cantaz wrote:I consider LM plenty authoritative on this subject.

Are the 5% fuel flow and 2% thrust penalty the totality of the end of life engine penalty, or is there more to it? Is the 5% fuel flow penalty strictly a fuel consumption penalty (range penalty), or is it more complicated than that?

I've been trying to figure that out myself. I think it depends on how the penalties are actually taken into account. For example they could just increase fuel consumption figures by that 5 percent in range/endurance calculations and then calculate performance figures with engines delivering 2 percent less thrust. On the other hand they could also calculate all the figures using much more complex calculations which would take both into account in all phases of flight.

For example they could also calculate that to accelerate to certain speed the engine must use higher RPM to generate same thrust (or increase acceleration time or increase need to use AB) than non-degraded engine increasing fuel consumption further. This might decrease the available range much more than just the 5 percent fuel flow penalty. Not sure if the fuel flow penalty could somehow affect thrust.

Anyway, I think that real world performance will be better than the published figures show. Especially the range/endurance could be a lot better. Acceleration and sustained turn rates will also likely be at least somewhat better than current figures.