Well, the actual channel loss numbers for the aircraft IRL are in most cases classified, or simply not available to us. Here’s how InterFleet explained it to me
And I think this is completely fine. They will do what they can to match the flight model - we have to realise that they are doing all this stuff in code, simulating an actual aerodynamic environment for an entire RB match would require like a massive quantum computer or something lol
Most channel losses are in the 5% - 15% range.
Well I believe F14 in game is closer to 20% right now fwiw
That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s underperforming, it’s what Gaijin set it as to match the flight model in the manuals, like InterFleet explained. If they didn’t do that they’d probably just nerf FM a bit to get the same result
I think you are applying the 1.5x base load factor limit incorrectly. Being able to pull 12G and be fine in the Gripen is a much stronger indicator of airframe strength than the stated safety limit (especially since different countries have different standards of “safe” flying). Most aircraft in game far exceed 1.5x their safety limitations, and are instead based on maximum overloads. Zeroes do not rip at 9G in game, F-16 - which is allowed to bypass its IRL G-limit - does not have a 13.5G rip because there is little indication that 9G actually approaches any wing limits (even if computerless flight is impossible IRL).
“Wing rip” is mostly unknown for aircraft because its impossible to push most aircraft to the point where the wings shear off. I believe 1.5x the pilot hardstop (12G) is much more accurate than manual safety standards for the purpose of wing disintegration. Being limited to below 12G in game with full fuel is absurd.
Edit: to reiterate, Gaijin does not model the point of wing damage as the rip limit. For most aircraft it is far above the point of sustained wing damage. Gripen will take damage past 9x1.5 but will not lose the wing.
2 Likes
There is also the fact that his source itself says “approximate data”.
2 Likes
That doesn’t make the airframe (the complete package) ancient - “the late 70’s”. You could say the F16’s design of its wings and rear stabiliser “stemmed” from the 40’s.
Its first flight/introduction is on par with the likes of Eurofighter and Rafale, and even today we see countries such as china and Russia start to adapt to the design.
I’m not necessarily trying to rationalise the full in-game FM. I’m mostly trying to rationalise it for people that have the misconception that I spoke about.
I’m trying my best to be careful with my words:
I had the whole disclaimer in the end of that sentence in parentheses, although I should’ve specified that I was comparing dog-fighting capabilities here. I thought it was obvious since I explained in my last paragraph that I don’t know how accurate the high speed manoeuvrability is - I just added that we need to consider that War Thunder allows us to pull higher G’s than real life - even on the F16 that I’m comparing it to in my message
Also, the performance is not like it was in the dev server anymore, not even close afaik. I can fully agree that it was kinda ridiculous in the dev server. Also based on what we know, and from interviews with fighter pilots - I think we can generally agree on that it should be similar to the F16? Right now the F16A has a better FM afaik, It’s hard to tell but I’ve heard it can definitely hold it’s own against the Gripen
2 Likes
And to clarify:
When I say content creators and armchair experts, I’m talking about the people who are making claims about rate-speeds without context - People out there throwing around fact sheets stating an aircraft’s °/s is a certain number - with zero context of the weight, armament, temperature, environment, engine iteration, fuel load that °/s is referring to. (I’ve seen fact sheets state Gripen rates at 12°/s, and others stating 22+°/s)
Certain content creators are especially guilty when it comes to this
leading up to the update - there was plenty of content creators and generally people on discord who were adamant that the Gripen was going to be dead on arrival - with the only reasoning being low thrust to weight and some °/s stat on a fact sheet without context.
2 Likes
The chart says low altitude for the sustained turn comparison, 12 deg/s would not be surprising as that is what the Mirage 2000 does at around 10,000m iirc.
People thought it would be DOA without the AMRAAM because it was thought to only carry the AIM-9L and would be placed at a higher BR without the late improvements such as HMD. It likely would have, compounded by the fact that it is widely regarded as not as capable as the other canard delta aircraft.
There’s this which is supposed to be for 15000ft, 50% fuel, 2 IR missiles iirc
2 Likes
Well, with this information we at least have some discussion points. Talking with no available information before was pointless.
