I’d still argue the war switch AOA is still artificially limited to be more stable rather than giving us what it was designed for which was all limiters removed
the Gripen in WT dosent have any AoA limits in the first place
otherwise you wouldnt be able to pull anywhere near as much as you can in WT
Eh I’d still argue it does given you can’t pull the canards as far as seen in some airshows and a certain flatspin event but I’m all for the chaos it would cause lol
which is nothing but visual gaijin could change the animations for the canards and the FM wouldnt change
you should know that the gripen ingame has the extra lift devices so that dosent happen
and the gripen being unable to deepstall in WT is not a result of AoA limits
Idk pulling the canards 90° does tend to instantly cause problems lol
you can pull massive ammounts of neg G in the gripen and many other jets without them deep stalling and falling out of the air at low speeds
all WT FMs are massively flawed in extreme conditions
Pretty sure the air show was high speed it’s been a while
I remember I had saved this from a magazine since the discussion had come up a while back
i was specifically talking about Neg Gs as an example for saying that WT FMs arent the greatest when it comes to extreme conditions
since it is pretty much universal that planes arent build to be controllable at extreme neg G and neg AoA
I am sorry about reply times I’m busy grabbing Finnish ammo trial docs for another person so I am very sorry about making you wait.
Also yeah warthunder is notoriously wonk for certain aspects of aircraft
Didn’t it?
Are the 20 extra cm just the wing pylons getting thicker?
Edit:
what else would it be?
you can also see that in WT, the wing surface itself stayed the same
the only thing that changed bezween the “new” and “old” wing are the rear flaps
New wings that are wider?
I actually don’t know, so i’m actually asking :P
they are, because of the thicker wingtip pods
its not worth to redesign the internal structure of the wing to just extend it by 10cm for each wing
Perhaps not if you look at the cad image i edited in to my first reply.
It’s probably already been redesigned since part of the fuel tanks are now in the wings as well the landing gear are in the wings now.
1 Like
the wings are entirely different in their construction so they were already redesigned
if you overlay the two they have the same wingspan
(i changed the hue of the gripen C that i overlayed so its clearer)
Well that doesn’t say much since it’s both a render and the wings are detached. The E is also 30cm longer then the C.
Here are some images showing the differences in gear possition:
C:
E:
you used the render trying to say the wings are longer
that has nothing to do with the wingspan
No, it was an argument for them already being re-constructed from practically ground up showing that they have the potential to be different lengths since they aren’t the same construction.
it has to do with your overplay and if you scaled and accounted for that or not. Not that that would matter really anyway since the wings are detached and it’s a render. But more if you plan to compare IRL photos that the length should be scaled accordingly.
and you can see there that the gripen e is longer
you can still see part of the gripen e rudder and “engine housing”
1 Like