Im not going to argue with someone like you.
2 Likes
Uninstalled thrust =/= installed thrust. I am simply pointing out the optimal thrust curves for the engine available per public sources. There is a rather large discrepancy by ~25% at speeds above 0.9 mach with what is seen in-game. The performance exceeds that of the -IN20 model of the engine…
General Electric’s website no longer includes the -400 variant in the F404 family PDF. So how did you still manage to bring up the charts for the -400 variant?
3 Likes
2 Likes
This is from a 1984 document projecting the potential improvements to the F404 engine. The -402 is likely what is known as “Growth 2” and makes improvements over the RM12 as I’ve said already. It was first installed on the F/A-18’s in the early to mid 90s.
The RM12 was flying in the Gripen from '88.
Since the -402 shows an improvement over RM12, and significantly exceeds its’ performance in-game we can see there is a discrepancy. It’s rather simple stuff.
So, why use the -400 variant for comparison ?
because developer use the -402 variant to reject your previous report?
2 Likes
It is a basis for discussion, it shows the thrust curve of the engine which is temperature limited as stated. From there we can show the improved core model -402 which has higher temp limits than the RM12. It solved the high speed thrust drop-off according to GAO.
What I am asking is that the thrust be reduced to the amount of the improved -402 model… otherwise known as the “enhanced performance engine” model… this only makes sense.
Currently the performance of the RM12 is well above what would be expected even for the -IN20 as stated. It should technically have lower installed thrust than the -402 model since it does not feature the same upgrades… and as GE stated… none of them are flow limited in any way.
1 Like
restored :)
1 Like
No one knows the actual channel loss for the RM12 and -402 variants, but the developer has already answered you
Spoiler
We don’t see any reason to change something for engine thrust now, we don’t have any of 402 or RM12 exact gross thrust plots, and these sources are too questionable. Leaving this unchanged.
Sea level from Mach .5 to 1.1 is ~35s, which approximately matches Saab ASWT article of 30s
2 Likes
You’re very insistent on not acknowledging what I’ve said. Your argument is becoming circular… just wait for the new report.
1 Like
better than while looking at your presentation of strange data
3 Likes
Well. If you accept that trying to beat 15/16 in one circle is the shortest way to the hangar and pay attention to the sustained turn, then it looks interesting.
Gripen accelerates from ~19 deg/s (~1300 kg of fuel with no BOL and 2 aim-9) to 22 deg/s (near zero fuel with no BOL and 2 aim-9) on ~300 knots.
Spoiler
There is only one “but”. Tornado does the same thing. But on ~400 knots. I couldn’t slow it down to less than 350 knots in a sustained turn.
Spoiler
Of course, provided that we turn a blind eye to the Tornado’s fuel consumption of 650-670 kg/s, compared to the Gripen’s consumption of approximately 230-240 kg/s.
So, in SB it’s look promising with 20min fuel+droptank, but in RB you don’t even need to turn much, so difference not much.
Oh, yeah, and preflaring it’s bless aganist pov-defended Fox-2 :D
Just so you know your top video is set to private.
One circle is not a death sentence for the Gripen. It is easy to play energy on the F-15 currently. The F-16… not so much but it is certainly more than capable of smoking one in a dogfight at the moment.
Woops… My bad.
Can the gripen supercruse?
My understanding is that it should be able to to go mach 1.1 at 28,000 feet with a an air to air weapons load and mach 1.2 when clean.