If you look at 2:17 in that video you see them going “up” for like 1/4 of a second, so you have something to compare to when they are “straight”. Easiest to look at the front point of the canards as it is VERY clear if they are straight or pointing up as you suddenly see the edge there :P
2 Likes
Ah yeah, can see the rear edge as well there. My bad, I was mistaken.
1 Like
No problem at all, very easy thing to mistake as it is very counterintuitive x)
This video also shows it super clear, the canards don’t even go to the straight position for the plane to start turning, the start angling up towards the “middle” position but never even reach it and then back down again and the plane still turns x)
(Timestamped to 1:06):
2 Likes
Ah yeah I see, do you know if this also is the case at high speed, closer to/above Mach 1? Cause most of these videos are at slower speed, air show type stuff you know.
It’s likely going to behave a bit differently around mach 1 plus minus mach 0.2 (The transonic area) due to how weirdly air behaves at those speeds. But i don’t currently know anything concrete on how the canards behave there :P what i do know however is that the pilots have the option to turn of the canards at super sonic speeds and let them “free flow” in the airstream to reduce fuel consumption.
1 Like
I think I have read that (usuallyin case of damage) the canards can free flow at lower speeds as well which would make the plane aerodynamically stable as it would bring the centre of lift father back. Not sure if that is how it works but I have read it somewhere.
1 Like
Yup you got what I meant, sorry if it was a bit confusing, I was just wondering why it is working that way in war thunder since any other Canard aircraft actually put them down to compensate for relaxed stability…
If you look at the rafale or typhoon, they angle downward
Does anyone have any concrete performance charts for the JAS-39C?
I would like to do some extensive tests on rate of climb and I am most interested in high altitude performance.
Climb rate seems to take a huge hit above 8km as well as acceleration being much slower than I’d think it should be, but since I can be wrong I wanted to collect more data about the flight performance so I know which data points I have to compare.
If you know of any books that are offered online that offer some insight, please share a link I am happy to buy something if I have to.
1 Like
You’re not wrong.
Currently Gripen underperforms in terms of high altitude and time to climb performance.
1 Like
Might be easier to find documentation on the cruise/supercruise performance of the Gripen C. Increasing that would decrease the drag on the Gripen and therefore increasing acceleration and climb-rate.
any news on the report ?
Nothing yet.
thanks for the reply
Do you guys think they will give the saaf gripe meteors? Even though it never used them?
Probably not. If we get a historical loadout, it will be IRIS-Ts and maybe A-Darter. But I can also just see them leaving it be.
Besides, we’ve got the Typhoon and F-35B for Meteor
1 Like
I doubt it will get a historical loadout, historical would be to renove almost all of its CAS weapons and to leave it with just IRIS-T.
Its more likely they’ll keep it as it is now as Gaijin seems content to leave all the Gripen C’s as they are now given they have no interest in correcting them to irl standards as they can just do whatever they want to them and adjust their BR as they see fit. Currently i cant see them adding more stuff to the C’s and its more likely later Gripens will be the historical C model which is a shame…
6 Likes
What if they do take away all CAS weapons and (no one get angry) add mirage 2000i with cas capabilities?
You’re putting faith into the idea that gaijin then adds a mirage to fix the hole lost from CAS. Imo its gonna sound mean but it shouldn’t have even received CAS in the first place, the SAAF Gripen is on almost on par with the F16AJ in how many fictional things are on the SAAF gripen compared to every other Gripen. Additionally the Gripen has essentially filled a hole it shouldn’t have for CAS which imo losing its CAS is acceptable as it shouldn’t have fufilled that role to begin with. And i know what people will say and yes all Gripens should lose their fake CAS they never historically used. All this does it correct a jet that Britain doesn’t need and hurt every other nation.
At this point its best to leave it as is. Gaijin has shown no interest in historical accuracy nor giving the Gripens buffs now that they are some of the worst performing 13.7’s for the state of the game. As for the SAAF it should stay as is and so should all the Gripen C’s, we dont need more fictional equipment being added to abominations that don’t exist until gaijin properly names them which would again mean the SAAF Gripen C would be losing GBU-39 as right now that is the only MS20 feature present on any of the Gripens.
What i hope is that Gaijin actually plans to make the next model of Gripens correctly, we dont need a Gripen NG/E being a A model or a C model MS20, it needs to be the correct vehicle considering they have failed to even slightly care towards the Gripens and their accuracy.
3 Likes
The Mirage would be unneeded.
The Gripen C served a single purpose. To give Britain a fighter until ARH was added. It did that. It could be removed from the tree entirely these days without too much harm given we have the Tornado F3 AOP, Sea Harrier FA2 and Typhoon FGR4 to take its place.
As for CAS. That is one area Britain was well equipped for IRL and is shown in game with the Tornado GR1/GR4, Harrier GR7/T10 and Typhoon, let alone additions missing like the Jaguar GR3A and Harrier GR9A and the underperforming nature of the GR4, GR7 and Typhoon.
Given the Gripen Cs actually rather lack-luster A2G payload (especially with that missing hardpoint) its hard to choose it over the FGR4 or a true mud mover like the Harrier Gr7.
2 Likes
Depends on the sophistication of the airframe I should think.