![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Under Design it claims that "It has canard control surfaces that contribute a positive lift force at all speeds, while the generous lift from the delta wing compensates for the rear stabiliser producing negative lift at high speeds, increasing induced drag." What "rear stabilizer"? It's a tailless aircraft. The only stablizer it has is the vertical stabilizer, and I don't see how that can generate negative lift. I suspect someone is mixed up here. In a normal tailless delta, the rear portion of the WING has to provide negative lift to raise the nose, especially at LOW speeds. The canard avoids this by providing a means to keep the nose up using POSITIVE life. There is no stabilizer involved, although on a conventional aircraft, the rear stabilizer does indeed use negative lift to raise the nose. The speed alters this effect, since the center of lift changes as the aircraft passes the sound barrier, although if i remember correctly it moves FORWARDS at high speed, meaning you need LESS negative lift. In a canard delta that would mean that the canards would have to create lift to keep the nose us at low speeds, thus creating more drag, but this should even out at high speeds as the center of lift moves forward on the wing. Maybe I have that backwards though. 64.223.104.59 ( talk) 07:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
In Swedish grammar, the definite article in the singular is generally noted using the suffixes -en or -n for common nouns (e.g. grip "griffin", becomes gripen "the griffin"). Thus, saying "the Gripen" looks and sounds very unnatural for nordic (Swedish, Norweigan, Danish) readers, and is essentially like saying "the the griffin". I took a quick glance at SAABs own communications and they themselves seem to refer to Gripen without putting "the" in front of the name "Gripen".
I suggest removing all relevant instances of "the Gripen", replacing them with "Gripen". Please note that auto-replacing all instances of "the Gripen" with "Gripen" might be a bad idea, since "the" is appropriate in certain cases such as "the Gripen series" or "the Gripen pilot" etc.
— Jnxpedia ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"In this particular case, in a purely English context, does it really sound that awkward?"Yes, it really does sound that awkward, horrible even. BilCat ( talk) 10:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Saab's own website is inconsistent:
I also notice that the site uses "Gripen" as a plural, not "Gripens". Is this a Swedish artifact too? BilCat ( talk) 20:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The article is already at 252,549 bytes, which is well over the recommended 100,000 bytes. It's almost impossible for me to edit the whole article on my tablet, for example. The most likely split would be for the JAS 39E/F variants. Any thoughts? BilCat ( talk) 22:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe that the JAS-39A-D and the JAS-39E/F should have separate pages because they're different planes. The F/A-18A/D and F/A-18E/F rightly have separate pages because they are also different planes. Even the CF-18 has a different page than the F/A-18A/D and they're far more similar than the JAS-39C and JAS-39E. The specifications for the Gripen-C and Gripen-E are very different and both planes should not be on the same wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.234.245.142 ( talk) 17:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Just clicking thru on the Thrust:Weight ratio you'll notice this usually is the T:W at MTOW. With the Gripen/E, if you just add 7,500lb of fuel to the empty weight, without loading the gun or adding a single missile, the T:W ratio is only .875. At MTOW it's a mere 0.60. Seriously, there are plenty of people in the World who can do 3rd grade arithmetic and figure this stuff out, so how about putting some stats here that make sense, not lunacy with a citation?
Also, with an identical 320 sq/ft of wing, the 1,700lb+ heavier /E is given the same wing loading as the /CD, which is obvious nonsense. Furthermore, at MTOW the wing loading is 113lb sqft, not 58lbs sqft. Bending the numbers this hard just makes this page look like a fan-boi wet dream and desperate to everyone else. How about we use some sensible guidelines and make these stats useful for real-world load-outs?
-- Solidpoint ( talk) 05:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
ill add this one to the list of countries interested with having a gripen in their military. Outrunno ( talk) 06:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Is the combat range of 1,500km on internal fuel only or using drop tanks? Could someone please edit the article to clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.3 ( talk) 19:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"The following investigation by the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority led to the conclusion by DNA analysis of the engine that it collided with Phalacrocorax carbo birds at a speed of 304 kn (563 km/h) and height 1,400 ft (430 m).[464][465]"
Could this be changed to the common name, great cormorant? I doubt most people reading about the aircraft are familiar with Latin names for the bird. ElectronicsForDogs ( talk) 20:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Currently Canada is listed under the "potential operators" section of Operational History under the Potential Operators section of the page. As the Canadian Gripen E bid has failed in favor of the F-35 Lightning II this section should be moved to the failed bids section of Operational History.
