There is a huge misconception going around that the Gripen is a bad dogfighter due to the lower TWR and that is has a low rate speed due to it being a delta wing.
I think most people picked up this misconception from content creators and armchair experts.
The Gripen has a super advanced/modern airframe with far lower drag and way better aerodynamics than something like an F16, so despite its lower thrust to weight, it can still outperform the F16 (keep in mind there are multiple F16 variants out there with varying thrust and aerodynamics, so it depends)
From what I’ve learnt from actual fighter pilots - the Gripen is very similar to the F16 in dogfighting capabilities - but the Gripen (despite far lower thrust to weight) can regain it’s energy better.
I think the Gripen in the game is currently pretty accurate - F16A is still better than it in the game, which I’m not sure if it should.
The high speed maneuverability is where I don’t know how accurate it is from real life, but we also have to consider that war thunder allows it to pull more G’s than real life would - same with F16
It’s a design that stemmed from the late 70s using a delta wing and canard. The relaxed static stability helps to mitigate issues deltas previously suffered from like trim drag.
There’s no excuse for the overperformance in-game, trying to rationalize it makes you an armchair expert as you said.
I stated previously, no one knows until we have substance to discuss. No documents have been forwarded (yet) to show how it should perform.
Whilst yep, until we have more data we dont know for certain, I think what Apollo was getting at is that there is a tendency to believe that US = Better/best and so the Gripen cannot outperform/match the F-16 because its not American. Seen that sentiment more than a few times online, not just on the forums.
Perosnally I actually think its current performance feels about right, based upon both first hand experience seeing it at airshows and videos i’ve seen online. The only thing that might be wrong is that it seems to retain energy better than expected. (though after the Tornado for an entire year, everything retains energy better than expected)
No, I take it that 9x1.5 is the point of irreparable wing damage and instability. Structural limit =/= destruction limit. 12G causes undue stress on the airframe but does not make it unserviceable. If 13.5G were the true point of catastrophic (rip) failure, then 12G IRL would trash the airframe. Saab would not be running 12G test flights and racking up millions in damage with the plane disintegrating just 1.5G higher. I would consider 12G to be “normal” if they repeatedly do it in a test flight.
This is what @Celestia has been trying to tell you. 13.5+ would indefinitely ground the aircraft but the actual “rip” Gs would be much higher, at a likely 12x1.5. The plane does not disintegrate 0.1G over the ultimate safety limit. Since War Thunder only models wing rip, the game should allow the pilot to pull up to 12x1.5 - just as it does for other vehicles.
@Flame2512@Morvran are there any outstanding reports for the G limit? Getting it to 13.59G at the correct weight (7,875kg) is one thing, and we should probably still push for 12x1.5 .
I concur. I think the “base” G-limit should be taken as 12G not 9G and so the 1.5x applied to the 12G limit.
The aircraft can handle 12G and under normal conditions, the pilot can reach that hard-limit of 12G. So as we see in SB at least, 12G is the max. If Gaijin then applies a 1.5x multiplier to that figure, then it should be 18G.
I have no idea Im afraid, I’ve submitted one today about Hard limit for SAS mode, but I dont about its RB performance.
I assume if 12G SAS passes the argument for 12x1.5 will become a lot stronger for followup reports. Thank you guys for all the research and reporting work you’ve been doing.
Yep, it might, though in manual mode, it can already reach 12G. So its interesting they are choosing to base the WT G-limit (Max Gx1.5) on the soft limit not the hard limit. Thats what Im unsure about.
If the G-max was 9G IRL, then using 9G would make sense. But as it has a 12G hard limit IRL and can pull 12G in SB already. Then using the 9G figure just seems a little confusing to me.
I wonder if these G-limit reports go through and are implemented will we get a gripen pulling 16+ G again like in the dev server? It seems the elevator deflection at speed gets adjusted with new G load when it went from dev to live.
Yeah War Thunder adds compression up to the rip speed in game. The result is that the gripen loses most of its nose authority at speed and flies like its on rails.
@SlowHandClap I believe the thrust is a bit lower due to channel loss, correct me if I’m wrong.
We’re trying to get it’s wing rip speed raised to around that mark, there’s no reason why the F16 should be able to rip at those G-loads, but not the Gripen. They can keep the G-load wing rip for what I care, but then we need to lower the F16’s wing rip.
Having a higher G load for wing rip doesn’t necessarily mean it will maneuver like it - the reason it doesn’t maneuver like in the Dev server is because it’s had FM changes.
If the aircraft can pull 12G on lighter loads and lower speeds safely, it doesn’t mean the 150% upper limit is 12 x 1.5.
The document I shared clearly says the 1.5x ultimate load factor is applied to the 9G design limit. The airframe itself uses steel bath tub style fittings and bolts to mount the wings. It’s not necessarily going to rip the wings clean off at 13.59G irl, but it should in-game until Gaijin changes their mind on this. Currently all aircraft rip at the 1.5x base load factor limit.
The datamine for live patchday shows extremely minimal FM changes except for the max wing overload. I believe the “rip” overload number directly causes airframe compression and is what is bricking the plane.
Interestingly enough the datamine lists max overload as “13.59G Empty and 9G full fuel” which I know Flame touched on earlier, but 9G “rip” on full fuel is so comedically wrong its insane.
I’ve investigated how War Thunder handles channel loss - and there’s currently no issue with the Gripen’s or any other planes channel loss.
The numbers we see online does not account for channel loss, Gaijin accounts for it in the game, none of the current jet engines are the same as they are on the engine specs online. Gaijin has reduced a % of thrust from them all.
Generally between 5-20%, the exact figure depends on balance reasons
(I can get screenshots of moderators explaining it when I get home)
Is “channel loss” something that also happens statically, just from mounting the engine in the airframe? Or is it understood to include the effects of nonzero airspeed?
