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.
That’s the Gripen next-gen or Gripen-E as it’s known.
JAS 39A/C models have a top speed of only mach 1.4 on full afterburner when equipped with a full air to air load.
2 Likes
not to my knowledge, no
lol
South Africa and Slovakia both reported 1.4 mach top speed with full missile loads in their respective evaluations.
And at what height? Sea level?
All data points towards what has been implemented by the developers.
And even if it were incorrect, this is still a game and not called DCS.
The developers might decide whatever they like as long as it is to balance the plane out.
So why don’t you move on and have a GO at the SU-27 or the F-15 or whatever else is on your agenda.
And an interesting read on the RM12 for whoever cares :)
E can, the others can’t SAAB certainly hasn’t advertised supercruise and SAAB are big on advertising, also every other aircraft with supercruise is advertised as such.
So its even worse than what saab says and hes still complaining… jesus… silence him from forums already. From the start of his complains, there was NO direct document for gripen for him. EVERYTHING was based on estimates, guessing and his “expertise”.
1 Like