I don’t wanna argue with that statement. Just tell me how big is this trim drag in Niutons? How mutch it’s will affect 45tons fighter plane in turn performance ??
0.001 Deg/s or less?
Not mention unstable flight need to be constantly corrected what actually require some inputs the same causing drag
The max takeoff weight of the Gripen is 14 tons. They actually go into detail about the improvements in performance going from stable to unstable in their AIAA document. For the F-16, as an example… the entire elevator is required to pitch nose up… without instability that is a very large area of wing that is causing additional drag and not contributing to overall lift. The same can be said of the canard. For the Mirage 2000, there is less improvement… but still very noticeably the negative pitch input to maintain nose attitude causes positive camber of the trailing edge. This increases lift and reduces local AoA… thereby improving drag.
Not nearly as much of an issue as you want it to seem, and the trim inputs are significantly less than those required to maintain nose attitude in a stable airframe.
Don’t just take it from me, do some reading of your own; Source
There are all kinds of publicly available documents that clearly outline reduced trim drag (increased lift), as well as reduced drag during cruise and maneuvering.
Did you even read the bug report?
There is no source cited in it.
Also in his follow up comment he claims that the Tornado is limited to 15.5 degrees AoA. Critical AoA for the Tornado is around 20 degrees and can be done in full real controls. It seems to me that he isn’t asking for a flight model change but rather to the limitations that are imposed by Air RB instructor.
No. I am adding context to the discussion for how good the initial Gripen flight model was…the one that went to the live server…the one that was previously nerfed from basically hold 18G on development server.
The initial Gripen FM enjoyed a 3-4 degree per second turn rate advantage over the F-16 while in similar configurations while also have better energy retention which translated to much more sustainable initial turn rates. A 3-4 degrees per second turn rate advantage is the same rate advantage that the F-16ADF has over the MiG-29SMT. Or to put things into context…the F-16ADF has the same rate advantage over the Tornado F.3 as the the Gripen has over the ADF.
Seriously check out the old flight model. In a duel against the F-16A, I am at 551kph vs 338kph for the F-16A…I have 213kph worth of more energy after a single turn. The fight is over after a single turn.
Pretty much every single pilot report in the real world says that F-16 vs Gripen is a close match-up. That right there is not even remotely close. This isn’t a case of players not knowing how to play their planes…this is a case of a flight model being added to the game in an unfinished state and then a bunch of people wanting to preserve their magic carpet because they feel they have earned it.
I did a turn test of all the planes when they came out. But iirc the Gripen technically didn’t sustain 25 degrees per second, bleed speed from its initial turn rate of around 30 degrees per second at a glacially slow pace where it might as well have been sustaining 25 degrees per second.
I forgot that RideR2 did testing before and after; here are the results for 30 minutes again.
At 20 minutes it was ~+1.5 deg/s and on 10 minutes it was ~+3 deg/s.
I’ll get him to update it again after the thrust changes and such.
Like all bug reports. Sources are hidden from the general community and can only be seen by staff. Just because they arent listed in the text. Doesnt mean they dont exist. If you have issue with the data, then take it up directly with @Fireball_2020 but I trust his reports and methodology as many of his other reports have gone through before
I was mainly counting low end turn rate because most people are play RB and are not going to use full real controls to maintain optimal turn rate. Old Gripen FM just wins against everything by little more than smashing the S key.
Even in sim it was not close. Only way for F-16A to win is hope Gripen creates opening by going too vertical after 2nd turn…otherwise if he just holds stick back he just wins.
Even now with the changed FM you may have already seen the video of an 800 kph merge between a gripen and blk 10 and the gripen wins in 2 turns. Also I didnt test super precisely but on clean min fuel holding S the blk 10 rates at around 20 deg/sec and the gripen holds around the ballpark of 21 deg/sec.
My understanding is the same…that the Gripen still wins the 1v1 if everything is the same, but at least with the flight model being changed there are some mistakes the Gripen can make that can be punished and for other planes it is not that big of a difference compared to fighting F-16A.
