The Mirage 2000 has a higher leading edge sweep (58 degrees), and less instability. He has some level of trim drag at medium speeds because the static margin is smaller. Thanks to the canard the Gripen can reduce trim drag, safely increase the negative static margin, and along with the 52 degree sweep angle… produces more lift with less drag at those speeds.
More lift, less drag, more than accounts for a slightly lower T/W ratio and allows the Gripen to sustain a higher turn rate.
Also we have multiple first hand sources (but not necessarily primary sources) stating 20 deg/s sustained and 30 deg/s instant turn rates.
If I may ask, why wouldn’t Gripen be able to do 20° specifically with its TWR? At what TWR does 20° become possible? You make it sound like sustained is linear with TWR or something, disregarding other factors? I’m genuinely curious as someone that’s not an “Engineer”
If you want i can send you pictures or books so we can check, since we are talking about sustained turn rate One of the hypotesis Is T=D, hence It makes no effect on the turn performance…
Well, I think the thrust is too much and the turn rate a bit too high still. This is more than optimal for the Sweden mains. Not totally unreasonable as it was before.
Can you knock that off? This isn’t a discord chat.
We’ve already been collaborative with the developers to ensure the Rafale gets it’s proper 23 deg/s sustained turn and 30 deg/s instant etc on 50%. Hopefully the FM is more finished when it comes to the game down the road.
The over performance of the Gripen isn’t a “wow US/USSR mains are bad” issue. The state that it was added in was unfinished and blatantly over performing.
Even in it’s current state it is even more brainless in Sim than the F-16C was in the previous patch.
A lot of discourse in this thread has just been British/Swedish players not wanting to see their over-performing magic carpet of a flight model get more realistic flight physics.
Which is why Im expecting them to be added in the opposite state and the model tuned up very slowly to “realistic” stats. Though Im almost certain we will still see people complain about them and state things like “The F15 is better than the Typhoon, so how can the Typhoon out turn the F-15, nerf the Typhoon” as we have seen with people comparing the F-16 and Gripen, with no evidence or data to suppor their claim.
I did mention this above before. But its not that. Its that where Britain in perticular is concerned. We get nerfed through the floor to unrealistic levels (look at the Tornado, Challenger 2, Stormer, etc etc) and then left there, where we then have to spend 1-2 years fighting for those nerfs to be undone with a painstaking amount of research and detail and even then Gaijin will ignore the data provided. (Looking at the Stinger reports which according to gaijin, cant be true because the IGLA cant turn that well)
Well considering they’ve been looking at (your) sources and that they’ve been tuning sustained° twice now since release I would assume they have a pretty good handle on it, or at least they seem to know what they’re doing.
I believe Gaijin just made the decision to make Gripen stable and maybe the current sustained° reflects that considering Gaijin has some wiggle room with exact performance since full flight envelope is classified, I wouldn’t mind too much if they lowered it slightly but then they should give Gripen it’s instability to pull those high AOA’s so It’s not just a “shittier” F16 when IRL it’s known to pull crazy AOA at will. (I still think there’s not enough sources to say if it should stay at current levels or be lowered/raised from here, Like you said before“I trust Gaijin has done an earnest job modeling the aircraft with the new information we have forwarded.”). But it’s not unreasonable to think sustained° should be lowered, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say it should stay the same - it’s just the margin of error we have with current sources, Gaijins wiggle room