Yeah, general lee said it was 50% fuel and 2 IR missiles, but I think he pulled that out of his ass right? Like I heard it didn’t actually say in the document what load it was at?
1 Like
As an interesting reference, Jaktviggen could do about 14 deg/s on the deck with a clean airframe and 40% fuel.
And just to show that this is declassified :D
I really don’t think it’s fruitful to take a number, 12 deg/s or any other, without the context of altitude and configuration.
If the JA37 is doing 14 deg/s and the Gripen is doing ~43% better (see this comment)…
That would imply the Gripen sits around 20 deg/s sustained turn in unknown conditions.
Seems high, but believable.
1 Like
Indeed. I am not an aerodynamicist (actually another kind of physicist), but it seems reasonable that a heavy airframe designed in the 50s for a striker would do much worse than the light and unstable Gripen.
Also note that the dashed curves are power-limited.
1 Like
You dont understand how wing rip strength works in game and just get wrong conclusions.
-
Wing rip is not a fixed G value, it is dynamic! The weight of the plane affects the wing g rip, the heavier your plane is the lower the wing G rip. This as I did show earlier happens in real life too, for example structure strength in grippen is 9G at 7800kg but 5.8G at 12000kg.
If this values are modeled in war thunder it will not rip at 9x1.5=13.5G at 7000kg but at 15g!
That is why 12G manouvers are not that impressive if done at low weights, it is not a 1.5G margin but a 3G margin.
-
Being limited to below 12G at full fuel is not absurd but realistic, weight with full fuel is 9300kg. Even with the emergency override a gripen pilot could only pull about 10.5G.
-
Every plane follows this wing strength dynamic based in normal structural limit despite being able to pull more G’s, because the structural limit is not a hard limit.
You say F-16 does not rip at 13.5G but it does:
Currently F-16 is modeled after the structural limit of 9G at 23768lb, at 23768lb it will rip at 13.5G but at lower weights it will rip at a higher G load.
2 Likes
I do understand that weight affects the rip overload. That is why I asked flame if he had a report out for the 13.59G limit being applied to empty weight instead of 7,875kg, which in game has 11.5G limit. On the datamine a full load Gripen has a 9G rip. My point about absurdity is that the live Gripen has maximum overloads less than or equal to what pilots could safely pull IRL.
Regarding the F-16 I forgot to account for weight because in-game I am accustomed to them pulling 15G all the time. It is my mistake. For other aircraft (especially props), the standards still seem to be applied somewhat inconsistently.
Since you want to lecture me on weight I implore you to submit a report about the Gripen’s overload being incorrect in respect to weight.
Also, a few points regarding the way you Edited that graph of the Gripen. Whilst I understand you doing it to try to make a point, I think you’d be really reaching to use that edited graph as a source for the actual limitations of the airframe.
Side by side:
1st: You filled in the dotted line that begun at roughly 7.8G’s. There is clearly some context there, likely explained in the redacted text above it. (In the other graph, dotted lines seemed to mean it’s inconsequential, as it would be below the airplane weight - and that is if the bottom bar is weight in tonnes).
2nd: The paper refers to the graph as “Normal load factor limits” (You labeled it “Normal Structural Limit”) which is odd since it could simply refer to load factors in peace time (with war time load factor’s likely being classified). With the purpose of lengthening the airframe lifespan. It does not seem like the “actual” limit, as the second graph (with heavy external store config) is not linear/changing with the “weight”
3rd: The bottom bar is redacted from the graph - I’ll agree that it could be the mass in tonnes, but it could also be some other unit of measurement/metric.
4th: There also 2 messages inside the graph that are redacted - these are clearly adding context to the graph itself.
5th: The emergency override would literally wing rip the aircraft at the end of the graph? This goes back to safety margins, they would obviously not have an emergency override (Within 8-13kgf of stick pulling force) coincide with the actual breaking point of the aircraft? Zero margin for error.
2 Likes
It’s stated that the wing laminates should not buckle within 150% of the normal load factor (9G) in the other document. This would indicate some level of structural damage but not complete failure necessarily above that overload limit (13.5G).
1 Like
Seems early G limiter systems in the Gripen were not so effective and needed to be replaced… neither was certified for more than 9G sustained (and tested only up to 10G?)