engine) because it’s smaller and lighter. M-88 is designed to be what it is, not to be an EJ-200 like.

But the net result is an engine with a higher T/W, and lower SFC, and an aircraft with a higher T/W.

Now if you knew your stuff, you should have get that the bypass ratios mean the mass airflow that goes by the hot parts of these engines is 46.2 kg/s for the EJ-200 vs 45.5 kg/s for the M-88.

Dude, you made 4 obvious factual errors in your last post, I think you should lay off the, “Now if you knew your stuff,” charade:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?136822-Typhoon-vs-Rafale&p=2268676#post2268676

And when you begin with, “Now if you new your stuff,” it usually doesn’t help to follow it with an incorrect execution of a basic mathematical operation:

77/1.4 = 55kg/s core flow (EJ200), 65/1.3 = 50kg/s core flow (M88)

But in terms of flow through the turbine (‘hot parts’), you obviously have to multiply those figures by (1 + F), where F = Fuel-to-Air Ratio.

EJ-200 inlet diameter used to be 740mm on official brochures (and still be on eurofighter.com), and that’s already an achievement according to some untold parameter (namely frontal thrust).
The 700 mm figure is too spurious to be taken seriously. Firstly the engine weight would then be way too high for such a simple design, secondly it would be a world record by a fair margin as far as frontal thrust is concerned.
No really, that’s very doubtful and I don’t buy it. Even if this is the right number for something, it doesn’t compare to the 27″ inlet diameter of the M-88.

Well I’m only going by the manufacturer’s datasheets which say 700mm for EJ200 vs 27.5in (698.5mm) for M88, but hey, what do they know? Maybe the diameter changed on later versions?? But MTU is very specific, in that they also say 28in, which is clearly not rounded to a multiple of 5 or 10.

http://www.mtu.de/fileadmin/EN/2_Engines/2_Military_Aircraft_Engines/1_Fighter_Aircraft/EJ200/ProductLeaflet_EJ200.pdf
http://www.snecma.com/file/download/fiche_m88_2011_ang_hd.pdf

The engine weight is different because the engine is longer due to a more gradual pressure gradient across the more complex compressor stages, which yield a higher pressure ratio than the M88. So I suspect 15% extra length explains 10% extra weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overall_pressure_ratio#Advantages_of_high_overall_pressure_ratios

Generally speaking, a higher overall pressure ratio implies higher efficiency, but the engine will usually weigh more, so there is a compromise.

The Argentinian navy only had 5(?) actual Exocet missiles delivered at the beginning of the war – I don’t think this weapon in such numbers was ever going to have much effect on the Soviet Navy in 1982. Didn’t the RN lose more ships to dumb bombs?

The only Exocet that actually hit got lucky because another ship was blocking the engagement radar and secondary TV mode of a Sea Wolf system. And HMS Sheffield failed to receive the warning from HMS Glasgow that it was coming. The Sea Wolf system was otherwise more than capable of shooting it down.

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1983/1983%20-%202236.html

Some quite old info from Indian MMRCA and some old info from many various sources.:-

In 2007 it was ~2000 hours MTBO for EJ200, then there were ‘upgrades’ these could be used for either more thrust or more life, the peacetime setting is for more life.

Then the methodology changed from a set time to on demand maintenance, ISTR 6000 hours is still the design lifetime of engine before full overhaul, but would need citation.

The EJ200 has ~15 changeable modules, M88 = ~21,

The Rafale M88 was quoted as 3000 hours some time ago, with 800h inspections.

Ej200 does have a good reputation for reliability, but how it directly compares to M88 is unknown to me.

I think you are right about the 6,000 hours if I’m understanding this link correctly:

http://www.rolls-royce.com/customers/defence-aerospace/products/combat-jets/ej200.aspx#ej200-overview

Double post.

You have proven that its T/W ratio is a bit better on the EJ200 at 0 altitude. That doesn’t prove much besides the fact that your are dishonest.

Nic

T/W 10% better, SFC a few percent better based on medium value, higher pressure ratio, higher mass-flow rate confirm SFC likely better throughout much of the envelope and mean lower jet velocity and core temperature for any given thrust. Same diameter, same drag package. Can’t see what else there is to discuss.

Like you did when you claimed that the EJ200 was superior to the M88, to which I asked why exactly?

Nic

And which I think I’ve more than proved now to anyone with an open mind. This is the problem with some people. They have to insist that everything about one aircraft is better and refuse to accept that they both have strengths. Now I understand why France ended up off the project. All the partners were like, “well this engine design is obviously better,” and then some French guy says, “no no, ours is better.” And they replied, “well every parameter of this design seems better,” to which came, “no no, we must have a French engine.” And because of that, all 5 countries ended up with a fighter that’s worse than it otherwise could have been. The EU will fail for the same reason.

And what if someone just makes unfounded remarks with no evidence or context?