ORIGINAL: erazz
ORIGINAL: basimpsn
ORIGINAL: erazz
You're saying you want more thrust in smaller package, right? Even if the fuel draw is horrible?
Very generally a 40# engine in a 30# case will draw fuel like a 50# engine.
Well.. A smaller engine size(25#thrust for a S/M F-18E example) will put your throttle setting above haft the whole flight. But with a bigger engine your throttle just above idle & better fuel consumption.
P.s In my opinion
Hehe...
Efficiency doesn't work that way. Consider 2 engines. Both 40# thrust. One has a 120mm dia case and one has 100mm. The larger diameter will have better efficiency. It will use less fuel to push the same thrust.
I can understand why the thrust-to-weight or thrust-to-size numbers produce better sales. But on the efficiency side having a wide and short engine is much better.
Not true as general statements, certainly with the engines I have flown. I have engines in 90mm casings that push out 10kg and are no less fuel efficient than similar thrust engines in 110mm casings. You will find the currently emerging crop of smaller cased/higher thrust engines are just as fuel efficient as their larger cased predecessors.
Better thrust/weight and thrust/size is just evolution, look at how things have progressed in the 110mm class since the KJ66.
You need to add a choice in the poll for those of us who don't have a particular size preference and it does not have to be cheap.
Rob.