Furthermore Operators, Potential Operators, and Failed Bids seems like something not really even related to the operational history of the type. Enderminion1 ( talk) 03:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The article quotes a maxiumum speed of mach 2 and 2,460 km/h. The km/h figure (which isn't sourced) appears to be roughly the speed of sound at sea level (1,225 km/h) multiplied by 2. However, the Gripen can't do mach 2 at sea level: it's sea level speed is listed as mach 1.15. Mach 2 is only achievable "at altitude" (usually meaning above the tropopause at 30-odd thousand feet/11,000m), where the speed of sound is approximately 1,062 km/h. (The spped of sound varies with temperature and hence with altitude). A correct description of the speed should therefore be something like "Max speed: mach 2 or 2,124 km/h at altitude, mach 1.15 or 1,408 km/h at sea level". Note that Saab's own data sheets claim a sea-level speed of ">1400 km/h".
I've tried to clarify this by editing the artlcle, but the edit's been reverted with the comment "cannot just convert between speed and Mach number like that". However, that appears to be exactly what the original version does, and gets it wrong. The article clearly needs to be changed because no Gripen has ever flown at 2,460 km/h, so if my edit was unacceptable, please advise what change would be.
Sources: Gripen: Saab data sheets linked in the Gripen article. Speed of Sound: Wikipedia's own article on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hws5mp ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The Saab factsheet for the JAS 39C can be downloaded at the bottom of this page: https://www.saab.com/products/gripen-c-series It claims: Max speed at sea level: >1400 km/h Max speed at high altitude: Mach 2
I'm mostly concerned with getting rid of the 2,460 km/h figure, which is clearly wrong. Would you be happy if I changed the four "speed" lines in the article's Specifications section as follows? (I've seen no indication anywhere that the -E is faster than the -C):
Maximum speed: 1400 km/h (1,530 mph, 1,330 kn) + (at sea level) Maximum speed: Mach 2 (at high altitude) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hws5mp ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Two Saab documents claim the same mach =2 & >1400 km/h figures as the 39C for the 39E/NG:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151016220818/https://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-for-brazil/pdf-gripen-ng/gripen-ng-brochure.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160615185236/https://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/pdf-files-download-section/facts/gripen-e-fact-sheet--en.pdf
The 39E isn't THAT much more powerful than the 39C, and it's also significantly heavier. Low-level speed is often limited more by airframe strength than engine power (low altitude buffeting is brutal, especially with a low wing loading), while max speed at altitude is usually limited by airframe heat tolerance (windscreen & radome in particular) irrespective of engine power. I suspect that the 39E's extra power is pretty much used up carrying the extra weight and giving better acceleration, rather than extending the speed envelope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hws5mp ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
It is misleading to leave up figures about the F-35's operational costs in 2012, before any variant was actually in service. While I was unable to find any more recent studies as in-depth as the 2012 Janes one, if DoD reimbursement rates over the years are any indication, CPFH of F-35 variants have come down very dramatically and are likely around the same as most other fighters ($10k-$20k depending on what factors are measured). I recommend deleting this section until more modern in-depth data is available. Perhaps the swiss air force procurement study is a good source? I know that it is a more modern comparison that includes these fighters, but given that I can't find a good translation, I do not feel comfortable citing it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:5F52:1600:7195:4A7:81C2:672 ( talk) 22:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Bringing to attention the bias against non American/Germany/British aircraft's with Failed bids section. F-16, F-18, F-35 pages don't have failed bids section. Just like in the Eurofighter Tyhoon page, where its Sales and Marketing, suggesting changing the "failed bids" to "Sales and Marketing". Debate has been opened in the Tejas talk page as well. Kindly contribute to make Wikipedia pages neutral across pages rather than let such bias prevail. Mifiin ( talk) 05:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Under Design it claims that "It has canard control surfaces that contribute a positive lift force at all speeds, while the generous lift from the delta wing compensates for the rear stabiliser producing negative lift at high speeds, increasing induced drag." What "rear stabilizer"? It's a tailless aircraft. The only stablizer it has is the vertical stabilizer, and I don't see how that can generate negative lift. I suspect