Is this true?
Fighter jet turn rates
Julian Rodriguez
Other urls found in this thread:
dailycaller.com
twitter.com
Chase Martin
the fuck are any of these numbers supposed to mean? degrees per second?
Brody Perez
What the fuck is that retardation
David Rodriguez
William Wright
There is no way in hell a Gripen can sustain a tighter turn then the twin engine airframes, the physics simply say no.
Aiden Watson
Source?
David Cruz
how on earth the f22 has better turn rate than a su?
plus where the fuck is the mirage 2000 which has the highest turn rate of them all?
Logan King
dailycaller.com
some bullshit numbers based on simulated results
its a paywall
Elijah Morris
Is this angular change in degrees per second? Pretty sure its going to change with speed and attitude
Maximum angular change in degrees per second?
Austin Campbell
Canard
Thomas Sanders
This is fucking retarded, the instantaneous rates are completely wrong. The F-18, F-35, Su-35 and F-22 should be among the best and the Eurofighter and Gripen should be on the left side.
Sustained turn rate is a bit less hillariously wrong but still not correct.
The Gripen has fairly similar kinematics to the F-16 with a poor instantaneous rate (at least at lower speed) but great sustained rate.
Adam Robinson
It's a bit believable since the ceiling is only 30 degrees. If it was bumped to a superior 40 degrees sustained then I believe we've found the J-20.
Parker Bennett
Turn rate changes with airspeed, unless this graph is trying to show the "best possible" turn rate according to each jet's performance charts, but I doubt this clickbait journo actually did the research for that. Even if it did show best possible turn rate it would also be made completely worthless since every jet would be at a different airspeed and a different energy state.
Grayson Hernandez
STR ranked
Great: F-22, Su-35, Typhoon
Good: F-16, F-15, Su-27, Rafale, Gripen
Mediocre: F/A-18, F-35A
ITR ranked
Great: Su-35, F-22, F-35, F/A-18
Good: F-15, Su-27, Rafale, Gripen
Mediocre: F-16, Typhoon
Hunter Flores
But Rafale have a better ITR than F22 for example (36.4 deg/s) and a sligthly worse STR?
Jonathan Ortiz
wow a thread which wasnt shat up by vatniks and Amerilards, you have impressed me today Jow Forums
Josiah Myers
It absolutly can. Do you know how little that thing weighs?
Easton Butler
>F/A-18
>Outpreforming a Gripen in turn rate
>Ever
Want me to tell you how I know you dont regularly talk to Gripen and Hornet pilots?
Hell, even the Norwegian F-16 pilots say its a huge bitch to keep up with.
Joshua Jenkins
It depends how you measure ITR, at higher speed the Rafale has a higher G limit so theoretically higher ITR, at lower speed the F22 has a higher AOA limit.
Definitely in STR, however the Hornet has 20° extra AOA to use at lower speed compared to the Gripen.
Logan Butler
Yeah, perhaps at lower speeds you are right.
Lincoln Reed
>gripen
Lol, no it's fake
Daniel Murphy
>Doesn't list altitude or weight
Highly suspicious. Is this supposed to be sea level, clean, 50% internal fuel?
From my own knowledge of looking over EM diagrams (when available) and performance data, these values are not correct. I would be very interested in seeing the raw data for each of these data points.
Evan Ward
Bro, Gripens are tiny and filled with sub-par and therefore lightweight avionics. That's like saying an RC plane can't turn harder than an F-22.
Joshua Davis
Sustained turn rate cares more about thrust to weight. Both the Gripens barely reach 1:1 with no weapons and 50% internal fuel.
Alexander Nelson
>Gripens are tiny and filled with sub-par and therefore lightweight avionics
>sub-par electronics
Explain, I thought it's electronics were pretty good.
Josiah Gomez
He is full of shit, its as simple as that really.