There’s a significant lack of context in all of the sources. I’ve been trawling the deeps of the web trying to find more detailed stuff but it’s non existent. Only thing I found was some testing stuff to do with instant turn without limiter starting at 30 with limiter then 50 and 110deg/s without but I can’t find it again now 🙃
Although now that I think about it, that isn’t absurd at all? That’s the exact behaviour of Viggen. (top dashed line is full burner; 40% fuel; no ext. stores)
2 Likes
Look man, I believe we all agree that it’s having way too much sustained turn rate, and that it indeed is “Absurd”. You are 100% correct with that.
What we’re saying is that the sources you’ve been using and the “approximations” you’ve been making are also quite absurd. They should in no way be used for the Gripen’s flight model as they lack data and context and in your bug report you’ve made questionable conclusions. These diagrams are in no way linear, and you’re drawing conclusions like they are.
Please understand the difference.
I read someone’s comment in the bug report that said “There is no perfect source for the JAS-39 right now as the E-M diagrams are still classified” And that very much seems like the case, I’m Swedish and I’m even struggling finding technical information for even some of their older jets. At the end of the day Gaijin is going to have to pretty much guess the Gripens performance in some regards.
1 Like
Well, if they went with that number where gripen is supposedly 1.43 times better than viggen. According to chart above, its correct ± 1-2deg across whole diagram. And then we talk about just approximation of how much better.
@MiG_23M I will add that some of the people I’ve seen you arguing with have been in the wrong - but I’ve hardly been paying much attention in the past few days due to IRL stuff
Have you tested and compared Viggen and Gripen in game?
i dont have it spaded and only viggen C, its more about the flat rate curve. Chart you posted pretty much supports gripen keeping its rate throughout whole envelope.
Sorry, can you clarify, what is ‘correct’? the in game performance?
I’m a bit tired lol
If gripen is supposed to perform 1.43 times better than viggen, it should be close enough. Ingame one. Taking into consideration, ingame one does what chart says.
I measured the pixels in the graph and the factor is 538/370 = 1.45 btw. I still don’t recommend using this plot though.
The numbers posted by mig23m at all speeds are all within 1-1.5 deg/s if you apply his 1.43 multiplier (I don’t know where this originates). I think the Gripen is overperforming, but it isn’t overperforming by as much as some people are making out.
edit
The graph posted above is where it comes from, and it should be 1.45.
within ± 1-2deg? Have you tested this? Like how do you know?
I’d be very surprised if that was the case.
My current understanding of the Gripen (keep in mind, none of us knows 100% because it’s classified), Is that it’s very similar to the F16, but it can regain it’s energy better than the F16.
Am I missing something? It’s not 1.45x throughout the whole chart, the difference seems larger in some areas and smaller in others?
Btw, do you know what “MACI” stands for at the bottom? is that the airspeed, or weight?
It’s 90% of the word MACH :)
I honestly dont know where that 1.45 number comes from - i suppose saab?
But if we take that number and that viggen chart. It indeed overperforms but not by as much as many makes it out to. And again, that 1.45 can be only approximation, there is room for error or better/worse performance at certain speeds. Considering gripen is employing fully movable canards with advanced FBW and low drag design, its not hard to believe its performance at low speeds is pretty cracked. Esp in game like WT.
I cant wait for what will people say on EF2000 or Rafale.
2 Likes
Yeah I’m not sure why the low speed turning ability is blowing some minds - fully moveable canards on an extremely light aircraft with a respectable TWR ratio…of course it is going to have amazing energy retention and rate.
2 Likes
I wonder if they ever saw gripen in the air, i saw it many many times. The things it can do is absurd. It turns on a dime without losing much speed, gaining speed pretty damn fast too. Its agility is insane. We usually run it at min fuel in WT so its not that far off what you see on air shows as they dont have much less fuel anyway.
Canards are not some magical device. It’s give additional vortex… Just to compensate cons of Delta wing to “standard” wings. T/W Ratio is below 1 in 0.85Mach regime.
I’m not negate it’s amazing fighter plane. Just it’s behaviour at low speed is just unrealistic.
Canards do a lot more than just give additional vortices…
There are a number of other factors involved, but the Gripen with the lack of static stability should not have a roughly flat curve.
There are other unstable delta aircraft that can be used as reference…
As you can see, the Mirage 2000 (which is statically unstable just like the Gripen, and has a similar leading edge sweep) runs into an AoA / lift limit until around 0.25 mach where the instant and sustain curves begin to separate.
The Mirage 2000 has lower wing loading and a higher thrust to weight in these conditions. The lack of a canard isn’t a useful point either because at speeds this low the Gripen would be using negative trim to maintain nose attitude in the turn just like the Mirage 2000… in the game the Gripen doesn’t. I’ve reported this also.
At all speeds and all fuel loads the Mirage 2000 has higher T/W and lower wing loading than the Gripen but somehow the Gripen is sustaining 20 deg/s+? They’re very similar designs.
That’s not to mention that the Gripen is known by public data to be behind the Rafale and Eurofighter and perform significantly worse than both in energy maneuverability… yet the in-game performances exceed those of the Rafale and Eurofighter as stated by public sources.
As a point of comparison and for ease of viewing, I plotted the Gripens’ current performance onto the same chart…
You can point to several reasons for the Gripen being better than the Mirage 2000 in sustained turn rate, but certainly not to this extent… the canard should give it better instant turn rate but not to this extent imo.
7 Likes