I’d be slightly bothered if Gaijin implemented them. And by slightly I mean very
By that logic, so long as i’ve got a vaguely official graph and some lines and functions drawn on it I can claim it as a source
1 Like
As long as it helps russian planes, it passes. If gripen was issue for everything else other than flankler or 29, i can bet it would be closed or rejected already.
We all know it wouldn’t work that way if the vehicle in question belongs to the ‘correct’ nation.
1 Like
Imo just because it’s based off the F-18 engine doesn’t mean you can make a comparison to it. It’s a modified F-18 engine with higher thrust output it’s also a single engine fed by 2 intakes rather than a twin engine fed by 2 intakes. Single engine will be fed more air from the two intakes.
F-18 was temp limited not flow limited, used a smaller fan than the Gripen and otherwise all of the same parts were reused from the RM12 upgrade.
Thrust should be the same with the Gripen only exceeding the F-18 at high altitude and slow speeds according to the primary documentation on the engine modifications.
There is of course, the possibility that the Gripens’ intakes restrict flow more rather than less… in which case it would have potentially less thrust.
And here we go again with possibilities and guessing WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE of advanced aerodynamics and design of plane itself. Just stop it. You cant present single proper evidence. Everything is guessing based on unrelated planes or out of context reports.
1 Like
I’m quoting a source
There are no quotations or citations in that statement.
Unfortunate
Then you aren’t “quoting” shit. That’s an opinion.
Well, it’s probably a quote somewhere
Most things in the English language are “probably a quote somewhere”. Still need to provide the quote and citation. Otherwise that is a meaningless statement.
THEN WHY DID YOU SAY
Peoples patience with you runs extremely thin very quickly because of this sort of stupidity. You seem to be on some crusade for “realism” yet when asked what your source is for your assertions it’s on a wing and a prayer.
A quick healthy reminder that
“If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.”
Is in fact part of the forum rules. May or may not be worth considering this in future before hitting send. Quoting from “sources” and then saying “well someone probably said it” is really… really… childish at best.
3 Likes
Whole lot of assumptions without sources going on that’s for sure
His all reports about gripen are one huge assumption.
Who wants to be the sacrificial lamb and email Saab for documents? Anyone here from Sweden wanna do it as it seems less suspicious just don’t mention it’s for warthunder 😂😂😂
1 Like
I know of someone who is swedish. iirc the Swiss did some trials of Gripen side by side to the Typhoon and Rafale, i’ll see if I can find those. Don’t know if they have any actual numbers on them. they did not have numbers on them. I also, whilst i’ll admit wasn’t looking too hard, think that it referenced Gripen E rather than C.
I’ll do some digging after my shifts over I usually end up finding something somewhere
Then it isn’t a quote, shrimple as that.
ADF
Gripen
So the thrust to weight ratio ‘gap’ is nowhere near as big as Mig23m would have you believe. Stationary at full fuel it actually has a better thrust to weight…
Also worth noting that the Gripen has 25% less wing loading than the ADF, which was already a jet with great wing loading…Explains why it feels like it has no drag.
1 Like