And nothing changed between then and when it was adopted
1 Like
And how do we know that?
Cause last time i checked Gripen’s true flight performance was still classified.
1 Like
Classified flight performance
Nah trust me bro I KNOW IM SAAB’S TOP FUCKING GUY
I’m telling you that reduced thrust will make zoom climb from the speed wherein thrust was overperforming worse. Do you disagree? This isn’t about “should be” as in real life… I am just making a comparison to the current in-game performance and what it will look like if it gets adjusted.
1 Like
İm asking a simple question why do act like im attacking you?
2 Likes
I don’t think you are attacking me. You misunderstood what I said. I clarified. I’ll do so again.
I am not discussing the real world performance of the vehicle, I am only stating how it will perform compared to the current FM.
1 Like
Then how are we suppose to change those aspects if we dont know exact Numbers?
We’re just gonna assume it will work out?
Well if you refuse to read or understand my report perhaps all you can do is hope.
Your report is based on info before it was adopted many things could of been changed
1 Like
İ read your report and understood it.
What im saying is how accurate fm will be after those changes compare to real life performance because we dont have exact data on that case.
This will lead us to crossing fingers and hoping for the best situation.
1 Like
Even with thrust nerf it should still have higher number than the 402 should it not? The larger fan, increased flow and an increase in temps of 190. With the 402 omitting the larger fan and just going for higher temp of 200.
It should definitely peak higher than the 402 on thrust in my opinion. It shouldn’t be lower than the 402.
The thrust curves given in the NASA report do not come from NASA, and were not generated using the simplified NASA model. The thrust curves were provided by GE (calculated using their complex engine model) and were then fed into the NASA model:
So if those thrust curves are wildly inaccurate, then it suggests that GE do not have an accurate data on their own engine’s performance, which seems unlikely.
In addition the thrust curves being wildly inaccurate would have made NASA’s simulations pretty pointless. So I doubt they would have used them if that was the case.
4 Likes
How does this fare against the f16C in game?
1 Like
Slaps it at lower speeds.
1 Like
Since we don’t have any drag values for the real Gripen, since you know, it’s classified like you said, we can only go off by the numbers we have.
We have a time for the acceleration between Mach 0.5 and 1.1.
We have some climb time estimates.
We have the approximate thrust of the engine (give or take 5%)
We have some AoA and turn time data and estimates.
Those things combined let’s them model a FM to the most accurate representation you can get without any more proper infos.
If we get the engine thrust, that will already help out a TON, because that also elimnates the other unknown: Drag.
Since we have the accleration value they can then set a drag value that allows the Gripen to perform like the real thing with it’s given thrust.
That means the acceleration and speed of the Gripen should already be quite accurate when modelled after those values. (As long as the data out there isn’t completely off)
That only leaves turning performance, which then again. if we have the drag and the power + the wing loading of the plane that’s another calculation that can result in estimates hopefully pretty close to the actual plane.
2 Likes
Wins at very slow speeds, loses against the Viper at medium speeds and they are roughly equal at medium speeds.
The F-16C will beat it in acceleration and climb though. It just has a much higher TWR.
Btw I found this site stating Mach 0.5-1.15 at 30s
https://www.soldf.com/flyg/jas-39-gripen/
It says it uses these sources which seem pretty reputable (including the book I’ve ordered), so I’ll check in the book as soon as I can
It suggests the engine continues to produce more thrust well beyond what two other primary sources on the thrust indicate… NAVAIR and QNEP. They’ve provided more detailed installed thrust charts for us.
@MiG_23M why did you suggest to put the RM12 between the 400 and 402? The RM12 had an increase in temp of 190 instead of 200 of the 402 but the RM12 also has increased flow and bigger fan would that not put it ahead of the 402 in thrust curves in general. RM12 produces more static thrust than the 402 as is I don’t see why it should be lower than the 402 like you suggested in the bug report
From what I have read about the engines it’s that they are temperature limited.
The increased flow and bigger fan helped with that issue as well.
The 402 took a slightly different approach but in the end they are extremely similar in the end result. We can’t say for certain which engine is better by what margin from the documents we have.
It’s however pretty clear that the RM12 isn’t going to produce 35% more thrust than the “better” newer engine. One could argue for a single digit performance lead when those other factors would indeed make a difference but certainly not one as crazy as ingame.
Overall the current plane is not performing like it should with a drag that high.