Hi Eagle, I think most turbofans for fighters of the 1970s had a low bypass-ratio. I have in mind F404, RD-33, RB199 and M53. I’m not sure if the F404 has  worse specific fuel consumption compared to the others? If I had to guess, I’d say that the M53, with its single shaft, is the engine with the disadvantage, we’d want to find the figures, though. 

Low bypass is relative of course, when talking about fighter engines, I’d say we are in the range of 0.2 to 1 BPR.

In that context, the F404 with its about 0.3 BPR is low, whereas something like the F110-100 with its 0.87 BPR is a high bypass fighter engine.

Here’s some figures for specific fuel consumption, dry, lb/lbf hr (from http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html)

F404-GE-400: 0.853

RD-33: 0.74

RB.199-34R-04 Mk.105: 0.637

M53-P2: 0.853

F100-PW-229: 0.726

F110-GE-100: 0.745

So you can see your low BPR engines like F404 or M53 use quite a bit more fuel compared to the higher BPR alternatives.

LOL. How much thrust do you think 2 X F-125IN produce? 40 kN in afterburner! So with 2 X F-125IN it’ll produce even less thrust than the existing F-404-IN20.  Adour is no better, and heavier than the F-125IN. If anything, the IAF is VERY happy with the F-404 engine. In multiple interviews this has been mentioned. the previous Air Chief Marshal in an interview mentioned that the F-404 consumed less fuel at 7,000 ft-10,000 ft than a MiG-21 consumed at 33,000 ft. Even earlier, it has been said that the F-404 is a “fuel sipper” of an engine. Plus it’s reliable.

Check your numbers. The F125 is rated at more than 9000 lbf of wet thrust, depending on sources (and variants I guess) up to 9500 lbf. Per engine of course.

The F404 is very reliable, true. But not that economical.  This should come as no surprise considering its low bypass ratio.
Compared to an R-25 turbojet, any modern turbofan is a fuel sipper.

What engine is planned for this TEDBF/naval deck based fighter?
Clearly not F404/F414 engines, as those won’t fit as shown by Deino on his Twittererer I think.

Also cool that the ORCA apparently doesn’t require a main landing gear 😉

Those were the days…

And I’m feeling quite old now.

BTT: Yes the new forum is a trainwreck. I visit many forums, not one uses this layout. There are some established, very good forum softwares, why not just use one of them?

And as I just noticed, the emoticons are terrible.

RAF Typhoons.
Most likely on their way from Oman where they took part in Exercise Magic Carpet to Butterworth airbase, Malaysia for exercise Bersama Lima 2019.
Source.

Air Force announces newest Red Tail: ‘T-7A Red Hawk’

The Air Force’s all-new advanced trainer aircraft, the T-X, has officially been named the T-7A Red Hawk.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”small”,”data-attachmentid”:3873845}[/ATTACH]

Congratulations, no naming shenanigans this time. :applause:

Well, sort of, as the USAF has two training aircraft designation sequences… the one where the T-6 Texan II is the latest before T-X, and the one where the Cirrus T-53 is the latest. :sleeping:

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t150626-F-YG608-010.JPG Views:t0 Size:t159.1 KB ID:t3873296″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3873296″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”150626-F-YG608-010.JPG”}[/ATTACH]

The first F-39 will perform flight tests in Sweden until the end of 2020, then continue flight tests in Brazil.
If I had to guess, I’d say AAR certification of the E model will be part of the flight tests before going to Brazil.
Probably still going to include 1 or 2 stops… maybe Gando air base (Gran Canaria/Spain).

LMFS , On Mig-41 program the last boss of Almaz-Antey Igor Ashurbeyli had said in an interview that the next generation SAM that they were working on wont be land based but will be only Air Based.

The S in SAM stands for surface… it’s a surface to air missile. If carried by an aircraft, a missile is not a SAM but an AAM – an air to air missile.

Besides, AAMs are no replacement for SAMs. Each system has advantages and disadvantages. Obviously an AAM doesn’t need a booster to get off the ground. But then it needs an aircraft…

Is this the same guy who’s fantasizing about a Mach 4 interceptor? Probably has seen Firefox too many times. :highly_amused: