The jet-engine site does not even list an SFC for the F414-400. Furthermore, read the notes.
Notes:
1. The technical information presented here is accurate to available sources. Any comments, suggestions, questions or
corrections will be greatly appreciated.
It’s info. taken from other unnamed sources.
Clearly there’s going to be a variance. If the test was under just one condition, why would there be a variance for the EJ200 and not the M88? Have you considered that an equivalent range for the M88 is probably 0.78-0.85? The design point figure is the 0.74.
Firstly I didn’t get the figure from wikipedia, I just knew it. However, having then looked at wikipedia after your reply, it clearly refers to RR, which I also remember. The conspiracy here is purely in your head. Having failed with the compactness argument and been unable to prove any kind of superiority whatsoever for the M88, the M88 protagonists moved on to digging the internet for spurious sources. And please tell me why you think a foreign professor unassociated with the engine in question is a valid source? Just because they, like you claimed the higher figure? And then you quote a source for the mk100 version with lower PR and TET, which states yet a different figure. Professors make tons of errors. I had a professor as a lecturer on lasers, he was a mathematical Nincompoop.
We can stick with my figure simply because the lower figure is the design point figure, which is equivalent to the 0.78 quoted for the M88. We can stick with it for all the reasons both myself and trident have provided. Higher BPR and higher PR will give higher SFC. We’ll stick with it because your jet-engine source has other errors, in fact it’s a pure comedy of errors:
1) Take the M88-2 BPR on the link. 0.50 instead of the manufacturer figure of 0.30.
2) The M88-3 dry SFC is slightly higher than for the M88-2 but the wet SFC is much lower despite a much higher % thrust increase during afterburning.
3) Incorrect dry thrust for F414-400.
4) Oh yeah, and the wet SFC quoted for the M88-2 is also way different to the manufacturer SFC. 2.0 vs 1.7.
5) And if you look at the difference in airflow for the M88-2 and M88-ECO it’s about 11%. 65kg/s (143lb/s) vs 72kg/s (157lb/s). Now look at the figures on your link of stupidty. For the M88-2 it’s 150lb/s and for the M88-3 it’s 158lb/s, only 5% higher. 5% higher for >20% more thrust? And different to manufacturer for M88-2.
And these are only the ones I’ve seen during a quick pass. This is what happens when you dig the internet for strawman, a scarecrow pops up and laughs his head off at you. At least check your sources for integrity before wasting our time.
o, we can throw out the professor’s book, the website with accurate manufacturer’s engine data
:eagerness::highly_amused:
Sign In
