They usually get more power from making the mixture richer than optimal. Afterburners are inherently inefficient at propelling aircraft, but even then engineers balance how much inefficiency is acceptable. This is different for every plane since some of them carries more fuel than others and some of them might place acceleration over range when it comes to afterburners. There is no objectively right answer here but we've gotten better at making efficient designs hence why we see a lot more efficient afterburners nowadays.
I mean thrust is dependant on how much fuel is used in total, since more fuel = more energy = more thrust. Of course more things go into it as well, but what fuel efficiency does is allow the fuel to be used without waste, so you can have an efficient afterburner that doesn't produce a lot of thrust, and you can have an inefficient afterburner that produces a lot of thrust, but the first one won't be wasting fuel.
Q: Why Are Afterburner Colors Different?
A: Cause it look cool man
until eco menace comes up with leaf-green afterburn XD
RGB afterburner
ありがとうございます！
0:58 에서 연료 혼합비가 애초에 "적지만"을 "적기 때문에"로 고쳐주세요. 혼합비는 적다(=희박하다)라는 의미는 공기가 많고 연료가 적은 상태입니다. 따라서 완전연소가 이루어지는 조건이죠.
잉뿌님 항상 영상 챙겨봄니다 모르고있던 TMI를 알려주셔서 감사합니다 항상 건강보단 영상을 먼저 생각해 주시고 좋은 하루되세요 :>
가이진 : 이제 애프터버너 스킨을 팔아볼까 합니다.
와! 무지개 앱번!!!
와! 핫핑크 앱번!
와 안톤 뇌수 색깔 앱번!
같은이유로 일반적으로 가스렌지 불꽃색도
탄소,수소 에 의한 불꽃색 반응입니다.
그럼 에프터버너가 파란색인 애들은 켰을때 연료 소모가 더 적나요?
아마도 사용양이아닌 혼합비에 관한내용이기 때문에 연료소모와 직접적인 연관은 없을것 같습니다 (효율적인 소모냐면 그렇겠지만요 연료를 얼마나 엔진실에서 태우느냐는 별개의 문제)
영상중간에 나오듯 작은엔진도 이상적인 혼합비면 파란색이 뜬다고 하니까요
같은 무게를 같은 속도로 날리고 있다면 그렇습니다.
효율적으로 연료를 다 태우고 있으니까요.
단순하게는 동급 기술력으로 만든 같은 체급 엔진끼리의 추력 대비 연료 소모량은 적겠지 싶네요
같은 체급의 엔진이라면 돌리는데 들어가는 연료는 거의 비슷할거같고 대신 연소에 사용되는 공기의 양이 차이가 날 거 같네요
Why don't every manufacturer make a complete combustion engine then?
They usually get more power from making the mixture richer than optimal. Afterburners are inherently inefficient at propelling aircraft, but even then engineers balance how much inefficiency is acceptable. This is different for every plane since some of them carries more fuel than others and some of them might place acceleration over range when it comes to afterburners. There is no objectively right answer here but we've gotten better at making efficient designs hence why we see a lot more efficient afterburners nowadays.
Счастливого нового года!
☺️👍
*insert andrew tate "what color is your Afterburner" Joke for 200th time. (also great video! keep up the great work !)
Thank you for the corrected video
다시 올라왔군요잇
I swear I've watched this before
it was that short from the youtube channel with an afterburner as its pfp
잉뿌님 해당 영상에 나온 브금이 혹시 뭔지 알려주실 수 있나요..?? 인게임에서 자주 듣는데 제목이 뭔지를 모르겠네요 ㅠㅠ
th-cam.com/video/miVz9nsMYEw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=rzvWlMb9HUYnYcAw
dancing on the edge
해당 영상에 나온 BGM은 inst 버전입니다
Спасибо!
아 서방제도 파란색달라고 간지가 안나잖아!!
Anybody knows the name of the music?
Cloak and dagger
Спасибо
브금 뭔지 알수 있을까요
th-cam.com/video/tNnkNOtpb3Y/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
НУ ЛАДНО
Even militaries still failed in fuel economic XD /jk
Btw which one produces more thrust
I mean thrust is dependant on how much fuel is used in total, since more fuel = more energy = more thrust.
Of course more things go into it as well, but what fuel efficiency does is allow the fuel to be used without waste, so you can have an efficient afterburner that doesn't produce a lot of thrust, and you can have an inefficient afterburner that produces a lot of thrust, but the first one won't be wasting fuel.
@@ThePolish2107 its helps combat range and ideal A/F ratio for more thrust
뭐야 가스렌지였잖아
파란 빤스
빨간 빤스
Понятно
영상이 바꼈구만