someone is mixed up here. In a normal tailless delta, the rear portion of the WING has to provide negative lift to raise the nose, especially at LOW speeds. The canard avoids this by providing a means to keep the nose up using POSITIVE life. There is no stabilizer involved, although on a conventional aircraft, the rear stabilizer does indeed use negative lift to raise the nose. The speed alters this effect, since the center of lift changes as the aircraft passes the sound barrier, although if i remember correctly it moves FORWARDS at high speed, meaning you need LESS negative lift. In a canard delta that would mean that the canards would have to create lift to keep the nose us at low speeds, thus creating more drag, but this should even out at high speeds as the center of lift moves forward on the wing. Maybe I have that backwards though. 64.223.104.59 ( talk) 07:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
In Swedish grammar, the definite article in the singular is generally noted using the suffixes -en or -n for common nouns (e.g. grip "griffin", becomes gripen "the griffin"). Thus, saying "the Gripen" looks and sounds very unnatural for nordic (Swedish, Norweigan, Danish) readers, and is essentially like saying "the the griffin". I took a quick glance at SAABs own communications and they themselves seem to refer to Gripen without putting "the" in front of the name "Gripen".
I suggest removing all relevant instances of "the Gripen", replacing them with "Gripen". Please note that auto-replacing all instances of "the Gripen" with "Gripen" might be a bad idea, since "the" is appropriate in certain cases such as "the Gripen series" or "the Gripen pilot" etc.
— Jnxpedia ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"In this particular case, in a purely English context, does it really sound that awkward?"Yes, it really does sound that awkward, horrible even. BilCat ( talk) 10:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Saab's own website is inconsistent:
I also notice that the site uses "Gripen" as a plural, not "Gripens". Is this a Swedish artifact too? BilCat ( talk) 20:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The article is already at 252,549 bytes, which is well over the recommended 100,000 bytes. It's almost impossible for me to edit the whole article on my tablet, for example. The most likely split would be for the JAS 39E/F variants. Any thoughts? BilCat ( talk) 22:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe that the JAS-39A-D and the JAS-39E/F should have separate pages because they're different planes. The F/A-18A/D and F/A-18E/F rightly have separate pages because they are also different planes. Even the CF-18 has a different page than the F/A-18A/D and they're far more similar than the JAS-39C and JAS-39E. The specifications for the Gripen-C and Gripen-E are very different and both planes should not be on the same wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.234.245.142 ( talk) 17:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Just clicking thru on the Thrust:Weight ratio you'll notice this usually is the T:W at MTOW. With the Gripen/E, if you just add 7,500lb of fuel to the empty weight, without loading the gun or adding a single missile, the T:W ratio is only .875. At MTOW it's a mere 0.60. Seriously, there are plenty of people in the World who can do 3rd grade arithmetic and figure this stuff out, so how about putting some stats here that make sense, not lunacy with a citation?
Also, with an identical 320 sq/ft of wing, the 1,700lb+ heavier /E is given the same wing loading as the /CD, which is obvious nonsense. Furthermore, at MTOW the wing loading is 113lb sqft, not 58lbs sqft. Bending the numbers this hard just makes this page look like a fan-boi wet dream and desperate to everyone else. How about we use some sensible guidelines and make these stats useful for real-world load-outs?
-- Solidpoint ( talk) 05:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
ill add this one to the list of countries interested with having a gripen in their military. Outrunno ( talk) 06:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Is the combat range of 1,500km on internal fuel only or using drop tanks? Could someone please edit the article to clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.3 ( talk) 19:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"The following investigation by the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority led to the conclusion by DNA analysis of the engine that it collided with Phalacrocorax carbo birds at a speed of 304 kn (563 km/h) and height 1,400 ft (430 m).[464][465]"
Could this be changed to the common name, great cormorant? I doubt most people reading about the aircraft are familiar with Latin names for the bird. ElectronicsForDogs ( talk) 20:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Currently Canada is listed under the "potential operators" section of Operational History under the Potential Operators section of the page. As the Canadian Gripen E bid has failed in favor of the F-35 Lightning II this section should be moved to the failed bids section of Operational History.
