JAS 39C Gripen Progress

[CHN F-4 Fan 0]

Can we download it on christmas ?

 

[Longestpants 1]

Can we download it on christmas ?

 

 

If it's done.

[Talon_ 0]

Well, this is interesting but I must oppose: basic formula for computing an aerodynamical drag (Q) is:

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, fuel tanks DO have their noticeable drag, which depends mainly on speed of carrier and diameter of given fuel tank. Only possible explanation is, that in comparation with thrust given by P&W F-100 engine, drag of fuel tanks is insignificant OR that this drag is noticeable in speeds much higher than those achieved in ACM.

 

And, this also stands again another statement about Gripen - because on LeBourget airshow, Gripen lose simulated fights with Su-39 in incredibly high ratio (think about 3:1 or even 9:1) while F-16 lose them only about 1.5:1 [sure they both lost it because Su-39 is subsonic and has wing and aerodynamics optimized for low-speed maneuvreing, but such an asymmetry between F-16's and Gripen's achievements while they should be the same? Chmm.]

 

(sorry for possibly over-complicated article, english is my secondary language)

 

 

 

Cite sources, or this means nothing. I currently don't trust you.

[+Brain32 265]

Bah, pilot stories don't count for me, too many factors in that even in original, real combat situation reports.

In not so many words: "Show...me - the DATA!"

 

and BTW @Cover72 where did you find the data for maximum AoA for all those planes? I tried to find such info but no luck...

[cover72 0]

Cite sources, or this means nothing. I currently don't trust you.

About what - that LeBourget results?

Well,

V analýze specialistů firmy Suchoj se uvádí, že ve vzdáleném vzdušném boji letounu Su-39 s americkým letounem F-16 je úspěšnější F-16 v poměru 1,2 : 1, avšak v blízkém manévrovém boji je úspěšnější Su-39 v poměru 2 : 1. Zajímavé je porovnání s dalšími letouny ve 12 shodných bojových úkolech, zejména při ničení pozemních cílů. Zde obsadil Su-39 jednoznačné prvenství, F-16 předčí v poměru 1,38 : 1, letoun F/A-18 1,8 : 1, letoun MIRAGE 2000 2 : 1 a letoun JAS-39 GRIPEN dokonce 3 : 1

 

"Sukhoi analysis says, that in BVR air combat of Su-39 with american F-16 is better in ratio 1.2:1, but in ACM, Su-39 outperforms F-16 in ratio of 2:1. Interesting is comparation with other aircraft in 12 identical fighting tasks, especially in air-to-ground combat. Here, Su-39 achieved decisive victory, in outperforms F-16 in ratio of 1.38, F/A-18 in 1.8:1, Mirage2000 in 2:1 and Gripen even in 3:1"

 

Notice that while F-16's ratio is 1.38, Hornet's is 1.8:1.

 

That means, that ACM results were taken as more important over A-G - because AFAIK Falcon's air-to-ground capabilities are worse than Hornet's one - just my opinion.

 

Similar text/info was in article about Su-39 in one of czech most popular/best military magazines - but that one was compressed to just one sentence, ie. "Su-39 outperforms Gripen in ratio of 3:1" - and this was the one i remembered and wrote to previous post. Therefore, I'm sorry for somethink that might be mis-interpretation, as those ratios were gained from 12 different tasks, from whose unknown number was air-to-air combat.

 

And that Le Bourget think - it's a bit weird, as I've red that those ratios were originated from LeBourget flight demonstration on both english and czech-languaged news and articles - but that was few years ago, ant it now seems to be a mistake of those sources, which was corrected then.

 

Well then, while that is a Sukhoi study, very small weight should be admited to that, and therefore forget about 3:1 ratio. I'll possibly delete that ratio-thing from my previous post, as it was not (too) important for the rest of the post and as it could throw other people in mistake as those old articles did to me. Sry.

 

 

 

 

 

Brain32: well, I found that some time ago trough google - i think this was in some e-book on gripen.com or BAe or like that website. But I'm not sure about that, i'ts been some time. I could ask AČR via mail, but I doubt they'll respond.

Edited December 22, 2007 by cover72

[cover72 0]

Yes!

Finaly,I got it - somewhere else than before, but source seems to be relatively reliable:

 

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1996/0296grayt.asp (find "Figure 1: Technical Comparisons")

 

Optionaly:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:215fk...mp;client=opera

 

26 degrees/units of AOA due to AFA.

Edited December 22, 2007 by cover72

[+Gunrunner 314]

Cover72>

Simulated dogfights at Le Bourget Air Show, yeah right...

 

Considering that any demonstration or fly-by at Le Bourget Air Show (and all European air shows I know of) must be planned and known to the millimeter (figuratively speaking) and that Le Bourget airspace allowing demonstrations is rather small (and is overlapping Roissy-Charles de Gaulle's airspace, France's busiest commercial airport and airspace) , I highly doubt there ever has been such simulated dogfight there since a long long time.

 

1) It's doubtful it happened as described over Le Bourget airspace (too small to satisfy security regulations).

2) It's doubtful it happened as described over Le Bourget airspace outside of the Air Show context as Le Bourget is still an active commercial airport, used mostly for private and corporate jets (IIRC, LBG is one of the first if not the first European airports in term of corporate traffic).

3) It's doubtful it happened as described at Le Bourget Air Show (demonstrations are simple fly-by or planned and rehearsed aerobatic events within a very limited airspace).

