and a good part of my 1212 kills I owe to the Aspide 1A (many F14As suffered playing the albatross) X)
Do not know if this carries over to later versions, but yes, A was limit to 12.
Gripen is capable of 12g, airframe is capable of further (demonstrated by tragedy) but the pilot generally should not, from what remember of investigations when A was announce. Which if Gaijin were consistent would translate to 16-18 in game, if they followed the conventions they’ve applied to virtually every other platform which is just slightly annoying that they have not.
1 Like
Out of curiosity, how long do most vehicles take from the start of planning to their introduction? I have heard people say ~1 year on average, though I imagine there is a fair amount of variance.
If possible, could you share some of the vehicles that had unusually long or short development cycles?
The gripen is AoA limited ingame and not G-limited
Almost exactly a year old, from 2.36.0.25 / 2024-06-10.
2 Likes
It is limited in both capacities. It cannot pull accurate aoa, and even if you force it into some stupid maneuvers, you will struggle to even approach the figure we should expect if Gaijin’s standard g limit conventions were applied.
1 Like
The gripen can easily pull ~35° AoA ingame
1 Like
If you throw it into a flat spin, sure. But you want to know what else achieves that in a flat spin? Literally everything if you do it properly. Clean, and min fuel, with full real, you are still pulling below what it ought to in ordinary maneuvers (I would also note I cannot get it to pull above 30) when there are reports varying from 50 to 70, and some outliers claim it capable of exceeding 100 (I do not have the patience to verify these, so I am assuming they’re outliers). Even assuming you can achieve 35 (which I was not able to do just now*), we’re still missing a fair bit, even on the more conservative end of assessments.
I also don’t particularly care to rehash this argument because it has been done to death, and nothing is going to be done to bring Gripen on par with the performance that we should expect from the more credible sources. It even underperforms the less credible sources used to take a hatchet to it.
*Without contributing to a flat spin.
1 Like
It is possible without flat spinning it
i would be able to get close to 100° of AoA if i would flat spin it
2 Likes
I could highlight the disingenuous nature of this trial at proof relying on functionally stall conditions, but even that’s giving you far too much credit.
Short and long of it, thing’s still under performing available, credible documentation. I don’t overly care to continue the discussion with you, as I highlighted earlier. The topic has been been done to death, and it will never be fixed.
1 Like
When does the update release?
No update I guess, usually announcement in this hour (3:00 PM my local time).
so it stalled and hit over 40° of aoa without flatspinning
and yet it is underperforming
flatspinning the Gripen is impossible without an damaged airframe and you only start departing at close to 90° of AoA
is this also a stall?
you said the gripen cant do 35° of AoA without flatspinnin, i showed you it can and you are just saying
iam disingenuous
you said it isnt possible, i proved you wrong
where am I disingenuous
and iam not even at min fuel btw
1 Like
If you cannot identify the faults in your presentation, I unfortunately cannot help you. My tolerance for individuals like you is substandard at the best of times, and your comprehension skills will only contribute consternation to my day.
The only proof of yours I can recreate under any configuration is the stall hitting 40 degrees of aoa. This is not particularly impressive, however, on account of the nature of stalling and how it represents in the vast majority of aircraft in game. It also does not demonstrate that the aircraft is over performing as this is the only circumstance that I can this aoa, your second proof showing itself to be unable to be recreated clean and at minimum fuel to give it the best chance of occurring, the closest I came was a departure of forward flight rapidly slipping towards the ground.
I also assumed that your claim was correct when I responded to you, giving you the benefit of the doubt even in the face of being unable to recreate it, when I said that assuming you were correct we are still missing some performance. Which even in the least charitable of circumstances you chose to present (even the one I cannot validate), we are.
So, in the interests of not saying regrettable things regarding my opinion of you, I hope you’ve a fine day and that this discussion is at an end. We can assume you are correct (in spite of the fact that I can only validate one proof), and that we’re still missing efficacy (demonstrated by you even if I cannot validate the proofs), in spite of your questionable methodology. I do hope you finally grasp the “This topic has been done to death and I tire of going over it” aspect of my responses.
1 Like
It doesn’t have HOJ. It however does have a doppler filter seeker, akin to R24s, meaning that whilst the radar might loose the target, the missile will simply look for the correct until radar illumination is lost.
1 Like
you made a statment, i disproven it
you didnt give any conditions whatsoever besides “not flat spinning” which i showed is possible
full real, manual controll and manouver mode turned on at 15mins of fuel
with a clean airframe
2 Likes
Whilst I sometimes have faith in my fellow individual to engage with topics sensibly, I can always count on individuals like you to remedy me of this false notion.
Probably,but no idea
1 Like
I would have checked, but alas.