Opens F-18 thread.
Sees topic became about Gripen engine performance.
8 Likes
Yeah one person simply cannot accept the fact that his favourite jet isnt what he wants it to be. And the rest of the forum is starting to call him out on his lies and deception.
Lies will always come back and get you if you keep it up for too long
2 Likes
And you tell others to stop trolling?
2 Likes
You have nothing to back your claims
Devs knows this
We know this
We don’t troll
your ego is just too big
3 Likes
Personally, I’m guessing the RM-12’s performance to be higher overall than the F-404 GE-402. I’ll try to ask a friend if he knows anything about it.
2 Likes
Except you have no basis for this. You’re assuming based on nothing.
Stop trolling.
Your own source highlights how they didn’t use all the upgrades from the RM12 lol.
Just accept you’re wrong and move on. It’s getting insufferable watching your antics in every thread. At least the devs are aware and know to ignore most of the trite you say.
4 Likes
I don’t get why some of you are arguing that the RM12 has better performance when literally none of you have submitted any kind of source that would indicate it is better than the GE-402, only going off of the devs THINKING that it is better, the same devs that THINK that:
-
Abrams doesn’t have upgraded hull armor, while using outdated sources,
-
the same devs that THINK Stingers can’t have 22G overload because Igla can’t,
-
the same devs that THINK Leopard 2A7V should have worse armor than the 25 year older Strv122
Devs thinking anything is one of the worst ways to form an argument.
1 Like
The people who make the engine say its better
His argument is based on nothing
2 Likes
So the devs are wrong with on everything
He has nothing to back his claims
He is making assumptions that very well could be wrong
2 Likes
Do we have any dynamic thrust numbers for the RM12? Or just the static?
I only ask considering the F-14A makes less thrust static than the F-14B but makes more thrust at high speed, if I’m not mistaken.
Just uninstalled thrust i believe
1 Like
I think the MiG 23 is looking purely at performance at a certain flight level and speed. Volvo certainly modified the engine for what they thought was important for the Gripen - transonic performance and of course with great emphasis on reliability given the single engine concept. So the engine got higher performance where SAAB wanted it and higher safety
1 Like
You didn’t even bother to read the thread. It’s MIG23M who has decided he believes the 402 has higher dynamic installed thrust, with absolutely zero qualifications, education, or science to back himself up. All available evidence states that the RM12 is the second best F404-GE engine made, with the 402 being their third best.
He claims the 402 used the same improved parts as the RM12, except one of the sources he himself has posted directly contradicts this. Not only that, but the source specifically says that it will limit the 402 in the upper left of the envelope compared to RM12. If anything, the evidence is that the RM12 has a better dynamic thrust curve than the 402. His evidence can be boiled down to “it’s slightly newer and american, so therefore it has to be better”. American exceptionalism epitomised.
2 Likes
My friend says it is significantly more durable and about 2 KN more powerful, that’s all I have to say. I’d have to search for articles and honestly I don’t want to look into it, it takes time.
Does anyone know what the installed thrust of the Hornet and Gripen is ? That’s an important information.
The issue is that while there is a group of them trying to claim I am wrong (they are Gripen fans, obviously they would be motivated to believe I am wrong)… none of them have provided any counter or basis from which to say so. They just want to discount what I’ve been saying and ignore my points.
I have already addressed that engines with lower static uninstalled thrust are not necessarily going to have less installed thrust. The F404-GE-402 was designed to have a 20% increase in performance over the F404-GE-400 at the bottom right of the performance envelope. The RM12 was only designed to have a 15% increase in performance in that same area.
I’m not forming an uneducated opinion of any sort, I’m showing you what the data says because you’re refusing to read it. @SlowHandClap
We know thanks to the sources used in my RM12 thrust report (QNEP Thesis, NSAID, GE)… the F404-GE-402 produces 20% more thrust at the bottom right of the envelope. The RM12 was only designed to produce 15% additional thrust / performance in this area with a potential for an additional 5% growth in the future.
You’re pointing to a chart that shows the F404-GE-402 (EPE) behind the RM12, when the reality is that the F404-GE-402 was produced after, with all the improvements of the RM12 and further enhancements being made. It was designed for a higher thrust increase over the RM12 from the same basic engine, utilizing RM12 parts… this is explicit in the documentation you have been provided and you are refusing to read them.
This tells us nothing new mate
1 Like
That is actually a great example of why staring at the static uninstalled thrust number is rather pointless.
We know for the F404-GE-400 but not the full envelope for F404-GE-402, just 0.8+ mach.
What we can see is that at mach 1.2 the F404-GE-402 has a 20% increase in performance over the F404-GE-400. The Gripen’s RM12 was only designed for a 15% improvement in that same area of the flight envelope, with a potential growth of 5% in the future.
Sources for the top picture are the quick navy engine program.
For reference, it appears the RM12 in-game has a 25-38% increase in performance over the F404-GE-400 when it was designed for a 15% improvement and the F404-GE-402 peaks at just over 20% improvement at mach 1.2. It is stated to be a temperature limited engine, and yet the RM12 in-game is exceeding it when it is the one with lower temperature limits.
Ah yeah let’s conveniently ignore the bit where we posted… GE’s own figures on engine power produced…
Gee, I wonder who my bets are on, some internet forum user who I’ve never met and have no idea what his credentials are, or the website of the company that has hundreds of engineers working on and producing that very engine, the company that installs said engine into the Gripen airframe (oh and while I’m at it, the Aircraft manufacturer corroborates the claim too.)
Bearing in mind how serious misrepresenting the effectiveness of military equipment, given that lives are at stake when any kind of performance is considered, I highly doubt that General Electric or Saab are going to blatantly lie about what the engines they use can and cannot do.
Straight out of the Certain Government textbook of disinformation… “Delay, deny, deflect”
“Oh nah clearly they’re wrong, they’re Gripen fans” is the same ilk of “they’re Verstappen fans, they all have anger issues”
Also unless you’ve stalked all of us constantly how would you know? I could absolutely despise the Gripen for all you know.
Just putting that out there…
3 Likes