4) It's doubtful it happened as described at a European Air Show during the Gripen "lifetime" (regulations are very very strict when a/ there is public (as is the case at Le Bourget Air Show even during purely industry days), b/ this happens over a densely populated area (as is the case with Le Bourget, Berlin and, to a lesser extent, Farnborough; Have a look at Google Map if you have the slightest doubt) and c/ this might interfere with commercial traffic (as is the case at Le Bourget with CDG's traffic)).

 

So unless you can cite a good, reliable and verifiable source, this looks like a fairy tale.

[cover72 0]

Gunrunner:

 

Yes, I've already admitted that - if you see post 280 in this thread, you can read "but that was few years ago, ant it now seems to be a mistake of those sources, which was corrected then."

 

 

So, it's no doubt it was only sukhoi "study" and therefore it's not relaible. LeBourget info was just mistake of one source, copied by others and corrected in meantime. I was only unlucky I've red original, uncorrected version which quoted "LeBourget" instead of "sukhoi study".

 

That's it, I've admitted I was wrong, so I dont fully understand why are you writing all of this after all?

 

EDIT: why is everyone so upset about that "3:1" ratio? Even if it was originated from some real ACM training, it does not tel anythink about real-world aircraft capabilities as training is never that close to reality. On the other side, angle of attack is one of three crucial physical factors of aircraft maneuvreability (along with TTW ratio and combat wing loading) and is even important for FM development...

Edited December 23, 2007 by cover72

[+Gunrunner 314]

Cover72>

Sorry, it was written before your corrections.

 

As for why we are "upset" by the conclusions of a marketing study, well it's not the conclusions, it's the fact you did present a marketing study as the result of real-life DACT exercise.

 

Worse, it compares a development aircraft to production aircrafts, let's look at specific grief we can have against such marketing studies :

1) The Su-39 is a development aircraft with little relation to what would be operational capabilities of a production variant.

2) The study is a result of simulations using formulas, algorithm and weighing of results particular to the constructor (Sukhoi won't say their latest product is nowhere as capable as they advertise).

I could produce studies where a Mirage F.1 would "outperform" a Su-39, as long as my study favors the strong points of the Mirage and penalise the weaker points of the Sukhoi.

3) These studies are done using publicly available figures (some being higher than the real capability, others lower, depending on the balance between marketing and security).

4) A Sukhoi study has an incentive to sell more Sukhoi planes.

5) The study cites F-16 (which one, there are huge differences between a F-16A-1 and a F-16C-52+), F/A-18 (A, C, E ?), Mirage 2000 (C RDM, C RDI, N, D, -5, -9 and so on ?), there is nothing precise in such marketing studies.

6) You started talking of simulated air combat and then we moved on to "x globally outperforms y" which is completely different.

 

Some founders of the site and a lot of the people here are military personnel, even real life military pilots and most of the rest are passionate; reading fantasy studies intended for bean-counters and politicians sold as truth has a tendency to strike a nerve.

 

This is nothing against you personally, it's just we don't like to mix facts and fantasy .

[cover72 0]

Well, it was ment somehow different - I surely can understand you all DO mind that DACT→sukhoi "simulation"*, but I ment it in way "Why is everyone talking about some stupid ratios, while AoA is much more important?"

 

 

And, well, it was not me (or not completely me) who changed from DACT to simulation - you asked for source, i googled it again and figured out that source has changed from DACT to "simualtion". After reading this, I've immediately distanced myself from those ratios ("while that is a Sukhoi study, very small weight should be admited to that, and therefore forget about 3:1 ratio" - all @post 280).

 

So, It was the source which has changed, not me - so I appologize once more.

 

*I know how "real" those simulations and sukhoi ads are, too. The one for Su-37 speaks for all

[+EricJ 4,242]

What'd be cool if y'all would move it to the Aviation Forum where such talk belongs. Keep it on topic about the mod, not comparisons.

[cover72 0]

What'd be cool if y'all would move it to the Aviation Forum where such talk belongs. Keep it on topic about the mod, not comparisons.

 

Well, AoA certianly belongs here, because, as I've said, it's one of 3 crucial factors giving aircraft maneuvreability and therefore is critically needed for developement of FM.

 

 

Those ratios then were a bit O-T and I apologize for them.

[Silverbolt 104]

so...

what about the progress?

[+Dave 2,322]

so...

what about the progress?

 

It is in C5's factory for an FM.

[column5 63]

It is in C5's factory for an FM.

 

So, two weeks.

[Viggen 644]

So, two weeks.

 

 

Ah its moved on since the last update. So we are now 2 weeks closer to 2 weeks?

[Fubar512 1,350]

Two weeks closer relative to two weeks...muhahaha!

 

[column5 63]

Ah its moved on since the last update. So we are now 2 weeks closer to 2 weeks?

 

[Mannie 21]

one question,

 

is it going to use the aim9x super sidewinder?

 

Put the Pythons on it.

 

you need nothing more.

 

you'r boggie will never know what hit him.

[Viggen 644]

Put the Pythons on it.

 

you need nothing more.

 

you'r boggie will never know what hit him.

 

 

JAS-39I huh? Hmm...*waits for release to make IDF skin*

[Wolf65 0]

IDF Gripen?

 

Hmm...that would look nice.

[TX3RN0BILL 3]

Two weeks closer relative to two weeks...muhahaha!

 

WOOOT!!! Dang, seems like I'll be able to fly this babe even past Jane's Fighter's Anthology after all... Looks Sierra Hotel!

Edited December 30, 2007 by Flanker562

[Silverbolt 104]

This year was the biggest two weeks of my life .lol

Edited December 30, 2007 by Silverbolt

[Fubar512 1,350]

[Viggen 644]

*looks at picture*

 

Holy sh!t