Indeed. I am not an aerodynamicist (actually another kind of physicist), but it seems reasonable that a heavy airframe designed in the 50s for a striker would do much worse than the light and unstable Gripen.
Also note that the dashed curves are power-limited.
You dont understand how wing rip strength works in game and just get wrong conclusions.
Wing rip is not a fixed G value, it is dynamic! The weight of the plane affects the wing g rip, the heavier your plane is the lower the wing G rip. This as I did show earlier happens in real life too, for example structure strength in grippen is 9G at 7800kg but 5.8G at 12000kg.
If this values are modeled in war thunder it will not rip at 9x1.5=13.5G at 7000kg but at 15g!
That is why 12G manouvers are not that impressive if done at low weights, it is not a 1.5G margin but a 3G margin.
Being limited to below 12G at full fuel is not absurd but realistic, weight with full fuel is 9300kg. Even with the emergency override a gripen pilot could only pull about 10.5G.
Every plane follows this wing strength dynamic based in normal structural limit despite being able to pull more G’s, because the structural limit is not a hard limit.
You say F-16 does not rip at 13.5G but it does:
Currently F-16 is modeled after the structural limit of 9G at 23768lb, at 23768lb it will rip at 13.5G but at lower weights it will rip at a higher G load.
I do understand that weight affects the rip overload. That is why I asked flame if he had a report out for the 13.59G limit being applied to empty weight instead of 7,875kg, which in game has 11.5G limit. On the datamine a full load Gripen has a 9G rip. My point about absurdity is that the live Gripen has maximum overloads less than or equal to what pilots could safely pull IRL.
Regarding the F-16 I forgot to account for weight because in-game I am accustomed to them pulling 15G all the time. It is my mistake. For other aircraft (especially props), the standards still seem to be applied somewhat inconsistently.
Since you want to lecture me on weight I implore you to submit a report about the Gripen’s overload being incorrect in respect to weight.
Also, a few points regarding the way you Edited that graph of the Gripen. Whilst I understand you doing it to try to make a point, I think you’d be really reaching to use that edited graph as a source for the actual limitations of the airframe.
Side by side:
1st: You filled in the dotted line that begun at roughly 7.8G’s. There is clearly some context there, likely explained in the redacted text above it. (In the other graph, dotted lines seemed to mean it’s inconsequential, as it would be below the airplane weight - and that is if the bottom bar is weight in tonnes).
2nd: The paper refers to the graph as “Normal load factor limits” (You labeled it “Normal Structural Limit”) which is odd since it could simply refer to load factors in peace time (with war time load factor’s likely being classified). With the purpose of lengthening the airframe lifespan. It does not seem like the “actual” limit, as the second graph (with heavy external store config) is not linear/changing with the “weight”
3rd: The bottom bar is redacted from the graph - I’ll agree that it could be the mass in tonnes, but it could also be some other unit of measurement/metric.
4th: There also 2 messages inside the graph that are redacted - these are clearly adding context to the graph itself.
5th: The emergency override would literally wing rip the aircraft at the end of the graph? This goes back to safety margins, they would obviously not have an emergency override (Within 8-13kgf of stick pulling force) coincide with the actual breaking point of the aircraft? Zero margin for error.
It’s stated that the wing laminates should not buckle within 150% of the normal load factor (9G) in the other document. This would indicate some level of structural damage but not complete failure necessarily above that overload limit (13.5G).
Seems early G limiter systems in the Gripen were not so effective and needed to be replaced… neither was certified for more than 9G sustained (and tested only up to 10G?)
That is an article talking about the anti-g system in the Gripen G-suit. The ‘G-regulators’ they are talking about are not the FCS limiter. They are talking about the regulator which controls the pressure in the G-suit trousers when the aircraft is pulling gs.
Here you can see a test they did on 10 of the different regulators, taking the trouser pressures at different levels of g.
After some close teamwork with the G-regulator supplier HAY, a modification of the anti-gregulator was made in order to be able to guarantee correct pressure in the g-suit.
Trouser inflation aside… I have read somewhere that the initial FCS had issues to keep the aircraft stable past 7.5g, but that was fixed by the time it reached production for the A model.
Bad wording on my part, you’re right. Should have shown the 10G graph as well
To change the subject a bit. Anyone having some issues with the TWS radar mode? I need to try and get a clip of it ideally (will try next time I play) but it keeps… Freezing. I’ll track a target and then the markers wont update and then new ones will appear after a few seconds and the old ones will remain until they fade
Besides the ARMSCOR document does anyone have any reliable information on the Gripen sustained or instant turn rates?
There is nothing on the sustained turn rate in here
Doesn’t anyone care that he’s missing a guided bomb?
Harrier and Viggen, next slide
If you care, please support it.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/51Xh0IlTrxla
But we can see from this file that it doesn’t seem to be rolling at the right speed in the game.
There is very little correct about the aircraft currently regarding the FM.
Not that I know of. Could be hard to report it all the time that the aircraft isn’t actually ripping at that G anyway.
As a sidenote to all the complaints the community has, can we all agree that the level of quality on responses on bug reports has drastically increased?
Now we actually get a response from devs on why the report was not accepted/implemented and i love it!
I have yet to see an airplane with ‘‘peace time’’ and ‘‘war time’’ structural limits.
On the other graph is about the structural integrity of the external store and the pylons more than the structural strength of the wing, that is why it remains constant with the weight.
