That’s not surprising. No way the US was left unable to be the meta nation. Just wait until we get the Typhoon that cant out-turn a mig-23 or F-4
2 Likes
I dont expect this from A and C model, maybe JAS39E can do that tho.
Gripen squadrons have made the claim of 20 deg/s without context. The truth depends highly on payload, but that isn’t modeled in-game.
For example, with two AIM-120’s and two AIM-9’s & a drop tank… the top speed is reduced to mach 1.4 at altitude from 1.8-2… this makes it inferior even to the F-18 in BVR considerations irl whereas it can get to mach 2 fairly quickly in-game before the thrust was fixed… even with max payload.
1 Like
That goes in both ways, other planes also have reduced top speed when equipped with ordinance.
1 Like
Yes, I compared it to the other slowest BVR contender the F-18, and the Gripen is abysmal in this regard. Well below peers.
There is things to consider though:
First don’t know if the limit comes from the drop tank, maybe the drop tanks are limited to 1.4M, we would need to check if they have a safety limit for those. No idea honestly.
Secondly: This kind of confirms that the Gripen is an exceptionally low drag design, if it’s top speed is impacted by that much just by carrying ordnance.
Although I again, don’t know how fast other planes are with similar loadouts, maybe they have roughly the same speed loss, but you make it sound like they don’t so I figured the statement about the drag is justified.
The Gripen has a number of devices used to increase lift when angle of attack is involved. The delta canards design is better suited to high speed but the engine is not. Optimizing drag for supersonic speed was necessary. Turning at subsonic speeds should result in worse performance because of the high lift devices and relatively low T/W in comparison to other fighters. Stability is high, stall speed is low, but the basic design is not suited for high turn rates.
A couple of issues, the thrust overperforms slightly (but matches the correct curves now)… and the aircraft FM was adjusted to match sustained turn charts while remaining wholly statically stable. This means that the canards produce positive instead of negative lift and aid the aircraft in ways they shouldn’t.
Yes, the canards aid them because they contribute to lift right now.
But that also means that the FM underperforms in agility because of it.
If they were to fix the stability then the Gripen should have snappier control but less sustained performance, right?
1 Like
No
Also no
The canards contribute to lift, so the entire FM is erroneously modeled to match the turn rates with the aid of the canard. Change this to unstable and the negative lift from the canard would be detrimental to the performance but obviously that would need to be amended when they fix the FM.
Because the FM is accounting for the positive stability already, it doesn’t “underperform” in sustained turn. It is modeled to match the few known parameters while being statically stable. These are turn rate, top speed (clean) and acceleration. For the instant turn rate and sustained turn rate to match real world data while also being statically stable, the resultant specific excess power was far too high. The energy loss rate at higher angles of attack was too low.
To amend the issue would require a ground-up fix with essentially a new FM and they can’t do unstable designs until they rework instructor. They won’t be able to fix the Gripen until the entire FM portion of the engine is overhauled.
2 Likes
So in this graph the F-16C and the Gripen A have nearly identical sustained turn rates, with the Gripen beating it by something close to 5% in instantaneous turn?
This would mean the Gripen is exceptional at sustained turning if it can keep up with one of the best rate fighters to be known, or am I missing something?
2 Likes
Missing context. A clean Gripen is matching the turn rate of a potentially loaded F-16C and the speeds, altitudes, loading is all unknown.
With context, even the F-18C exceeds the F-16C’s turn rate when certain conditions apply.
5 Likes
Actually, interestingly…
The Hawk 200 boasts 15 deg/s turn rate at SL
It seems to indicate the Hawk 100 (which is the heavier, two seater version)… has identical sustained turn capability to the F-16C & Gripen.
So do these aircraft turn on par with each other in regards to sustained turn? With specific context… sure. The graph doesn’t give us enough information on its own.
1 Like
A slower aircraft should be able to turn in a smaller radius
Yes but the chart discussed rate, not radius or G loading
i was just using the in game stat card for the “turn time” as it is after the latest change stated as 24 seconds (i.e. 15deg/s) and comparing to the F-16C which states 19sec (i.e. ~19deg/s). Those numbers are what made me ping you and ask if you had the possibility to test it as i don’t have the knowledge to do so.
Edit:
the phantoms you mentioned are listed at 26sec (i.e. 13.8deg/s)
1 Like
Tomorrow I can test
1 Like
A lot of context is missing IMO. What fuel and weapon loads are used? The 16C is honestly overrated as a dominant rate fighter likely because of some DCS youtubers making misinformed claims without any hard data to back it up. In DCS the 16C is among the worst 4th-gen fighters in sustained rate in dogfight server settings that equalizes fuel. This is all to say that matching an F-16C in rate is probably not all that special or particularly good.
Right, as I have shown… the Hawk 100 should be inferior to the 200… which sits at 15 deg/s without context. If the Hawk matches the F-16C, that’s abysmal.
My assumption that if they are all trainers they are probably trying to match the F-16C in usual combat conditions which would be 50-60% fuel and with a medium payload of missiles. This puts the F-16C closer to ~16-17 deg/s iirc.
The Hawk 200 with half fuel and clean would be closer to 16 deg/s and the Gripen is probably closer to 18 deg/s in such conditions but I’ll be honest, those are educated guesses.
So if a non loaded 60-40% fuel gripen A can do 16-18° how much would a gripen C also do? I mean its what like 500kg heavier due to the fuel system and some avionic changes? Of course this is an educated guess. Again seems strange that the gripen A is limited to 15°’s after the additional nerf with this patch. May explain why ive had such an easy time getting them with my 16C.