Also if FeetPics want to get into it the Eurofighter is miles above anything in the game right now
2 Likes
If you go literally 10 seconds before the time stamp you indicated he says “at transonic and supersonic speeds” before saying what he says, which is something I had said before.
As long as the centre of pressure (which is the point were we can apply the sum of all the forces of all the tiny (infinitesimal) part of a wing can be applied to calculate momentums) is in front of the centre of gravity if you are doing a force on the same side as that centre of pressure it needs to be in the opposite direction to keep a plane from spinning, while it needs to be in the same direction when it is applied on the other side.
Idk if it is not clear because my English sucks, if you think I can make it more clear by doing a small diagram and setting up the second cardinal equation tell me
1 Like
Both of you are most likely to never find a definite answer on what configuration is the best, it all depends on what you want to achieve and how developed a determined solution is.
A certain wing may work better or worse with or without slats and with or without canards, and small differences on the profile shape can create improvements without altering configuration.
In a general sense the gripen is a more modern design than the F-16 or the MiG-29, and I would expect it to have a better Cd/Cl polar than those planes, but the current values are really extremely high, and especially the polar curve itself behaves in a very unrealistic way
2 Likes
This is what got the last thread closed. Let’s stop this type of discourse entirely, it isn’t useful to the discussion.
Can we instead focus on how the aircraft currently performs in relation to the canard types in the studies? It’s irrelevant how canard vs LERX work, Saab themselves stated their original conventional tailed design had better energy maneuverability performance over the delta canard but couldn’t meet some of their other criteria. The size and weight necessary to accomplish their requirements could best be done with a delta canard type.
To claim the delta canard is superior is irrelevant, what we need to look at is why the Gripen has such high excess power now and from there we can either justify it or demonstrate a discrepancy.
No. This is why I asked the question.
There has not been a single Gripen flight model change that I haven’t seen you oppose in the past.
The F-22 does not use it.
The Su-35 also does not use it.
This thread is specifically about the Gripen and thrust loading is an important performance metric when it comes to energy maneuverability.
I was speaking strictly in the context of BFM.
Procurement actually does have a good deal with how the Gripen performs.
Pretty much every time it’s put up against the other Euro-canard fighters or against F-35 or even late model F-16…it loses out because it is just overall a less capable aircraft.
It’s a small plane and with that comes some of the problems of being a small plane. Even Gripen E is facing some of the same problems that F-16 is where they are having to increase the engine power of the plane and the size of the wing to maintain performance and increase capabilities. But in doing, SAAB has made it cost too much for it to be an appealing alternative to the F-35
If the thing was half the wonderwaffe that Gripen fans claim it to be…it would have experienced more commerical success.
The closest thing we have to an EM diagram for the Gripen is going to be the calculated EM diagram for the Lavi.
Gripen in-game SEP values are effectively double what the Lavi would have under the same conditions.
it almost like if that same thing was on the EFT it wouldn’t improve performance that much
The Mirage 2000 doesn’t use it.
Neither does the F-16.
Neither does the F-18.
whole video is also very good, and it confirms what I stated before, that in order to be doing positive lift canards would have to be on a stable aircraft, and while positive lift is good the canards rotating that way would compromise the flow on the main wing.
Instead in an unstable configuration the canards do not have to provide positive lift (he then doesn’t explain further, but what they actually do is rotate in the opposite direction on what they would do if aircraft was stable, and by doing so they improve the airflow on the main wing and create a little negative lift that helps keeping the aircraft under control)
1 Like
which are all older designs and perform worse
2 Likes
The Eurofighter does
The Rafale does
The best dogfighters out there that are not thrust-vectoring
1 Like
He responded to this
with this
both being thrust-vectoring…
When did these become relevant?
3 Likes
They’re among the best dogfighters because they combine low wing loading with a high thrust to weight ratio.
1 Like
What an oversimplification of a complex subject
3 Likes
The source he got it from
Their is first hand sources that say the EFT blows the F15 and F16 out of the water in terms of performance
From the very start you have been disingenuous and hostile
2 Likes
The Eurofighter has the lowest wing loading and the highest thrust to weight of any of the delta canard fighters…it’s kind of to be expected that it would be the best performing of the bunch. However it is also not close coupled so the performance comparison would not be direct.
This was your very first reply
This was your first reply.
Your replies have been nothing but antagonistic throughout the thread. I have deliberately ignored you and Apollo in order to try to keep the discussion somewhat on track and civilized.
The american patriot, mig 23
1 Like
I generally stay away from these pilots accounts since they aren’t relevant to the SEP and in the case of Gripen there’s both accounts of it kicking ass and getting it’s ass kicked, but since no-one else cares about this I might add this one from the Czech air force page
The tiny Gripen can beat much more powerful twin-engined machines in a dogfight if the right tactics are used. This American F-15 pilot was also convinced of this. (source: Stridspiloterna)
I’ve been avoiding you too, you did well for a majority of this thread and it’s not all your fault that it’s not on track anymore, there’s blame on both sides @Mytho-GR1 and me
Can we all agree to drop this now? Focus on the posts providing insight into the matter?
5 Likes
sure can do
that’s the thing though, i don’t think they conclude what you think they do.
several of your screenshots have been out of context and doesn’t really convey the point you are trying to make when taken in their context.
well yes, but it is better. by how much is the discussion.
i don’t think anyone here would argue against the Gripen SEP being to high. we are trying to figure out by how much.
your previous statement saying it should be closer to the M2K is mostly what made me comment on it as that seems to be to low.
its not the added maneuverability that is the thing, its the added lift at moderate to higher alfas that (in the circular motion that is a sustained turn rate) would matter quite a lot. especially given the lower weight of the gripen compared to the F-16. (i would like to point back to my previous calculations on the matter here: Issues with the Jas39 gripen flight model - #67 by Necronomica)
because they use thrust vectoring which is more effective on an above 1 T/W ratio plane, but also way more expensive.
it actually doesn’t. most that has chosen gripen has done so because they want fewer planes and it then makes more economically sense as the gripen is more expensive to purchase but cheaper to fly and maintain. whilst the F-16 it cheaper to buy but more expensive to fly and maintain. there is also way easier access to repairs and spare parts when it comes to the F-16 as the production rate is much higher and more wide spread. the Gripen however is harder to replace if it brakes and harder to repair and get parts for because of their low production numbers and few users. its mostly a matter of cost vs convenience and speed of problem-solving.
but i digress.
that is not what i have seen and heard. there are a few examples of the opposite but most of what i’ve seen is pilots being surprised by the performance of such a small aircraft from a relatively small country. but i actually wouldn’t mind being proven wrong, i just haven’t seen it.
it is way cheaper than the F-35 though? at least from what i could find.
Gripen E goes for around $85 mil
the F-35 Goes for around $175 mil
again goes back to what i said about the costs for F-16 vs Gripen C
the biggest reason its not selling isn’t lack of performance. its the lack of production and availability. buy 100 F-16 and you will probably have them all in 2 years. Buy 100 gripen and you’ll probably get the last one in about 10 years and if anything breaks on the ones you have in that time its going to further delay production to make spare parts let alone if one needs to be completely replaced (timeframes taken out of my ** for reference).
this would probably be realistic. will look closer when i have the time, looks promising at first glance.
this graph is good because it shows F-16C (block 40) having 20% higher T/W BUT also 44% more wing loading compared to Gripen (block 30 has 30% more T/W and 27% more wing loading)
thing is, with wing loading its just area per mass and the amount of lift per area is not taken into account.
well said!
4 Likes