Id argue its not “super fast” compared to the competition at all
1 Like
Definitely missing on the C at least so i’m assuming they are missing on the E as well and from what i can tell they are not there.
C:
E:
IRL C:
IRL E:
is there a bug report for the landing gear yet?
Isn’t that the one in the tail? Or is that just for generating electricity
Did you see the screenshot?
It’s as fast as the Su-30SM2, F-15C GE, J-11B.
The J-10C is slower.
The only things notably faster than the Gripen E are Typhoon, Rafale, and F-15E.
Just check here:
2 Likes
Fast as in top speed at certain altitude? or fast as in acceleration at certain speeds and altitude?
2 Likes
i did one for the helmet @Michael-IR if you wanna update the list
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IwIgjFBGAwhQ
ooowweeee, i thought i would have to wait till monday or more to get more missiles, also splinter camo <3
E: also radar overlayed on the map is now a thing
Both?
Cause TAS is going to be mach limited above 11,000 meters for many/most aircraft.
However, TAS is IAS limited below 11,000 for most aircraft.
Acceleration is the spreadsheet.
And for TAS… Gripen E is going to be IAS limited until ~9000 meters altitude: And that’s when clean.
After that it’ll become mach limited.
There’s far more nuance to top speeds than I can fit into a condensed post.
At 100m it’s slowest in acceleration and second slowest in top speed of the aircrafts you listed above.
At 5000m its the best in acceleration up intill around 700km/h where it goes middle of the pack and second slowest top speed. (Edit: corrected chart as i forgot to open up max speed limit)
At 11000m it starts in the middle for acceleration and then takes a nosedive to the slowest above 1500km/h and has the slowest top speed.
2 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jtV6I8SsGFQl
Though your report might show it better perhaps?
2 Likes
welp ig there is two now
No one’s bringing clean jets into matches.
And no one’s bringing FIF in all aircraft universally.
People are bringing the fuel they need to work with the match, which is different from aircraft to aircraft.
So using Statshark’s data for clean aircraft using high fuel loads for Gripen and less for others isn’t going to give accurate data for people.
Practical tests with full weapon loads, and adjusting the fuel to match what people might typically bring is the superior method of testing.
Since J-10 has the worst internal fuel capacity of 5 minutes of afterburning [1000kph sea level] with full fuel, that’ll be the limitation.
Even when clean, Gripen E is in the middle of the pack.
You start giving aircraft their weapons. Su-30SM2 is going to be impacted more than F-15C, and F-15C is going to be impacted more than Gripen E.
You increase the fuel, and the twin engine aircraft have to add more fuel than the single engine aircraft.
Gripen is at 47% fuel, F-15C is 81%, Su-30SM2 is 57%, J-11B is 56%. All to match the amount of time you have in the air +/- 20 seconds.
Using full fuel for everything is inherently unfair to the Gripen in this instance cause people are going to lower the fuel to their general preference.
True, but adding missiles is going to likely add the same amount of drag and extra weight, and since the JAS39E is smaller and has less thrust its going to effect it more relatively speaking.
That was 30% internal fuel.
Instinctually and going by gut i think it’s the opposite. Logically speaking adding the same extra weight and drag to something smaller and lighter is going to effect it’s acceleration and top speed more than adding that same weight and drag to something larger and heavier.
True.
Hence the 30% fuel i ran above. But you have a point of using minutes of fuel instead.
3 Likes
you do in weight
except you are increasing it in percentage of carried fuel which is incorrect
1 Like
It depends on the target angle and other factors but it is possible to detect targets over 500km away.
Will try to find english version.
1 Like
I posted it further up in here somewhere