I think this also contributes to the “on rails” feeling. The plane simply pitches in a different way.
1 Like
0.8M - 1.2M is the speed range the F-16 is optimised for. Transonic and supersonic.
I agree, but the centre of pressure is not a fixed location on the wing. It changes with speed and AoA. It doesn’t just jump backwards at 1.0M, it’s gradual during the transonic regime.
Your English is fine.
Even funnier, the Su-27M which was the original Su-35, had canards. They only removed them after getting thrust vectoring, although the canards on the Flankers are different to those seen on euro-canards.
TVC is largely a gimmick for low-speed post-stall manoeuvrability. If it were that important, someone would have taken up the offer to upgrade the Eurofighter with the thrust-vectoring engines BAe demonstrated.
2 Likes
Bro literally says you cant compare a gripen to an eurofighter and proceeds to comparing it to a f16 instead
I’m not going to argue the idiosyncrasies of what is and isn’t out of context because that will just be another circular firing squad.
The current Gripen SEP values are twice as high as anything that is roughly comparable. It’s twice as high as Mirage 2000 in-game and it’s twice as high as the predicted SEP for the Lavi.
Based on the different canard studies it’s apparent that there is a point where larger wing area offsets increased benefit from a canard. The Mirage 2000 also has strakes that need to be taken into account as well.
Just looking at the EM Diagrams for F-16A and M2K that are publically available…both of those planes experience SEP values in excess of -800 ft/sec (probably in excess of -1000ft/sec). In-game the Gripen only experiences around -500 ft/sec under the same testing conditions.
You can look at the EM diagrams. Both planes have very similar turn rate at the -800 SEP number but the Mirage 2000 does not run up against an AoA limit as quickly so it can maintain the higher turn rate at lower speeds.
The thrust to weight curve for the F-16 is much better at the higher speeds that it maintains optimal turn rate at compared to the Gripen. And the optimal turn rate AoA is relatively small.
The Su-27 doesn’t use TVC.
Neither does the F-16 or the F-18.
Pretty much all 4th Gen fighters are on par with each other as far as maneuverability is concerned; with planes like F-22 and Eurofighter that combine low wing loading with massive thrust to weight ratios.
SAAB does very interesting math when they come up with their cost estimates. When the Czechs picked F-35 they basically said that it’s total operating cost was around 25% more than their current Gripens and that Gripen E would also be more expensive than their current Gripen. Basically the extra cost of F-35 is drastically offset by being a stealth fighter.
Low production numbers is what is more or less driving up Gripen costs. It’s kind of the same place the Rafale was where nobody wants to buy them because they’re expensive…and they’re expensive because nobody is buying them. And then parts are expensive because there is no reason to be constantly producing parts when there are not that many airframes to produce parts for.
There are consequences to being a light fighter; the plane doesn’t have that much room to grow. Gripen faces same problem as F-16 does but to an even greater extent because it is small to begin with.
Most of the fighter pilots that are surprised by it is because they underestimate it or mentally compare it to something like the F-5.
This is the first article I found when search Gripen vs F-35 costs.
The Czech government claims that the F-35 is cheaper than the Gripen-E.
It’s in a catch-22.
It doesn’t sell because it doesn’t have the performance for the price point and because it doesn’t have sales…Saab can’t use economy of scale to drive down the price point.
Also from my understanding the Gripen-E program has been mired by the same kind of delays and cost increases that pretty much every fighter program goes through.
Ok
You know the F22 is very overhyped
The EFT and F22 have comparable performance
3 Likes
They do
“idiosyncrasies” i don’t think that word means what you think it means.
unless you mean that the context is viewed differently depending on who is looking at it? and that doesn’t make sense.
its highly important to look at the context when viewing scientific data. otherwise the wrong conclusions will be drawn about the end results (for example having or not having static/moving canards. or pointing out that one tested setup having different baseline lift even though that isn’t taken into account when producing the charts and conclusions later). if not looked at in its context there is a high risk of taking information and spreading it to mean one thing when in actuality it means another.
