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?
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.
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.
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)
Tomorrow I can test
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.
The stat card turn time isn’t accurate. The actual sustained turn rate is likely higher than 15 deg/s.
It appears the Gripen did not get this FM change when the update came to the live server. Can we expect this soon? I am waiting on it to file a report.
So the gripen hasn’t changed at all ?
Weird considering it feels like it has less energy retention and rate overall
That seems weird, i can swear that it feels way clunkier now.
what is the current turn rate in game?
That nerf never hit for some odd reason… some guy also asked Smin during dev server to which he got the response that FM changes are typically added last… But it’s been a while now since dev server ended, maybe they forgot?
They also forgot to add AGM-65G’s to JAS39C, it seems both fm changes and ordinance will be added with minor Uptade.
People tend to get the new update sugar pills and think FM’s and such have changed when they haven’t. Just ask Ziggy.
Anyhow, no… the FM wasn’t changed so I’m still waiting to conduct follow on testing and form a report.
Without more information, the table may be misleading. But in reality, I would believe that a clean Gripen will perform similarly to a clean F-16 at certain altitudes, i.e. better instantaneous and similar sustained turn. With weapons under the wings, performance changes for both, getting worse. Given the Gripen’s size, its performance will be more degraded than the Viper’s.
I think they are very close to eachother but this article is very interesting to read. Former Swedish Air Force Flight Engineer explains how the Saab Gripen can Dogfight and Win Against (Almost) Any Dissimilar Aircraft - The Aviation Geek Club
“‘F-16 has a higher TWR [thrust to weight ratio], but one need to consider drag and wing loading too. The Gripen has much lower drag. And far lower wing loading. It can reach supersonic speeds on dry thrust while carrying a full armament of four AMRAAM’s two Sidewinders and an external fuel tank. Even though the Gripen lacks the TWR of the F-16 it can nearly match it in climb rate thanks to low drag.”
Shame he dont mention anything about turn time.
There is more to it than the author has stated but yeah