Well, there we go:
Developer answer:
Without exact flight envelope and limits charts, it is impossible to say is 1.75 is LIMIT or zero point for excess thrust. Now it set by the same way as another aircrafts of this tier - as never exceed Much number.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IHX39MnphvmJ
Update: mod deleted the developer answer.
is this the thrust source because i h ave that?
Nice, hopefully all of his reports ends up like that.
You’re looking at max takeoff weight not full fuel. Full fuel is 0.82 vs 1.19
You’re also ignoring the thrust curve of the F-16, it picks up a lot faster.
Currently the Gripen’s high end thrust appears to be significantly overperforming as well.
A better comparison is the Mirage 2000 which has both a higher T/W, and a lower wing loading across the board.
F-16ADF:
F-16C:
Mirage 2000C-S5:
Gripen:
As you can see…
It is worth mentioning the 200 knots airspeed test for the Gripen was on 100% throttle, without afterburner. It accelerates beyond 225 knots when in full afterburner on 30 minutes fuel load.
The rest speaks for itself, it easily out-rates two equivalent fighters with a higher T/W ratio… one with a higher wing loading and the other with lesser.
Wing Sweep Angle / Wing Loading with 30 minutes fuel / Thrust-to-weight at 30 minutes fuel
JAS 39A Gripen - 52 degrees / – 301 kg/m2 / 0.83
F-16ADF - 40 degrees / – 400 kg/m2 / 0.8:1
F-16C - 40 degrees / – 406 kg/m2 / 1.01:1
Mirage 2000 - 58 degrees / – 256 kg/m2 / 0.92
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE THRUST TO WEIGHT IS A DYNAMIC NUMBER THAT INCREASES WITH SPEED.
Of the three, all have negative static stability margins. The Mirage 2000 gains no additional lift from a lifting surface such as a canard or tailplane, instead benefits solely from the natural pitching moment of the nose especially at low speeds which can be seen in the sustained turn rate chart. The want for the nose to pitch up naturally means that it need only counter the upward motion with some small downward deflection of the elevators. This eliminates the issue of pitch trim drag from the Delta.
The F-16 benefits from having an elevator that can provide lift, as well as reduce the aforementioned trim drag. It is forced to pitch the nose down, contributing more to the overall lift of the design and improving sustained turn rates… although the F-16 opted to reduce the overall size of the wings in favor of taking more advantage of the additional lift, which later they adjusted to increase stability with an increased area horizontal tail (IAHT).
The Gripen gets the static instability not from the basic wing design - but from the canard. When the canard is in a somewhat neutral setting it provides additional lift forward of the center of gravity. This causes the aircraft to go from neutral or stable to negative static stability. The reasoning for this design is simple, they do not suffer from deep stalls or recovery issues as the F-16 type would where the elevator doesn’t contribute much to the static stability… take it out of the equation and the F-16 would be MORE unstable, not less.
The Gripen, due to the canards is able to have a very high instantaneous turn rate. The aircraft becomes statically neutral or even stable when the canard is deflected at high angles. This allows the aircraft to maintain a high angle of attack without concern for departure or deep stalls. The energy loss during high angle of attack maneuvers (whether at low speed, or at high speed) is not seen in-game currently. Sustained turns should be high, but only in regions where the canard has little deflection. This is why the sustained turn appears to be wrong for the Gripen - it should have a steeper slope up to around 20 deg/s when low on fuel (the Mirage 2000 currently has ~19 deg/s when low on fuel).
Additionally, it should plateau early because the thrust SHOULD drop off after 0.8 - 0.9 mach just like all other F404 variations (there is little difference between the engine models, they all have similar thrust curves and the in-game model is nowhere close).
Y’all are welcome to critique me, I’m not obliged to care or respond to the criticism.
Am I seeing things, or is he genuinely not even capable of reading the wikipedia engine thrust to weight ratios properly?
The static thrust for the ADF at full fuel is 0.80?
This guy definitely doesn’t have an agenda
Are you ok dude?
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.
should make a report suggesting replacing the RM12 with the F404.
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.
But can’t read.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
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).
Thrust decreases from peak at 0.8 mach, in-game it increases to 24,000 lb-f…
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”.
I see at least 2 bug reports in that screenshot that increase Gripen’s performance.
Yoink. @MiG_23M What’s the doc called this is in?
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.
Looks like the Gripen will likely get it’s VNe [not increased] adjusted to Mach 2 at altitude.
From Interfleet:
The Never exceed speed will be adjusted to M2.0 at altitude.
Missiles are not part of the FM and max speed with missile is not tuned per aircraft
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IHX39MnphvmJ
Do we know the RM12 exact channel loss?
perhaps General Electric has been stagnant in recent years, only sticking to past designs.
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.
