So according to your post, the F-15E is the worst jet at 14.0 cause it pulls the worst.
Either way the Typhoon’s sustained is the best, and its instantaneous is more then meta.
the test is on the SUSTAINED turn abilities,…
and such problems impact thrust at the moment you start to impact on the airflow, which is about
t=0.3-0.5 seconds
so,… before calling me on something you know nothing about,… Look test video, and look about aerodynamics and stuff.
Also from you’re video, wing of EF-2000 seems to be compressing in the air, much more than Rafale does, which make it lock onto it’s AoA at high speed.
Rafale doesn’t compresses as much and therefore turn better but loose a bit more speed in the process.
same goes to Gripen which looses so much speed that it’s AoA falls too, making it slightly behind Rafale.
sorry but there is no SUSTAINED turn abilities something blah on this video.
You said aerodynamics, Air compressing etc, then can you define what is SEP on this video?
And like i said in comments in video, SA Gripen is disabled on dev server bc of paddles so i excluded them from comparison.
Displayed same timer set, same IAS, Deck altitude, same AoA, same AoS(might be -0.2~+0.2 but you’ll not gonna say that causes hugh errors to be complained dont ya? rafale turns even better on same AoA LMAO) with different turn rates/radius/load factor between eurofighter and rafale, Should be enough for you.
and the words that you’re saying defines you haven’t played gripen on dev.
ok, by definition this isn’t sustained turn
YET:
you’re comparing pulling abilities in a left turn turn of more than 3x360°,…
Rafale made 3 turns in 29 secs
Gripen made 3 turns in 27 secs
EF-2000 made 3 turns in 33 secs
so from what i’ve seen and considering the whole thing,… it is completely normal.
you’re just bullshiting yourself because you consider EF-2000 is necessarely better than the other 2,… which is wrong,… because they’re not the same overall,…
now considering airflow, in engines, your EF-2000 nose is in the way of your ventral air entry,… meaning the center of it isn’t getting as good airflow than others,… i told you that already,… but it means that the air entering that area is in turbulent configuration which significantly reduce the air flow.
a reduced airflow means that some of the combustion isn’t able to happen, reducing your thrust output by a sgnificantly enough margin.
out of 3x360° turns, it is normal to see an impact.
and as i’m repeating myself AGAIN,… the wing airflow on the EF-2000 seems to be compressing onto the wing, making to wing to be unable to produce more lift = No More Angle = Less AoA = Less Drag = Less Energy lost from turning = increased turn Radius = more time to complete a single turn
oh,… this is matching the video results.
now, if you have no sources of real data values (declassified ones), your video just shows nothing here
If that’s your only criteria for a good or bad jet.
Why can’t people respond to other people’s arguments anymore?
There’s a nerf to one jet (12G for the EF2000) that another jet (Rafael) doesn’t get. It can still happily circle around at 15G.
Neither one nor the other jet can do that in reality.
Furthermore, there’s no reason to nerf only one jet, since the other is completely equal to it (and currently superior in terms of radar and five-to-one weaponry).
What’s not understandable or wrong with that?
1 Like
And the Rafale has a worse overall turn rate to the Typhoon regardless.
Gaijin doesn’t change anything on aircraft for balance reasons, ever. There’s no such thing as “nerfs” or “buffs” when it comes to non-BR and non-reload related matters, what you interpret as a nerf/buff is neither to Gaijin or those that actually know. It’s a change based on new information, nothing more.
On top of all this, it isn’t actually a nerf.
It doesn’t change the Typhoons turn rate, and it doesn’t change its speed. All it changes is that it won’t wing rip for those that wing rip easily with it.
Jesus we’re talking about load factor after all…
Did I mentioned you Rafale turns better than Eurofighter at all circumstances?
Then
How eurofighter takes time till goes mach 1?
and How rafale takes time till goes mach 1?
all those things are causes by load factor which Gaijin has set
Please don’t be KnowItAll with covering your bullshitty words by some aviation words what you learned from school
No you dueled me and lost whild you’re playing Eurofighter what it pulls 13G maximum while I’m playing Rafale it causes 16G when its merging. Please think again why Crusaders getting wing ripped It’s really simple things.
Yes, and you won in your Typhoon despite me being superior in the Rafale than the Typhoon.
Much like the Su-27, I do not understand how to use Typhoon that well.
But I know the French deltas, and Rafale thankfully behaves predictably to what I already know.
New information? According to what information, are jets like the Rafael or the EF flown at more than +9g and -3g?
We’re in the realm of fantasy values in the game.
If decisions are made to increase or decrease the g- peak, it’s solely based on balance decisions.
Again, Rafale is not the Typhoon, what documents prove something for Typhoon doesn’t prove it for any other aircraft.
There’s no such thing as balancing ITR, that’s not a thing.
Maybe it was unwise to play Britain and Italy. I should’ve became a frog.
7 flight model nerfs to the EF2K is insane when rafale gets buff after buff and still pulls 16gs
1 Like
The manufacturer itself (Dassault Aviation) states that 9g is the maximum peak G force for the Rafael.
In fact, in the negative range, it’s -3.2, 0.2g better than the EF.
By the way, the Rafael also tops out at Mach 1.8.
If the Rafael can pull 15g without disintegrating, unicorns will soon be vomiting in my garage.
The same goes for the EF, by the way. And for all the other jets implemented in the game with their arcade values.
Live with it. It’s a fantasy game. And the real-life performance of the planes and tanks is at best a guide for the developers.
Extreme deviations can be seen everywhere.
I can handle it. Can’t you? After all, it’s just a game, not a simulation.
2 Likes
Rafale pilots are trained to max out at mach 1.8.*
The airframe can safely go to mach 2 as proven in a recent report.
And mach 2 is significantly slower than Typhoon’s 2.3.
and how’s load factor is calculated?
n= L / M
n : load factor (in G’s)
L : lift (basically wing design and speed are used to get the lift number)
M: mass , in such weight of aircraft
since load factor is set in G’s, EF-2000 cant’ reach same Load factor because of:
basically impacting LIFT
and EF-2000 is basically heavier than Rafale (about 1 ton of difference)
so yes! EF-2000 is normally having less Load factor than RAFALE.
Point is made, mic. drop!
seems to be you,… from not even being able to analyze what terms means.
7? There have been none.
In-fact, there was 1 buff to STR, multiple buffs to top speed, and multiple buffs to radar.
There was a prototype that reached Mach 2 during a test.
All statements refer to the pre-production version.
Incidentally, the manufacturer cites several reasons why the Rafale doesn’t fly at Mach 2, as was the case with the pre-production model.
These include the materials used, changes to the air intakes and engine design, and the need to avoid structural stress.
The theoretically achievable Mach 2 is just that. Theoretical.
But hey. We know better than the manufacturer what the Rafale is capable of :-)
By the way, you haven’t even commented on the fantasy maximum g values yet. Why not?
As for my background, I went through the aptitude test for Bundeswehr pilots and also sat in the centrifuge at the Bundeswehr Center for Aerospace Medicine in Königsbrück.
I passed the 15-second test at 9g for the EF and can tell you from personal experience that the maneuvers in this game are no more realistic than a T Fighter in World War II.
This whole thread u been a French baggett defender. Are french mains gonna complain about how Rafale needs its stealth add into the game?
As I’m here defending the Typhoon from slander…
The post you responded to was me exclusively defending the Typhoon. XD