A- produces 100KN with afterburner
B- produces 100KN but doesn't have an afterburner
'A' would consume more fuel, but will the acceleration and other performance have difference?
A- produces 100KN with afterburner
B- produces 100KN but doesn't have an afterburner
'A' would consume more fuel, but will the acceleration and other performance have difference?
@WarshipDude Ahh.
@Diver well i mean its a small plane anyway so what do you expect
@WarshipDude what?! Thats overkill.
A. Though
B- i would rather have this as the fuel consumption is within an "acceptable" level of fuel consumption, i think i made a good example on my TA-200, it has afterburner that can guzzle 5% fuel in 15 second but in turn gives you speed of around mach 1.7
An afterburner allows a given engine to almost double its thrust at the cost of 3x the fuel consumption. It is outrageously wasteful, and usually requires mid-air refueling. On the other hand, for a given engine to have the same "dry" thrust as another engines afterburning thrust, the dry engine would have to be much larger and heavier. This heavier engine would take up more space, requiring a larger plane, consuming more fuel. At maximum speed the dry engine plane would be more fuel efficient, but at lower speeds with the afterburner off the plane with the burner would be lighter, more fuel efficient, a smaller target, less expensive, etc.