It all makes sense when you start with the basis of “Screw Sweden, nerf it”
1 Like
no the max weight was too low because its empty weight was to low
the weight of a certain volume of fuel dosent just change
Well thats what the report was about, too low weight at max fuel, not too low vehicle weight
the ammount of max fuel dosent change and neither does the weight of it
and the only thing left at that point is the weight of the airframe
I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying
We have a given weight for the Gripen E at full fuel
and if the weight ingame at full fuel is lower that can only mean two possible things:
- the empty weight is too low or
- its missing fuel
but ~700kg of aviation fuel is about 870 liters which is more or less the size of a small to medium sized drop tank
from what i could find during a very surface level serach is that the gripen e cam carry 40% more fuel than the Gripen C
which lines up with the ammount of fuel the gripen e has in comparison to the gripen c ingame
The report was on empty mass. The brochure that was most likely used had empty mass of the 39E at 8000 kg
The datamine showed that the Gripen E had a mass of 7100~ before being raised up to nearly 7800
then it is still to light
this weight is with pilot, oil and ammo
but without fuel
also found the report
seems like another brochure was used
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/TwLJ9Buwn7so
If the total fuel mass is correct which is 3400 kg, subtracting 11400kg (mentioned in the report) from 3400kg (from the supposed brochure used) knocks it down to 8000
There’s this brochure stating Gripen E facts with similar, if not, same values. I think there’s no way in attempting a revert the change and we’ll have to suck it up.
Gripen NG, not E , Not the same. The NG was the name for the overall project before the actual E design was finalized, at the beginning the NG was even a converted two seater D testbed.
2 Likes
Mmmmm then is there any other brochure that states the actual 39E’s weight?
Granted, the increase weight from slightly bigger frame, new engine and avionics would be expected but if there’s some slight number differences from the NG demonstrator vs JAS-39E, then maybe a counter bug report could be made.
I found this website listing the Gripen E/F having roughly 7200kg of empty mass
Though third party website though: JAS 39E/F Gripen Fighter Jet - Full Specifications | TheDefenseWatch.com
I’ve only found the one likely used in the report that you have also shown in this thread this one:
dev is closed, gripen e is dead, they didnt fixed anything except vws, what a great morning
It was always going to be killed. After reports with dubious sources got through, compounding them with misinterpreted documentation was always going to kill it.
1 Like
Which reports are you referring to?
Introduction of C, a source from a trial/offer (?) that contradicted other sources set their precedent they’ve held against Gripen as a family. I haven’t memory of it more clear than that, as I’ve had a somewhat eventful and miserable existence (lost home several times) outside of this to recall any further details. However, that has set the precedent for poor treatment of the Gripen platform, alongside a number of poorly (or not at all) documented nerfs to Gripens as a whole through the life span of the addition.
Just seems that after that point they’ve doubled down on not accepting reports that would favour the platform yet followed the precedent outlined to take all the bad ones. Changes that nerf the platform with sound documentation aren’t bad in and of themselves, good documentation and following it is good. But they don’t really seem to care for the nature of the documentation if it suits the narrative of kneecapping it, yet it must be deemed impossibly true before it is resolved for a positive change.
I think i know what source you are referring to, unfortunately it is basically a primary source. So even if some data is “incorrect” (quotes because i don’t think there is any real way for us to know unless there are SAAB sources that say otherwise, and then those sources could be used for a report to correct it anyway so) it will override any secondary sources. Which just makes sense in general terms.
Oof, sad to hear. :/ I hope things are/will get better!
1 Like
At this point it would be amusing to have ended up in such a series of events to have lost it this many times in such a short span, were it not so inconvenient.
I do believe there were a number of contradictory primary sources to it that went ignored. But I haven’t the care to re-litigate it, they’ve a fascination with the document that will kneecap any attempts to provide better sources. Which sadly goes for a good many things in game. They tend to find documents that end up surpassed but they cling to them as though the sky would fall would it be abandoned.