shehbazi2001
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 580
- Reaction score
- 0
Alternate engines for Thunder
The Eurofighter's EJ200 has a very high T/W ratio of 9.175 with a thrust of some 20,000lb. Its nearest European counterpart can be Snecma's M88-3. Currently M88-2 is being used on Rafale but M88-3 can be Rafale's future engine.
The advantage of EJ200 is that Saudi Arabia shall also be deploying Eurofighters and thus a friendly neighbour shall be operating the same engine.
Among the US engines, GE F-414 that powers Super Hornet and Gripen NG fits the bill technically but the sanctions factor make it an unlikely candidate.
However both European engines have less weight than the GE F414 engine, which is an important consideration for a fighter jet.
The engine/power plant of JF-17 should give a T/W superior to 1 at least in air combat configuration which is two heat-seeking missiles and two BVRs without any external fuel tanks, assuming that belly fuel tank or under-wing tanks shall be jettisoned at the start of air combat or dogfight.
Among the Russian engines, there is no better than AL-31 of Su-27/30/35/37 series Flanker family. With this powerplant in JF-17, the pilot can virtually do any maneuver without fear of engine cut out or compressor stall. It was with this engine that Su-27 made almost 27 world records of performance.
But I think not all engines can be accomodated in the engine bay of Thunder with equal ease. Structural modifications can be done to a certain limit.
A larger diameter engine would entail enlargement of the fuselage and this shall in turn change all the external aerodynamics and then it would become almost redesign of aircraft.
The Eurofighter's EJ200 has a very high T/W ratio of 9.175 with a thrust of some 20,000lb. Its nearest European counterpart can be Snecma's M88-3. Currently M88-2 is being used on Rafale but M88-3 can be Rafale's future engine.
The advantage of EJ200 is that Saudi Arabia shall also be deploying Eurofighters and thus a friendly neighbour shall be operating the same engine.
Among the US engines, GE F-414 that powers Super Hornet and Gripen NG fits the bill technically but the sanctions factor make it an unlikely candidate.
However both European engines have less weight than the GE F414 engine, which is an important consideration for a fighter jet.
The engine/power plant of JF-17 should give a T/W superior to 1 at least in air combat configuration which is two heat-seeking missiles and two BVRs without any external fuel tanks, assuming that belly fuel tank or under-wing tanks shall be jettisoned at the start of air combat or dogfight.
Among the Russian engines, there is no better than AL-31 of Su-27/30/35/37 series Flanker family. With this powerplant in JF-17, the pilot can virtually do any maneuver without fear of engine cut out or compressor stall. It was with this engine that Su-27 made almost 27 world records of performance.
But I think not all engines can be accomodated in the engine bay of Thunder with equal ease. Structural modifications can be done to a certain limit.
A larger diameter engine would entail enlargement of the fuselage and this shall in turn change all the external aerodynamics and then it would become almost redesign of aircraft.