Furthermore Operators, Potential Operators, and Failed Bids seems like something not really even related to the operational history of the type. Enderminion1 ( talk) 03:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The article quotes a maxiumum speed of mach 2 and 2,460 km/h. The km/h figure (which isn't sourced) appears to be roughly the speed of sound at sea level (1,225 km/h) multiplied by 2. However, the Gripen can't do mach 2 at sea level: it's sea level speed is listed as mach 1.15. Mach 2 is only achievable "at altitude" (usually meaning above the tropopause at 30-odd thousand feet/11,000m), where the speed of sound is approximately 1,062 km/h. (The spped of sound varies with temperature and hence with altitude). A correct description of the speed should therefore be something like "Max speed: mach 2 or 2,124 km/h at altitude, mach 1.15 or 1,408 km/h at sea level". Note that Saab's own data sheets claim a sea-level speed of ">1400 km/h".
I've tried to clarify this by editing the artlcle, but the edit's been reverted with the comment "cannot just convert between speed and Mach number like that". However, that appears to be exactly what the original version does, and gets it wrong. The article clearly needs to be changed because no Gripen has ever flown at 2,460 km/h, so if my edit was unacceptable, please advise what change would be.
Sources: Gripen: Saab data sheets linked in the Gripen article. Speed of Sound: Wikipedia's own article on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hws5mp ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The Saab factsheet for the JAS 39C can be downloaded at the bottom of this page: https://www.saab.com/products/gripen-c-series It claims: Max speed at sea level: >1400 km/h Max speed at high altitude: Mach 2
I'm mostly concerned with getting rid of the 2,460 km/h figure, which is clearly wrong. Would you be happy if I changed the four "speed" lines in the article's Specifications section as follows? (I've seen no indication anywhere that the -E is faster than the -C):
Maximum speed: 1400 km/h (1,530 mph, 1,330 kn) + (at sea level) Maximum speed: Mach 2 (at high altitude) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hws5mp ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Two Saab documents claim the same mach =2 & >1400 km/h figures as the 39C for the 39E/NG:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151016220818/https://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-for-brazil/pdf-gripen-ng/gripen-ng-brochure.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160615185236/https://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/pdf-files-download-section/facts/gripen-e-fact-sheet--en.pdf
The 39E isn't THAT much more powerful than the 39C, and it's also significantly heavier. Low-level speed is often limited more by airframe strength than engine power (low altitude buffeting is brutal, especially with a low wing loading), while max speed at altitude is usually limited by airframe heat tolerance (windscreen & radome in particular) irrespective of engine power. I suspect that the 39E's extra power is pretty much used up carrying the extra weight and giving better acceleration, rather than extending the speed envelope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hws5mp ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
It is misleading to leave up figures about the F-35's operational costs in 2012, before any variant was actually in service. While I was unable to find any more recent studies as in-depth as the 2012 Janes one, if DoD reimbursement rates over the years are any indication, CPFH of F-35 variants have come down very dramatically and are likely around the same as most other fighters ($10k-$20k depending on what factors are measured). I recommend deleting this section until more modern in-depth data is available. Perhaps the swiss air force procurement study is a good source? I know that it is a more modern comparison that includes these fighters, but given that I can't find a good translation, I do not feel comfortable citing it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:5F52:1600:7195:4A7:81C2:672 ( talk) 22:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Bringing to attention the bias against non American/Germany/British aircraft's with Failed bids section. F-16, F-18, F-35 pages don't have failed bids section. Just like in the Eurofighter Tyhoon page, where its Sales and Marketing, suggesting changing the "failed bids" to "Sales and Marketing". Debate has been opened in the Tejas talk page as well. Kindly contribute to make Wikipedia pages neutral across pages rather than let such bias prevail. Mifiin ( talk) 05:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)