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
If you would have included drag reduction changes in your yet another nerf based on unreliable sources and tests that pretty much proves nothing. Maybe we wouldnt be so critical. But you ONLY report the supposedly ovberperforming thing without suggesting fixing issue it would bring.
And once again. Your sources are unreliable and borderline useless… Its all speculations and no face values. Comparing modified engine in gripen to other jet and other engine is pure JOKE and if @Metrallaroja thinks its valid, gaijin should reconsider his employment because hes obviously disregarding facts to fit his agenda.
You cannot report 2 unrelated things at once in the same report, they must be kept seperated. Devs arent mindless zombies they have the critical thought to take known acceleration figures into account, and if not? well then another report goes up and it gets fixed.
Exept they are closely related. And we know how gaijin works - NERF done in one week… it takes months to repair that nerf if it was wrong…
Look at M735 for example… guy reporting it outright lied in it and gaijin still went ahead and its STILL wrong. No fix in sight. No new ammo for vehicles that rely on it, simply nothing.
They are incompetent in this regard. Including tech mods if they cant check against submitted docs and if its reliable and valid source.
They’re not here to refute the report, only to complain. As such there is little point in giving them any discourse.
The Gripen thrust should be amended, if it is and it affects something else I will report the other issue.
If you commit to fixing the plane as a whole and you will also report the (likely too high) drag in the future, then I am fine with the engine thrust being set to something that seems to be reasonable.
I mean I still don’t think they are comparable as closely as you seem to think but I also don’t think that the thrust should be THAT much higher than even the newer models. On the other hand, the current ingame performance is still too SLOW in acceleration so there is not really a NEED to lessen the thrust for now.
Nah, even radar reports on radar behavior have to be split from eachother because you cannot focus too much on different radar behaviors. So I dont see how thrust and drag would be in the same report especially since they are both counter to eachother.
Also FM reports get fixed pretty fast, MiG-29 was fixed within a month and that was because the original report was botched and the second one just wasnt passed for a very long time. Hell, if I had the acceleration sources I’d be happy to report it as soon as it became wrong.
Partly why I bothered to do the report because of the thrust is fixed and the acceleration is wrong enough - they’ll adjust it. Right now they find it acceptable…
Well if it currently needs roughly 15-20% more thrust at Mach 0.8 to still accelerate roughly 15% slower than it should then you cn imagine how terribly wrong the drag must be.
That also means that while the energy retention in a turn at that speed would suffer a bit, it would also mean that below that speed it would be better.
And I don’t think we necessarily need more energy retention at trans or supersonic speeds in the Gripen. It hardly slows down as is in that speed range which honestly makes it harder to get into a dogfight with a chasing plane since you need to engage your airbrakes to effectively slow down enough to get into a knife fight.
