i don’t think you mean x2.8? i thought it was double, as in “200% of” or “100% more/better”.
so did you misinterpret me or did i have the wrong number?
This has been discussed at length. my main arguments for higher for gripen in short:
Because of comparatively 2/3 the mass it needs 2/3 the lift converted into right angle acceleration for any given radius turn at a given speed. this means a lower AoA needed and thus less drag.
The canards move whereas the F-16 LERX does not and can thus optimise their angle at any given moment for what is needed to produce a better end result in a turn than the LERX can (JAS39 even has several other vortex generating things the F-16 does not have, like dog toothed wings, small strakes and a TINY LERX). this is mostly noticeable at higher AoA and a sustained turn is usually around 15deg AoA which is enough for canard vs LERX to make a noticeable difference.
depending on AoA JAS39 does not need to angle trailing edge Elevons to pitch as it just puts the canards in neutral, so less drag is induced.
The turn rate at 720kph was now reduced to 21.2 deg/sec which is only 0.2 sec more than the very upper end of what the devs set themselves as the range for the gripen at this speeds.
The polar curve on the other end has still a completely wrong pattern.
I just needed to reduce e_0 to calibrate it to new reference 720kph test and the 380kph test still falls exactly on the function (it’s slightly lower because the thrust interpolation underestimates thrust by about 100~150kgf as I took 400kph as baseline speed before but didn’t feel like doing a whole new interpolation for such a small difference)
A is 720kph test, F is 385kph test.
You do realise there has never been realistic aerodynamics in this game? Pretty much every propeller aircraft in the game can rip its own wings off with just gravity if given enough altitude. That doesn’t really happen in real life. Instead they enter compressibility where the control surfaces stop working effectively. A lot of the time pilots were able to recover in these situations, when they descend to denser air and drag increases to slow them down. Some planes were infamous for being unrecoverable, such as the P-38 prior to having dive flaps fitted, but it wasn’t a death sentence in most ww2 planes.
If there is no real aerodynamics here, then there is no point in discussing anything at all. The developer is out of touch with reality and does as he wants, and not as the laws of aerodynamics dictate.
Yes, errors will always be unavoidable.But what I see on the charts is completely divorced from reality
And this applies not only to grippen, but to all aircraft in general
@Metrallaroja@Gunjob Clearly the performance is still above that which the devs claimed… is it still going to be adjusted further? Seems it’s another case of MiG-29 FM changes where I had to push for them to finally correct the high alpha behavior over the course of several reports and months of waiting.
Additionally, it doesn’t seem they’ve touched the SEP… so should Gio go ahead with his report?
The only reason SEP is high is because low speed sustained turn rate is high.
Was the same with the old MiG-29 flight model, it completely over performed in rate below 500kph, that’s why it could “pull longer” before running out of energy.
Rate and SEP are directly related, not disconnected
“dwarfs” is a bit of a hyperbole.
that and it’s REALLY hard to calculate as JAS39 has what effectively results in dynamic wing loading owing to the movable canards.
the main issue is if the wing area should include the area of the canards or not.
i have seen three numbers floating around for JAS39 regarding wing area. 25m^2, 28m^2 and 30m^2
if we use those numbers at gross weight (8.700kg) we get 348, 311 and 290 respectively.
(F-16 has 429)
if we look at the ratios of wing loading to T/W at gross weight by doing (T/W)/Wing Loading we get:
F-16: 0.26%
JAS39: 0.27% , 0.30% and 0.33% respectively
so depending on what number is used JAS39 is either: about the same, a tenth better or two tenths better. (in this very specific area)
But this is sort of a derivative of my point with point nr1 in my post as wing loading depends on weight.
and i just want to add:
Thanks to @Gunjob and @Metrallaroja for engaging with us and giving insights and answers where they can :) Great job guys!
The TWR difference at subsonic and transonic speeds is significantly less than the comparison you see the usual suspects giving, using the F-16s thrust @ 1,400 kph and the Gripen max thrust @ 1,200 kph. Whereas the wingloading is a fixed 30% improvement that affects the fm at all speeds.
Those shouldn’t be percentages, just ratios.
GJN includes the canards as part of the 30 m^2. I think Saab does the same. Worth noting that, as far as I know, relaxed static stability isn’t modelled for the F-16 or Gripen. Granted I’m fairly certain the physics model in WT is as simple as “this top speed and this turn rate”, so it probably won’t make any difference when they do “model” it.
oh wow. yeah that explains a lot actually. I get that there are limitations in the coding but man that’s not going to behave as i should at all.
are there any sort of plans for bigger overhauls to the FM codes? it’s getting to a point where NONE of the future added Jets (newer than what we have at the moment) will be able to be modeled even close to correctly (we even have some that cant be modeled correctly already as it is).
(just a spontaneous thought; can’t the canards be modeled as a wing? Giving them the ability to give variable lift as well as give the plane negative stability where negative pitch of canards cancels out the stability? this isn’t how it completely works IRL but i mean it will at least be closer.)
I mean area wise, canards area is treated apart from wing area as every other elevator in the game.
And yes it produces lift, every elevator does in game but gripen canards does produce more lift than regular elevators.
