Btw, on that wrong IRCCM about 9M, over the shoulder launched flares wouldnt be any better as it takes quite some time for pyrotechnic flares to get to temp. They would be long gone from seeker while at temp, esp when all russian CM launchers are placed literally on the ass which is barely in seekers FOV. Tests of first 9Ms which had not so effective IRCCM against soviet “dirty” flares due to slow temp rise shown they were exceptionally great from side aspect and rear aspect. Not so much front and i think it still stops tracking and pushes into the flight trajectory of plane if it detects flares. On top of that missing feature.
In a fact, it seems it works incorrectly in game as of now. Because when it suspends tracking, it continues in its OWN tracjectory, NOT targets trajectory. I saw many times when target flew from left to right and my missile had to pull up towards target and to the side. When it suspended tracking, it continued in flying UP, instead of continuing turning after the target. It knows where to fly before it suspends tracking. It seems its heavily underperforming in this aspect.
In addition, tracking is NOT smooth, it always jumps around when it detects flares, thats wrong as it should fly smoothly based on targets rates, not its own. In a sense, 9M is nerferd to Sh**. + its using filters at the edges of seeker so over shoulder flares at the edge barely picking up temp should be highly ineffective.
Still need to check when would the oscillation normally happen. It’s stated in the FCS document that the lateral stability of the aircraft decreases rapidly between 30° to 45° AOA. And the High AOA recovery control law is engaged above 26° AOA by using sideslip rate (beta-dot) feedback to enhance lateral stability, and killing roll oscillations by centering the pitch command and using all aileron authority for roll damping.
I guess we only got the oscillations but not the damping effect provided by the (non-existent) FCS.
Some acronyms decoded in Fig 1.5.2 Flight test recording of a rapid deceleration
turn with max aft stick command (Bleed Of Turn).
It is apparent that the static stability decreases rapidly from neutral to negative above 10° AOA, as the amount of nose-down canard and elevon deflection start to increase:
For the canard and elevon, positive value means trailing edge down, and negative value means leading edge down.
Just so things get cleared up. Found this on the Defyn discord server. I said before the Blk 10 F-16 can beat the gripen especially after the nerf but after seeing this I am not so sure. Keep in mind this is an 800 kph merge and both are holding pitch up, so pilot skill is not a factor here but its also a simplified duel. However this goes to show how good the gripen is, keeping in mind a Blk 10 destroys the F-16C https://streamable.com/4ab3n0
No, it literally sounds perfectly fine… that thing was accepted into service in late 90s with god damn long development. F16, 15, flanker or 29 are pretty much 1-2 decades older designs. Thats like wondering why is F16 better than F-4.
Inboard pylons are possibly missing an extra BOL739/3 which is either a 6 shot flare dispenser like the BOL739/2 or a BOL rail attachment like that of the BOL-304, 500 or 700.
It is, that’s why I said possibly. I have asked a Swedish main to try to track down some photos of it. As the BOL739/2 is a feature of the Gripen C as are the BOP-G dispensers, I think its very likely the BOL739/3 is as well.
I wonder when fcs / fbw will be modeled at all in game rather then just approximating its limitations and benefits. Hope theres no engine limitation unlike dropping chaff and flares separately
