Can’t do It on console i don’t think so
I’ll see if I can record using Rivatuner as overlay
I managed to record it, I am uploading a gripen and su27sm video, I also miscalculated a bit… The su27sm doesn’t match the gripen in sustained turn rate. It beats it! lol. The base su-27 will match the gripen, the sm does a bit better.
Give me a few minutes
The Su-27 doesn’t act like it has thrust vectoring at all in testing.
It definitely doesn’t have “arcade levels” of lift.
It has 20.5 degrees per second on minimum fuel:
Vs Gripen at 20.8:
Su-30SM2 is 19.6 degrees per second on minimum fuel. Hard to get a test, so here’s Statshark, with F-15JM having 40% fuel:
The engines are very much not over-performing at speed.
The Su-27SM matches F-15C in acceleration passed mach 1 now, it’s still slower in subsonic acceleration though.
Structural limit =/= engine speed limit.
This is why I’m annoyed at the F-15s underperforming top speeds. F-15A should be able to reach mach 2.5 with ease, and rip after it. But it doesn’t because the guidelines limit is used and Gaijin reduces engine thrust to cause it to barely do 2.3.
The Su-27SM and J-11B are the best performing Flankers in the world for a reason.
5 Likes
Try both at 750 kph im curious
Doing a very consistent sustained turn rate at high speeds is hard, you need to disable pilot blackout (or have ace crew), and with mouse aim on full controls is hard to keep the exact same altitude (because if you start climbing or descending you loose/gain turn rate or speed) and to keep the same pull, specially the flankers don’t pull linearly so its extra hard.
So the videos are kinda long to give a good estimate because I have to choose the best times where I manage to keep the speed, sustained turn rate (SEP=0) and altitude the best I can with the mouse.
Around 750kph,
The gripen C seems to do around 22.4-22.5deg/s
Su-27SM seems to do a tad over that, at 22.7deg/s
Gripen C
Su-27SM
1 Like
2 random pictures where we can’t see if you are even doing a SEP=0 turn, furthermore, a clean gripen vs a su27 with a full missile load. Yeah great comparison alvis
Gripen is also massively overperforming tho lol
An accepted bug report that nukes its high speed performance is yet to be implemented. And overall retention is too high.
But i suspect gaijin thinks the fm is the only thing going for it.
Which was nerfed today, it is back to nearly its original high speed turning performance.
A bit worse in some aspects at super high speeds.
The only thing positive overall was low to mediuk speeds and their retention.
In STR? I would assume it’s one of the best 4gen in the world in that regard, typhoon or rafale is probably king IRL.
In game we now have a su-27sm with the same sustained turn rate as a rafale
This plane was nerfed 3 times because of the baby plane sort of capabilities it was given to have some insane retention at its release. Nothing you see is accurate in any case, and gaijin doesnt have concrete info other than the prototype manuals, that indicate it worser than how its in game, btw prototype variants were much lighter than we have in game. A jet with similar wing scale whilst increased weight(which they try to compensate with engines) will still have worse wing loading
Alot of overstated capability, the modeling of eurofighter is far more accurate than rafale and gripen which are over performing. Both have bug reports stating performance otherwise is not accurate.
Give me a minute ill start finding you the bug reports
Rafale:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/vBzbHgSGY6qS
Gripen:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CjPzh5Jy67q2
Just another random comparison.
A slowish sustained turn speed of 500kph the base su-27 flanker does the same 21deg/s as a block 10 F-16A.
At 500kph IAS on min fuel the block10 F-16A has a TWR of 1.18 and the su-27 a TWR of 1.2.
| Aircraft | Empty Weight + pilot + oil (kg) | 30% Fuel (kg) | Total Weight (kg) | Thrust at 500kph IAS (kgf) | Thrust-to-Weight | Turn Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-16A | 7,690 | 992 | 8,682 | 10,280 | 1.18 | 21°/s |
| Su-27 | 16,420 | 2,820 | 19,240 | 11,588 × 2 = 23,176 | 1.20 | 21º/s |
F-16A has a small disadvantage in TWR but a small advantage of lower wing loading. At that speed they have similar STR. At high speed the su-27 is better by around 1deg/s.
And people will still call the su-27 FM bad. On a real match, due to the massive size/weight of the flanker, it is also less affected by weapon loads, the F-16 is the opposite.
Will the F-16 have an advantage on unsustained turns aka “W mashing” turns? Yes, but the flanker has very good sustained turns and amazing low speed nose authority.
Idk man, seems kinda inconsistent to me but even then, l
Once Gripen starts to actually pull flanker copes, especially when gripen has better low speed perf and sep lines so eh
That’s an advantage of all 2 engined aircraft.
Like, with combat load J-11 goes to 17.9 - 18.0 from 20.5 on minimum fuel clean.
And Gripen gets 17.9 - 18.0 with a combat load of fuel and weapons from 20.8.
The margin of error of 0.1 is due to rushing for a close enough result rather than waiting for a perfect SEP 0.
Does it matter a whole lot? Eh, the Su-27 is still only 0.3 better than the Gripen for air RB and sim. Nothing really changed.
Do better yourself then. I think its good enough, in 2 mins I got a few seconds of very consistent turn rates which is enough to pull an average of decent approximations. More reliable than looking at statshark turn graphs
Ok let’s take your results as valid for a Moment.
Whats a (in your own words) 0.2 dps difference in STR even gonna do?
Lol, It certainly won’t make up for the flanker’s somehow inferior low speed performance, nor Will It make up for the flanker’s worse bleed rates and lack of lift
at least after the latest changes the flanker has actual hands in a dogfight, but it’s still not close to where It should be
What? It was a 1deg/s buff overall with the recent changes. That is a big difference.
The 0.2 difference you are talking about is related to the gripen? Yes that is to point that the flanker can now sustain similar rates (technically higher) as the gripen which is crazy
Which Is Crazy because uhh
Flanker matches the STR values from the manual pretty well
Within an acceptable margin of error up until 800kph (After which It overperforms greatly) which Is the speed regime you’ve been mainly coping about
You know what Is also Crazy? The fact that somehow the gripen has better low speed perf than the flanker, or how it’s also overperforming in STR, but i guess the baby plane Flight model gets to stay baby plane
1 Like
How does the gripen have better low speed performance when the flanker has similar sustained turn rate at slow speeds and far better manoeuvrability at high angle of attack/very slow speed turns?
The only thing gripen does better is roll rate and instantan turn/lower bleed rates at unsustained turns. Everything else the flanker does better
Simply because It has much more lift, allowing It to pull more Gs at lower speeds, and doesn’t fall out of sky as fast and hard as flanker when doing those maneuvers
1 Like