Well head-girl -
I for one would gladly abandon "uninstalled" performance quotes, instead quoting some nominal or typical installation condition. It would make more sense to the user, and would reflect real-world conditions better.
The first problem is getting all the motormakers to agree on exactly what "typical" losses should be included.
The second problem is - that's not how the engine is acceptance tested. Production test people cringe at the prospect of hooking up additional gadgets in the test cell - it's time wasted, and something else to worry about.
What's your wine preference? We have some fair Merlots here in Ohio.
oh and BTW -
I have the UTMOST admiration for any E. Hartford engine built before, say, 1950!
Obviously you put a load on a machine by adding ancillaries and to maintain N1 you have to add more fuel. I am asking if that in doing so the engine now becomes more on axis and tsfc actually improves?
In my arrogance I neglected to answer this. The answer is, of course, "it all depends". If the derivatives are strong enough of course TSFC COULD improve. But the derivitaves may have nonlinear (i.e. feminine) proclivities, so any predictions of improved TSFC -
Well, I wouldn't bet my pension check on it!