if we are to ever come to some sort of solution to at what level of SEP Gripen should be at there needs to be clarity in what is discussed. taking things without their context is what creates confirmation bias as you only see what you want to see and not what is actually said, i myself have done it before and been corrected and happily accepted that correction (although with slight emotional hurt) as i feel that it’s important.
which is absurdly high yes. but i don’t think it should be at the same level as m2k as you stated. but perhaps at 1.3x or somewhere around there. but absolutely not 2x as it is now.
yes, but added area of canard does comparatively more compared to same area added to wing. most of the benefits are seen at higher canard area to main wing area ratios.
speaking of strakes, the gripen also has strakes (and a VERY tiny LERX, but i’m unsure if it at all counts as one.) in addition to the canards. (trying to find a good picture but cant at the moment so i’m gonna have to get back to you on that one if you want it).
that is to little yes, but it should be better than they both are. as i said before. to turn the gripen it need a lower alfa to produce the same lift directional change needed for a specific turn compared to F-16 as it weighs 2/3 and thus have less mass it has to move and less force required to move it.
so if the F-16 is 1000ft/sec and going only by mass/turn force needed a number of 666ft/sec is obtained, but sense that is at magical conditions i would personally see 700-750ft/sec as a reasonable number if compared to 1000ft/sec (same math for F-16 at -800ft/sec gives gripen -533ft/sec but probably more like a subjective 600ft/sec).
i’m also curious what your knowledge background is going into this (no need to answer if you don’t want) as i wonder if you have any mathematical or physics training behind your thought process or if you rely on found research and anecdotal evidence alone.
i’m actually trying to find anything point to a number on this topic, i cant find anything but have admittingly not searched that hard. but i could do some calculations on what it might be given the sustained turn rate of like 21deg/sec at 700km/h. but i’m a bit to tired to be able to manage that at the moment, will get back to you unless you have those numbers handy.
i didn’t say they did? i answered to the F-22 and Su-35? why did you bring up these ones?
i don’t think they really are. it’s a bit of a to broad statement to make.
isn’t F-22 considered a fifth gen? and eurofighter together with gripen and the later F-16’s is the weird “4.5 gen”.
so Gripen E is still less than F-35 in operational cost.
that i would very much agree with yes. perhaps not “drastically”, but yes.
agreed.
depends on what you mean by grow, gripen is built to be a continuously evolving digital platform with regular software updates and continuously smaller upgrades of hardware, what they cant change without major redesign is overall structure and engine. most other things can be upgraded to some extent on a very short turnaround. (imagine it like a PC, you can change graphics card or hardrive quite easily but to change cpu takes some effort and to change the motherboard you have to make larger modifications overall).
i’ve never heard this. why would they compare something designed in the 50’s and built in the 60’s to something designed in the 80’s and built in the 90’s with a bigger upgrade in the 00’s ?
interesting, so about 25% more expensive to buy Gripen E but about 75% the operational costs per year compared to F-35 according to them. (which resulted in a total cost over 37 years of little over half for Gripen E compared to F-35)
yep. but the argument for price is that the price per unit compared to performance is VERY offset by the way lower operational cost in the longrun.
3 Likes
This is an outrageous thing to say…
3 Likes
I understand this to be sarcastic. You, Apollo, Mytho, and HandClap need to chill with the finger pointing. Address the arguments given (good or bad) without the antagonistic and toxic undertone. If you want to call someone out for being disingenuous, do so without turning yourself into the problem.
Let’s drop this. There is nothing in those studies that justify the performance of the Gripen. Actually, what they show is that the Gripen is well and above whatever potential increase in performance you are claiming for canards over tailed designs.
It’s simple, the canard will produce negative lift on unstable designs. The F-16s elevator provides positive lift. One of these is less beneficial for specific excess power than the other. There are advantages and disadvantages… I think we can all agree. The F-16s wing area is less because it can gain some positive lift from the elevator whereas the Gripen has a number of its’ own advantages from the canard.
As I said earlier… Let’s focus on evidence validating or invalidating the discrepancies we are researching related to the flight model such as specific excess power.
