There’s an important mistake here. The text is
approx. 20 4eglsec
which is clearly a mis-scan of “approx. 20 deg/sec”. There is no “.4”, it’s approximately 20, with a single significant digit rather than three. That means it could be anywhere between 15 and 25, rather than somewhere between 20.35 and 20.45.
This also follows from common sense – the armed forces would certainly not reveal a classified number to within 0.1 degree/s, and the instantaneous is also given to one significant digit.
Well, 15 degrees would be an awful performance one would at least not expect and 25 is almost certainly impossible since not even the F-22 is believed to achieve those numbers with a MUCH higher TWR.
We can realistically only speculate but going of the fact that the F-16 and the Gripen seemed to perform rather similar in red flag events, with the Gripen ending up with less speed loss in same G turns, we can make the educated guess that the Gripen would indeed end up being slightly better in a turn against the F-16C. The F-15A however still wins at optimal speeds and only starts to lose below 400km/h.
That seems to be a good start for the Gripen FM.
I’m not saying I think it’s close to 15, or close to 25.
I’m just making sure people understand that the number “20.4” doesn’t come from anywhere.
It does indeed seem to be a typo. So it shouldn’t technically be hold to ecactly 20.4° although this does seem to be a rather plausible number taking into account what we know. All in all we can only speculate and hope we get a decent performing plane in WT that at least checks some of the boxes of the real thing.
All modern jets are build around 0.6-1.2 Mach speeds Dogfight… It’s well above 400km/h. According to EM diagrams to various fighter plane what we can find in Internet 18deg/s it’s reasonable sustain for 4 gen aircraft and 24deg/s instantaneous turn.
In WT Grippen over perform like F-16 hard at low speed regime. Also over perform in sustain turn performance. Sustain turn with 20+ AoA at 400km/h and still done like 20deg/s is pure fantasy
Canards help but it’s not give like additional few tons lift force do do such performance.
18° sustained seems to be for a fighter like the Su-27 at 50% fuel but with 2x R73 + 6x R77 slotted underneath.
The Gripen was measured with 2x AAM and at 50% fuel as well I believe, since it holds a lot less fuel in general I wouldn’t be surprised to see the 20° sustained be realistic, since it was measured carrying a much lesser AA loadout.
The canards should also help in the slower speed regime because of the better airflow, and simply said, better wing loading than the Flanker at all weights.
A 10% increase in lower speed turn wouldn’t be that unbelievable as long as it’s not going into crazy stupid numbers like 25° sustained.
EDIT: Also the chart I was looking at also stated 10.000 feet, which will lower the turn rate by quite a bit compared to SL.
Some people assert they know it all without considering the limits of the available information
Not sure if this is directed at me, I certainly know that I have no idea what the ACTUAL performanc of the plane is like, but I can take the same educated guess as everyone else :D
I am more than happy to be educated on a matter since there isn’t much you can do in life but keep learning and keep making mistakes.
Either way I hope we get to fly “a” Gripen that is somewhat realistic in the upcoming weeks =)
Mostly directed at the guy you were replying to.
I don’t see a big issue with what you’re writing, it’s clear you’re understanding the limits of what we actually know, since you’re choosing your words carefully:
I just cringe hard when people come here and start making hard statements as if they’re experts on the subject
With the Gripen we are in the “Valley of Despair”, and some people are on “Mount Stupid” thinking they’re on the other end. Because frankly, most of the information is still classified and what we do have are some shoddy decades old sources lol.
That being said, obviously some conclusions have to be drawn if we want these vehicles in the game - but when it comes to that I’d rather just read what real fighter pilots and engineers have to say about it than someone on a forum.
Funny is it’s currently a copy pasty APG68v5 it should be better than it currently is
Yeah, unfortunately radar stuff is like TOP secret when it comes to the classified stuff, so Gaijin pretty much has free reign when it comes to that.
Do you see EM chart F-16, F-18?? It’s highly unrealistic for Grippen with available engine and T/W ratio
you know T/W ratio comes into play when you’re doing vertical energy fight right? whenever you’re doing horizontal ratefight, on-the-deck, weight is irrelevant and it becomes more like a “Trust/Drag ratio”
Gripen gets around 18 - 20 degrees sustained turn and it is not sustaining over 20 degrees per second at low speeds anymore. It hasn’t been that way for a week or so now.
I’m an Engineer I have fluid mechanics at university so yea… actually I know one or two things about angle of attack and energy retention…
And you are know probably nothing according to your post
ok now tell me, engineer, where TWR comes into play in a horizontal sustained turn rate?
@Metrallaroja Do you know if Drag will be changed to be inline with the Upcoming Thrust changes? or are we just shafted for months?
I’m not here for your education. And it’s basic aerodynamics.
Plane to make turn need increase AoA = increase Lift = increase drag. More drag = more thrust to sustain turn…
Now go convince some one about flat earth…
Ok, you are an engineer, so you are telling me you are graduated in what engineering branch? cause i’m currently studying aerospace engineering and for what i’ve studied the TWR does not contribute on sustained turn, as per the formula:
with
wmax= max rate of turn
nmax= max load factor
In an horizontal turn Thrust is equal to Drag because you do not increase or loose speed and the two forces are opposed to each other… that’s what a sustained turn rate is… It seems like you are confusing Aerodynamics and Flight mechanics…That’s a matter of flight mechanics and I honestly find it funny that a tech moderator is actually supporting your comment that lacks any explanation or reasoning at all. Not an “engineer” way of answering a topic
you literally wrote that thrust is needed to counter drag, not weight, literally whatever i said before. no weight in the formula again