No, he is correct. At stationary, fully fuelled internally he is correct. 0.82 on max internal fuel on the Gripen against 0.80 on max internal on the ADF.
Please read what he’s saying. Because he did just exactly what i’ve said.
Of course, we’re more than happy to punch holes in your essays of lecturing us about how a plane should fly.
May i remind you of what you’ve said earlier to CorporalApollo when queried on precisely what your qualifications are when talking about aerodynamics
I mean, I’m just gonna let it be known that I really can’t be bothered to read that essay which might be vaguely correct (but probably isn’t) and enrich myself in other ways.
Nope, he can’t read. He can understand complex aeronautical concepts and can describe to you in detail how every missile in game works, and how the Gripen should work.
The RM12 is the F404 with modifications, the F404-GE-402 is the same engine but with a slightly smaller airflow fan. (Which apparently wasn’t necessary for the F-18 because the engine is temp limited on that plane, not airflow limited).
I find it rich how quickly he is to demand sources from others, but makes rather elaborate statements regarding complex concepts and backs it up by saying “someone probably said it somewhere”.
Yeah I’m actually starting to get a bit concerned. Wild delusions and this sort of behaviour is a sign of someone having a manic episode. I can’t understand how he keeps comparing the Gripen and mirage2000. It doesn’t even have canards, nevermind fully moving ones.
He accuses us of hurling abuse at him just ‘because we want the Gripen to remain overpowered’. All the while he is the one spamming GJN with reports using dubious sources. In between things he comes to the forum and demonstrates a total lack of reading comprehension skills, as he constantly scours the internet for sources that support whatever his latest position happens to be. I’d say that’s textbook projection.
Hopefully the devs choosing to ignore that report posted above is a sign they have clocked him.
The extrapolated data exceeds the performances of the -IN20 model of the F404, the RM12 model of the F404 should match the -402 since they are temp limited, not airflow limited. 0.8 mach would not suffer from intake losses, and instead the peak thrust should be similar.
It is a different engine with a different uninstalled static thrust.
However, it has 2.26% more static thrust than GE-402, which would lead to a lbf max of ~19779, or ~9000kgf metric. Now, this doesn’t decrease static thrust, just the maximum thrust at speed.
This change won’t impact the rate speed at low-speeds for example.
I think that it matching F414 is incorrect.
I think ~19900lbf +/- 150 is likely accurate for the engine, could be more but unlikely.
And your bug report won’t impact its rate speed at lower speeds since static thrust would remain the same.