This could have been a constructive point to make, if only it was on topic. We are discussing the erroneous flight model, he did so while comparing it to other fighters also in the game. This type of antagonistic behavior is detrimental to the thread and I’m suspicious of this because it would be beneficial for Gripen mains to close threads where good discussion is taking place… where progress towards a report and a fixed flight model is happening.
Please if you could refrain from dragging this off topic, only speak if you have relevant data to support or invalidate the current FM.
1 Like
I think you’re forgetting someone
4 Likes
If we are going to compare it to anything, the Lavi seems most sensible. How reliable are those EM graphs though, because as far as I know there was only ~5 completed prototypes.
5 Likes
Very much on topic
It shows how you believe active cannards planes are inferior
You think a EFT has the same sustained turn as a F14
You think the plane is terrible
This shows you can’t have a discussion on this when you think the set up is inferior
We know the EFT is comparable to the F22
That makes the design of active cannards very good
2 Likes
I’d have to look more into the Lavi as I’m very unfamiliar with it but it’s likely a step in the right direction.
I don’t think anyone here believes the flight model is accurate aside from the occasional oblivious visitor to the thread. Discussions are regarding it’s SEP relative to other jets since we don’t have the Gripens actual SEP available.
Just saying “It can’t be 2x SEP”, “it doesn’t justify the in-game FM” and straw-manning is not constructive. I’m glad someone here is actually taking the time to call the straw manning out at least, mainly Necronomica and Handclap. I’ve certainly had enough of it. It’s no fun spending time researching this stuff only for it to instantly get drowned out by straw-man arguments or straight up ignored. It’s going nowhere. At best a discussion gets 1 or 2 somewhat productive responses into them before it gets completely derailed or ignored, same with the DM.
IMHO discussions here are not going anywhere either. How many posts / discussions do we need? we’re almost at the 2,500 mark. We’ve probably as a collective scoured through the entire internet off of anything relevant to the cause.
I know you all don’t agree but I still believe we’re lacking in the actual ‘evidence’. I think those charts of the in-game SEP are INCREDIBLY ambiguous and I think that’s part of the reason why no-one has actually forwarded them in a report yet. So much for all that conviction.
Most of all. Why do you and Feet even care what we think? What do you need from us? Just make the damn bug report and get it over with, it’s not like our discussions and arguing is actually resonating with you guys anyways, you don’t need our validation - only the devs… Worked well for your sustained report at least, you made it - some people provided criticism in the comments and then the devs looked at it. If the devs believe you’re right about your stances it will go through, if they don’t it won’t - either case doesn’t mean the devs are correct either but that’s another topic.
5 Likes
I think it’s because he doesn’t like getting doxxed or getting death threats from Gripen players.
I don’t make it because I’m lazy and I already have the plane. I’ll just play it in Sim until it’s no longer the best thing around and just chase the next meta vehicle whenever it comes out.
Is it boring? Sure.
Does it undermine the health of the game? Yep.
Does anyone actually care? Not really.
As a visitor skimming through the thread, undermining an argument by attacking the person making the argument is definitely not helpful or constructive. You want to discredit him by pointing to his opinions and biases, while he is yet to do that to anybody in this thread.
I’m not a fan of MiG-23M either, but at a certain point you must be objective and agree that he isn’t resorting to attacking people, he is only attacking poor arguements.
1 Like
I thought you previously said you despise people who do that.
Why are you spending your time playing a game you find boring?
Did you skim past this? Issues with the Jas39 gripen flight model - #102 by FeetPics
2 Likes
My comment was exclusively referring to MiG-23M.
1 Like
He only has poor arguments
The man fundamentally think that euro canards are terrible
My point has been is he doesn’t care what the facts are as he point is predetermined and nothing will change it
1 Like
Too lazy to make a report, but not lazy enough to write 300+ posts over several weeks, including several long form analysises and conducting extensive testing/research. Gotcha
You do you… I don’t know how you manage that, out of pure spite perhaps? I was actually a bit surprised to see how much you’ve been playing the Gripen after everything you’ve been going on about it being handheld, brainless and boring… You don’t seem to do it to ‘abuse’ the meta either based off your K/D with it…
3 Likes