Judging from these values here:
438 kg → CFP
179 kg → Titanium
174 kg → Alumina
33 kg → Rivets
Even though CFP has much lesser voluemtric mass (1,5 g/cm³) than titanium (4,5 g/cm³) and alumina (2,7 g/cm³) it has a much bigger part of the whole weight of the wing, so its volumetric usage in the wing is about 70-80% (roughly estimated not calculated).
With that constellation the titanium and alumina would be used for the ailerons and the landing gear bay. If the inner structure of the wing were made from alumina and titanium these weights wouldn’t make any sense. So my guess is: Outer skin and inner structure are made from CFP while landing gear bay, some control surfaces and some connection parts (wing to body) are made of metals.
The Gripen wing is attached to the body with ikea bathtub style fittings, and I am not even joking about that. Ever since the Gripen was added with 12G capability I stopped caring about realism in regards to G overloads. @BBCRF
Outer skin and inner structure are made from CFP while landing gear bay, some control surfaces and some connection parts (wing to body) are made of metals.
Congratulations for marking everything I said that would be out of metal…
Outer skin and inner structure are made from CFP while landing gear bay, some control surfaces and some connection parts (wing to body) are made of metals.
The Gripen is not intended to do more than 9G once every 1000 flight hours and 12G less often. The Viggen was rated similarly, 9G every 1,000 flight hours but has no overload beyond that. The Gripen is prone to cracks and unlike the Viggen ended up with higher than expected wear/tear IRL.
The Eurofighter design is better than the Gripen, but the aircraft is also much larger and heavier.
I think there was a miscommunication, he contradicted himself in his own statement and it confused everyone. I think we are all on the same page.
There is a language barrier, if you say something and then contradict it you will not do yourself any favors. “Everything is yellow”, “except for everything that is yellow and falls under this list”, proceeds to list half the airframe.
Is there really no concept in other languages like “Everything except [list]”?
This is a known logical contruct in programming languages too so I kind of doubt that.
And this is game… noone cares about wear.
They take max Gs airframe can handle and slap x1.5 on it.
Everything is like that if they have values for that. I would be perfectly fine if they removed x1,5 and the max limitations and use operational limits but keep in mind. These “operational limits” can be overriden in most planes in case of emergency - defending missiles, avoiding ground and so on.
Mirage can pull around 11Gs irl and only thing you have to do is overcome stick resistance and then it pulls. F-18, press paddle and you override G-limiter. Iam pretty sure rafale, EF, Gripen, Flankers allow for same thing. F-15s pulled insane Gs to avoid collisions too. Just because they use 9Gs because they dont have constantly amraam on their ass, doesnt mean plane cant do it in actual war.
In reality, they will do this 1 time during the entire flight, and possibly for the entire operation, after which they will be repaired or put in the trash
Usually it is not quoted as “everything” and then subsequently “but not this”.
Yes, the documents matter more than anything else. Documents say maximum overload is up to 12 and that is permissible for the pilot so they haphazardly slap x1.5 factor on that.
The problem is that for the Gripen the 1.5x safety factor is applied to 9G IRL. The Gripen is designed to survive up to a 13.5G pull once. The modern methods of airframe inspection and testing allow them to validate airframes that have exceeded 9G for continued service so they allow pilots to come much closer to that limit in emergencies.
This isn’t the Gripen thread so if you’d like to continue the discussion we can move. What ties this in with the Eurofighter is that the fittings for the wing to attach to the airframe are not well suited for 18G maneuvers by ANY means. That’s just an absurd number.
