It absolutely adds to the discussion of this model because the community is revealing how unproductive his Holy Technical Crusade across War Thunder is becoming.
It’s actually highly productive. The community is politely policing itself and protecting itself. Rejecting his crusade against the models of War Thunder.
Why not focus on the models that are underperforming? If honest reporting really matters and its not some personal kink to nerf everything under the sun? Su27 and F15? Why jump on the Gripen?
Yes I did, it did not add anything.
The two sources you were crticising for not being the same were still consistent in saying that both planes were close in performance while in game they weren’t, yet you decided to ignore that part.
He made reports on the F-15 which fixes its flight model in the past, don’t know what gave you the impression the Gripen is the only focus its as easy as looking at his past reports
As for the Su-27 its flight model is accurate in its current state no need for further reports
If you’re talking about stability, the faster planes get the more stable they become usually, the Su-27 is like that aswell. If you feel that is incorrect feel free to make a report with sources
hey if you disagree, source it and ill believe you. Right now you’re just saying stuff, to say stuff. Which wont change anything certainly cant make a bug report out of vibes.
Absolute video game understanding of flight an aircraft does not gain stability the faster it flies. The F-16 does not get more stable the faster it flies lol.
There are different types of stability and depends of design of the airframe. The F-16 and Su27 are Dynamically stable.
I do not care what you believe I will message you links to silence you now and you can go on pretending you know what you are talking about.
"Additionally the thrust of the F404 needed to be increased. Therefore the fan was made slightly bigger in order to blow more air through, and the turbine was constructed in different materials to allow higher temperatures. "
This comment on the bug report gave a pretty good reason that there is at least reasonable doubt if the engines can even be compared. The same comment was present on the report that was closed earlier for saying it didn’t give enough information.
He opened another one, writing this:
The previous report was considered too questionable, however the attached thesis discusses the use of QNEP (Quick Navy Engine Program) for the calculation of the F404’s installed thrust on the F/A-18 fighter jet. This should be considered a primary source for the thrust curves of the engine.
That’s not only, again a different NON-COMPARABLE engine and whole DIFFERENT plane, it’s still using the same exact arguments. Yet it was acknowledged almost immediately.
still saying words that mean nothing without anything to back them up, anyways I don’t want to clutter up the gripen thread with non gripen stuff since that plane deserves its own attention if you feel like continuing there’s a thread for the Su-27
The F-15 and Su27 are still underperforming go and split hairs with dad tying to figure out how to buff those instead going after low hanging fruit nerfing aircraft because your bored.
That sentence is regarding RM12 being developed from -400, RM12 should perform better than -400.
In simple terms the report compares it to the -402 that is even more advanced and should perform better than RM12 and it is just asking for RM12 to at least match -402 performance.
In game we are talking that RM12 has over 2000kgf more than -402…
So your ignoring reports from various swedish sources stating that the RM-12 is a HEAVILY modified version of the F404 with reports of up to 50% of the hardware being different to allow for higher performance? or are you just accepting it at face value it must be X because he has argued for X
Reading the source I don’t exactly find a spot where it states that it should be better than the RM12…
It clearly states the thrust at 79KN vs 80KN of the RM12 while also then only talking about the changes made to the RM12 that are NOT taken over to the 402.
It also states that “only minor changes” are made to the RM12 from the 400 which isn’t exactly my understanding when someone says that they only have 50% of parts in common…
To my understanding the swedes modified it extensively and when developing the 402 they avoided using all those changes to keep the costs of the tests low since they would have needed to repeat a whole lot of inlet testing for the F-18 airframe.
To me that absolutely negates the 400 or 402 engine as comparable engines. They might have similarities left but we simply don’t know what they changed. And neither do you or MiG-23…
What that means is that you ASSUME that the engine wasn’t modified enough to warrant that change in thrust and simply BELIEVE in those sources that even specify that the 404 didn’t even include the changes made to the RM12.
Honestly I could also be misunderstanding the sources but from what I can read in them it at least seems pretty clear to me that none of the provided sources can actually be considered to have any valid information in them.
His whole argument is held together by this pretty much: “According to S. F. Powell’s F404 Advanced Programs report from 1990, the RM12 uses the F404-GE-400 core with minor changes to the hardware to accommodate the increased temperatures”
An 1990 F404 programs report from 2 years after the Gripens first flight lol
Only if it impacts the other known datapoints. Yes. They raised the fuselage drag and now it matches the time to accelerate from 0.8 to 1.1 mach from the other documents… are you guys really going to be unhappy with an improvement to the flight model as well as the other changes? Nearly everything else left to fix is a buff.
The problem isn’t that we don’t want the thrust nerfed.
The problem is that you only want to see the whole plane nerfed in that matter.
If you lower the thrust and leave the drag as is it’s guaranteed to accelerate too slowly…
If all problems were fixed at the same time I wouldn’t mind at all. Less drag would mean better low-medium speed acceleration and less speed loss at turns below 0.8M if I am not wrong.
However, the drag values they assigned were used with the current Thrust of the engine so when they simply reduce that above Mach 0.8 then the plane will likely not even reach 1200km/h at SL to exagerate the point.
If you want the engine thrust fixed, we still need the accleration and peformance to match the other data points.
then you make a report to fix acceleration, same stuff with the MiG-29. mass was too low so it was corrected, then it was underperforming because the FM wasnt adjusted accoridngly, another report was made, it was fixed.
If you have sources on acceleration it shouldn’t be any trouble, and I believe there are some since they’ve been mentioned here before