Your document is an article explaining how airframe fatigue management and assessment is carried out in Sweden. Whilst it mentions the Gripen and Viggen, none of the actual things it talks about are specific to those airframes. They are describing policy and procedures for modelling/simulating aircraft fatigue and how to test and perform maintenance.
lor the new Swedish fighter JAS 39 Gripefl a certification
procedure similar to the one mentioned above is being used
for the composite structures (wing skins and spars,
elcvons, leading edge flaps, canards, air inlets, fin and
rudder and air brakes) All CRFT-laminate structures were
verified by static testing before the first flight The
structures were tested dry, as received from manufacturing.
Smaller components such as elevons and rudder were tested
at high (+85°C) as well as low (-40°C) temperature besides
at room temperature. The wing, the fin and the canard were
tested at room temperature besides at room temperature
The wing, the fin and the canard were tested at nx>m
temperature only As all verification testing was done with
dry laminates, the requi:ement was increased to 1 2 times
150%= 180% limit load. Subsequently, all those structures
have also passed four design lives of fatigue testing
without any fatigue damage
Did you actually read your own source? Here it says certification of the airframe isn’t finished, and that so far they actually went up to 180% load, and that there was no sign of fatigue damage.
Not that it matters, your source is out of date, and out of context.
No no you dont get it we must nerf the Vigen its allowing people who arent playing russia to have a fun experience at top tier that isnt insanely hard to achieve
It says they are holding the CRFP laminates to a higher standard to avoid buckling at 150% load. This is not the entire airframe, nor the load limit factors I mentioned previously.
It very clearly shows the wings are attached with bolted on bath-tub style fittings.
It very clearly shows design limit load factor of 9G with ultimate safety factor of 150% (13.5G).
It doesn’t really matter in all honesty - GJN will have made their decision to use 9g beforehand and they’ll accept/ignore whichever evidence supports that. Take a look at some of the sources they’ve used recently to justify changes - the reduced the rooivalk optics zoom based on a private-access report by a South Korean professor. Why they would know better than the South Africans I have no idea.
It just annoys me seeing pseudo-intellectuals posting screen-grabs from old, bad sources and then trying to pass them off as gospel.
You see how I actually quote from the source when I say something? How about trying that rather than relying on your out-of-this-world intellect to convey the information to us?
Yeah, its just the way it is and ill be honest this will probably continue for ages, i dread to think of how untolerable the forumns will become when AMRAAM C-5 gets added and presumbly R-77 (If its R-77-1 then honest to god just name the update RU bias)
Cherry picking quotes and asserting your opinion vs when I shared the entire document. It very explicitly discusses the laminate structures only in the section you are quoting. If anyone wants to, they can read the entire document. The ultimate safety factor and design load limit are earlier in the document.
Im unsure how this document would apply to the currently ingame JAS39A and C considering this is from 1991 and the Gripens we have ingame are from early 2000s to my knowledge and i would imagine that this is voided by probably more up to date documents or methods.
Considering you can actually find and reference mine source online, and it isn’t three decades old, and it is specific to the limits of the Gripen, yes it is a better source. Whether GJN accepts it or not is the barometer, as noted in my previous comment about South Koreans being the source for South African optics.
With the words “approximate aircraft data” plastered across the top.
Just another example of you misconstruing ‘sources’ to support whatever your current agenda is.
Not to mention the Gripen “A” and C ingame are both undoubtly 2002+ models so one can only imagine that this data wouldve been used to improve the production quality/lifespan of those models as this is a 1993 study published in 1994 (2-3 years before Gripen was entered into service iirc)
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. This is pretty typical Mig_23M behaviour. All that is left for them to do, is derail the thread for 50 comments before suddenly reminding everyone to be on topic, and then I’ll have won mig23m-bingo.
Gripen design was final, flight testing began in 1988. This is about the actual methods used by Sweden to determine these limits.
You can find and reference mine also. I sent a link. It’s also from Sweden’s Flight Institute. Their equivalent of TsAGI for Russia.
You can play the mental gymnastics game, but you know Gaijin will make the right decision regarding which sources are accurate. I haven’t seen a single source state the design load limit is 12G’s.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t do 12G. I never was. I’m saying that the override is going to drastically reduce airframe lifespan if used often. They are claiming that the 1.5x overload factor should be applied to 12G instead of 9 for a maximum capable load factor of ~18G. This isn’t feasible, at most the laminates (but not the other parts holding the wing on) could handle 1.8x the design load limit. That’s ~16.2G for the laminates specifically.
Whatever the case, it is still capable of 17G maneuvers in-game currently.
Saab themselves state the aircraft was designed for a 9G load factor limit.
