- Thread starter
- #261
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Exciting times nonetheless mukka!
Looking at the engine in the Draken and then the one in Gripen, what the h*ll!
The one in Viggen wasn't tiny either!
JAS 39 Gripen is growing up.... (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Exciting times nonetheless mukka!
Looking at the engine in the Draken and then the one in Gripen, what the h*ll!
The one in Viggen wasn't tiny either!
MiTasol
Major
Agreed and if they had redesigned with the EJ in mind both SAAB and EJ would be saying so.
MiTasol
Major
Interesting post in this thread What Is The Point Of This?
IF the claim was correct the conversion to EJ would be "quick and easy". Given the T-7 has had more than its fair share of problems I would say not so.
Then again SAAB is involved in the T-7 so maybe know why the computers got it wrong.
IF the claim was correct the conversion to EJ would be "quick and easy". Given the T-7 has had more than its fair share of problems I would say not so.
Then again SAAB is involved in the T-7 so maybe know why the computers got it wrong.
- Thread starter
- #264
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Not Gripen, but you'd think that they've ran out of stuff to write about, it being 20+ years ago....
$6,000,000,000 Nuclear U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 'Sunk' By $100,000,000 Diesel AIP Sub
$6,000,000,000 Nuclear U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 'Sunk' By $100,000,000 Diesel AIP Sub
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Maybe a kettle in the cockpit, we do like our coffee! 
That is 'boiling vessel' in British army 'speak'.
Of course the British army is not expecting their vehicles to go inverted.
That is 'boiling vessel' in British army 'speak'.
Of course the British army is not expecting their vehicles to go inverted.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Wayback in the late 40s or early 50s there was at least one designer who planned for a 40in engine bay instead of 37in specified for the engine of choice by the US Navy.
He didn't have a specific engine in mind but he was less than trusting of the navies chosen supplier (Westinghouse). Turned out his lack of trust was justified and P&W new engine pretty much dropped into the slightly oversized engine bay with little problem.
But designing oversized engine bays in today's very tightly packaged (stuffed) aircraft is a lot harder.
He didn't have a specific engine in mind but he was less than trusting of the navies chosen supplier (Westinghouse). Turned out his lack of trust was justified and P&W new engine pretty much dropped into the slightly oversized engine bay with little problem.
But designing oversized engine bays in today's very tightly packaged (stuffed) aircraft is a lot harder.
Engines on the Draken and Gripen were small & light. The one on the Viggen was the opposite
AFAIR at least one german sub repeated this "carrier torping" several years later.
Maybe the US should give up the overly expensive nuclear attack subs and switch to AIP systems.
I would have loved to see images of the carrier captain if the sub had released a sonar ping to tell them they are dead now.
Maybe the US should give up the overly expensive nuclear attack subs and switch to AIP systems.
I would have loved to see images of the carrier captain if the sub had released a sonar ping to tell them they are dead now.
Well, the RM6, RM12 and RM16 are all in the 1000 - 1300kg range if you want to call that light. The RM8 is bigger being ~2350kg. More interesting to me is the Thrust:Weight ratio and in this area we see the following:Engines on the Draken and Gripen were small & light. The one on the Viggen was the opposite
- RM6 (Draken): 36 N/kg - 53.4 N/kg
- RM8 (Viggen): 26.5 N/kg - 53.2 N/kg
- RM12 (Gripen A - D): 51,2 N/kg - 76.4 N/kg
- RM16 (Gripen E/F): 52 N/kg - 88.2 N/kg
But of course. More reliable too. Adding to the above with eras of engines:One might expect that a decade or two younger engine is better
- RM6 (Draken): 36 N/kg - 53.4 N/kg 1950s/60s
- RM8 (Viggen): 26.5 N/kg - 53.2 N/kg 1960s/1970s
- RM12 (Gripen A - D): 51,2 N/kg - 76.4 N/kg 1980s/1990s
- RM16 (Gripen E/F): 52 N/kg - 88.2 N/kg 2000s
- Thread starter
- #272
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
MiTasol
Major
Spewtube stop any misinformation? You are joking I presume.
- Thread starter
- #274
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #276
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
ThomasP
Chief Master Sergeant
Nice aerial and ground operational footage.
Admiral Beez
Major
We're getting a lot of public nattering about the Gripen for Canada. I wish Carney would just announce something already. IMO, there is no diplomatic or military advantage in taking the SAAB Gripen. Most of Europe doesn't want it either, with the British flying F-35s (for the FAA) and Eurofighters, with the Germans about to do the same (F-35As in their case). Other NATO countries now (or soon to be) operating the F-35 include Norway, Finland, Turkey, Denmark, and Belgium. In addition to NATO, Canadian-aligned Australia and Japan are both operating the F-35. If the F-35 meets the needs of all these first world and Canada-aligned countries, it's good enough for us too.
buffnut453
Captain
Minor quibble but only one of 3 UK F-35B units is FAA. The others (17 Sqn (the OCU) and 617 Sqn) are most definitely RAF units.
Also, the UK has ordered a small number of F-35A airframes. If I was a betting man, I'd expect more A variants to be ordered, perhaps instead of more Bs.
Glider
Major
It will be interesting as I was expecting them to order more F-35B as we don't even have enough aircraft for the carriers.