Imagine being MiG-29 and entering fight against guy who has 8 degrees per second turn rate advantage. It the same as trying to turn fight a Ki-43 with a P-51D-5.
It makes it so that a sustained turn speed does not exist.
You can’t sustain a turn if you don’t have thrust.
Increasing thrust also increases your sustained turn speed, and the sustained rate with it.
You can easily test this, try performing a sustained turn at varying thrust levels, the speed and rate will change.
For Shure I will read more about the subject. Link for source is not available for my “provider” can you give me tile and authors?
I recall that in early 70’ when working was in progress with relaxing stability engineers at the time have big problem with inputs to keep relaxing stability “stable” and almost all benefits was lost.
You can test it by yourself in dev mode in WT. You can set 0 thrust and wing load of glider. Set altitude and perform your perpetum mobile glider sustained turn. Don’t forget to share your results!
Also it’s a simulation use by professionals usually just to predict flights. But you can also try do 0 thrust sustain turn.
World of Aircraft: Glider Simulator
Ps V if you don’t keep altitude it’s not sustain… For sake of logic…Because when you keep losing altitude at some point earth don’t let you sustain turn…
i think his point was to use that kind of glider to prove a point where you can gain speed and do a turn, regain and do a turn again, repeat… all of this without any source of thrust, and if a glider can do this…
P.S: yes i know that it gains speed turning downward, i saw the video too
It is no hard to understand, without thrust you cant sustain a turn.
You are not understanding what T=D means, you are saying that T=D makes so that thrust does not matter but it is the other way around. It makes so that thrust matters a lot to match the drag.
If you dont have enough thrust you will have to go to a lower sustained turn to get a lower drag since T=D.
Gliders cant sustain turns on themselves, they gain speed in turns thanks to wind currents. They use the wind as their thrust instead of an engine.
T/W is a very important metric in sustained turn:
Of course wing design is as important as T/W but you are also oversimplifying, irl jet thrust is not constant with speed, F-5E engines might have a higher gain in thrust at those speeds than Mig21, making so T/W is a lot closer.
of course thrust change according to speed, i personally don’t know how J85 and R-25-300 do perform at that speed, but do you agree with me that, in case of gripen, we have more aerodynamics than engine at works here amirite?
oh and btw thanks 'cos i finally know where is T/W in the STR situation
To perform a highly efficient full turn in 16 seconds with a weight of 14 tons, substantial lift is necessary – a lot of it. However, where there is lift, there is also drag. Adding Angle of Attack (AoA) only increases this drag.
To counteract drag, thrust is required, adhering to the fundamental laws of physics with no magical elements involved.
The Gripen is not an aerodynamic marvel; it can be easily compared to any fourth-generation plane because all fourth-gen planes feature sophisticated aerodynamics.
P.S. All breakthroughs in aerodynamics occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. The current progress in avionics is focused on composites and avionics.
and that’s okay, but you can’t be serious about gripen not doing a 20°/s STR (baked by multiple sources as mig23m said yesterday) with his aerodynamics, marvel or not.
It has access to a lot of data. However, these are secondary data. Unfortunately, they can be treated like commercials on TV. They give a more or less accurate picture of the product, but as is often the case with advertisements, the data are more overhyped than confirmed. Essentially, having secondary data, I personally make an adjustment, assuming that these data are almost certainly not correct. Close to the truth, but still not true.
data can be overhyped but underleveled too for the same reasons. if we don’t have true primary sources (impossible)
if that’s the case then we shouldn’t believe anybody saying anything about a 4/4.5th gen aircraft
They are commercials, that’s why they show a graph and then have the annotaions of: “At 50% fuel, only 2 A2A missiles”
That’s not representative of the standard use of the plane yet it isn’t a lie. We can only model it so that it matches those values at the given setting the manufacturer used. On machines like this you can’t just flat out lie, there is multi-billion dollar contracts on some of those orders so if they were to just hype up the vehicle they would be in big legal trouble.