Corsair

Max speed allowed, for safety and operational reasons. The actual max speed is a little past M 2,2, but if it could reach it, that'd already be a good start..

Payload ? Setup ? Figures ? ..details ?

In case of heavy loads (typically two big balls.. hem bags, and A/G weaponry), you can go PC mini (min AB) on the brakes.

The immatriculations are not used in radio calls. The best thing would be to record radio calls with accurate C RDI squadrons callsigns (Coton, Charcot, Raglan, Corik..).

Pre -5 2000s.. AdA 2000C RDM & RDI : no MICA IR PAF 2000P : no MICA IR IAF 2000H : no MICA IR HAF 2000EG(M): no MICA IR BrAF 2000C RDI : no MICA IR UAEAF 2000EDA : no MICA IR EAF 2000EM : no MICA IR Here's some facts that should show the MICA IR has never been carried on those, and most likely cannot..

+1. With these, you now have an F-15 equivalent.. in better :D

With Rafale, that's a little less unique.

There are not good modes and some other less good.. BMS just simulate HARM firing modes related to the F-16, and VRS to the F/A-18, which are different (self defense modes on the Bug i.e).

Mirage 2000C RDI

Does anybody have one or more Tacview flight profile graph of Super 530D ?

Sorry for thread derailment. There is a clear consensus on the major underperformance of the R.550-2.. what more is needed to know/discuss ?

The thing is, as pointed out by Jojo, you don't always have the target is visual. Thus, a closure indication that is homogeneous with your speed as displayed in the VTH is both easier to exploit and safer.

Let me take bigger numbers.. you're at FL500. Standard altitude again. Chasing aircraft is at mach 2 = 1150 KTAS = 530 KCAS Target aicraft is at mach 0,8 = 460 KTAS = 190 KCAS Aspect angle is 0. Both acft at same alt. Closure computed with CAS as basis = +340 Closure computed with TAS as basis = +690

KCAS closure =/= True speed closure.. the damn closure varies depending on the speed measurement you take as a basis..

No.. at sea level, your speed differential will be indeed identical whether you use TAS or CAS as a basis to compute your closure velocity.. but since CAS decreases with pressure, thus altitude, the gap between CAS and TAS will widen as altitude grows.. and Fox One and Jojo's calculations show this : At sea level, a 794 KTAS closure velocity will equal 794 KCAS.. At FL400, it will equal 465 KCAS (standard alt.).. it's the same with my example.

Des gens qui savent.. Jojo here, backed up by other french forum's members, and also by Fox One's calculation (p.23, quoted by Jojo). Let's set ourselves in a situation.. you are closing behind a target, fast moving, at FL400, standard altitude. You are closing at Mach 1.2 (390 KCAS) on a target going at Mach 1 (310 KCAS). A real closure velocity will indicate you +130 knot velocity, whereas a CAS closure velocity will indicate you a +80 knots velocity. Calculation are very approxmiate, but I think you see. Advantage of a CAS closure velocity : no un practical calculation needed to actually know by how much you need to adjust your speed to perform a safe rejoin. It's more homegeneous, thus easier to use.

I understand your point and it was what I defended until then. But it comes out it is indeed expressed as CAS, and after thinking about it, it is also useful. It allows the pilot to adjust more accurately its closure rate, especially in case of a rear aspect joinup/interception, since own aircraft speed is also displayed in CAS. You lose one information, you get another (well, it's the same, but expressed in another way). This compromise is justified when we look at the 2000's missions.

It's not target CAS displayed, it's closure speed, expressed in CAS (at aircraft's altitude).

C'est la vie ! :D

I have been given a satisfactory explaination on another forum : In case of an interception or a join up, you want to ajust you CAS in accordance with your closure sppeed, hence also given in CAS; That makes sense, although you lose the real closure velocity information. Certainly a good compromise.

Case closed then, mea culpa. Any idea why the closure speed is given according to target's CAS, versus a real closure velocity ?

The missile TOF appears to be 530 specific. It's not a technical document. But it confirms what we think with common sense : the velocity indicated above the DLZ is a closing velocity. That's the most relevant information that has to he there (target speed would be useless displayed here), and it is the same on many other aircraft.

Vitesse de rapprochement de la cible ...

It is indication specific to the ICMS countermeasure system that equips HAF 2000EGM. The corresponding switch on the ICMS control panel can be either set to ECM PTY or NWS PTY (priority). I have à few guesses about this function, though nothing certain .. But anyways it doesn't concern Razbam's module.

I see, sorry for confusing everyone without checking what I said. I took thd F-16 example, hence assuming there was a target speed indication on the 2000.