sedenion

Default gamma is 2.0 or 2.2... 1.5 is quite dark.

I think the devs are hard working on the flight model and pushed a WIP version not realising it will be embedded in the update.

I wonder which is the true problem, the fact it still in one piece at IAS 1100, or a high-speed drag wrongly modelised. Is a real aircraft even able to reach this speed at sea level ? My intuition tell me that drag would prevent such thing to happen.

The problem I see is that as IvanKA explained, aircraft can go overspeed during some time and still be able to RTB and land normally, the damages are spotted during mechanical checkup on the ground and this cannot be simulated. What you can simulate is in-flight clear failure or damage, but between the safe limit and obvious break point (let say, 1200kts for example) there is an unknow territory where aircraft take more or less invisible dammages that may or may not directly impact the aircraft for the next houres of flight...

Well, yes and no... the 700kts is probably a safe limit as you pointed out, meaning that above this speed aerodynamics behavior become somewhat unpredictible and dangerous or/and stress on airframe will abnormaly worn out the structure. However, this does not mean the aircraft disintegrate suddenly above 710kts... but ANYWAY, the "LIM" warning should light up.

In such situation I think several things break apart, not only engine... that's my point, I think the 700kts limit is not engine related, but airframe.

Ok, considering the previous engine modeling was adjusted to flame out each time you sneeze, I think these are two separated problems.

What tell you that this is engine that must fail ? The manual simply speak about maximum speed... It is logical that engine may fail according mach number since the problem is the mach shockwave against turbines, but for IAS, my guess is that this is more general structure stress problem.

https://dbpedia.org/page/R.550_Magic

This has to be verified but I think this is actually the same rail. The R550 Magic was designed to be interchangeable with Sidewinder even on US aircraft.

It seem we are several to find this plane hard to land properly and smoothly while theoretical parameter from the manual are hard to reach. Also, for comparison and explain why one shouldn't only compare with theoretical data: With the first Mirage 2000 flight model versions, it was able to land properly if you stayed a perfect equilibrium position (AOA + speed + throttle) that exactly fitted the theoretical data but the airplane transforming into flying brick once a little outside this very specific configuration. the overall result is that the aircraft were hard to land, and had bad low speed behavior despit the perfect fit with theoretical data. I suspect that developpers took too many time and attention to manage to fit theoretical data without taking the problem in a more global aspect.

It would be surprising this specific version don't have it... I suspect it is not yet implemented and should be the one displayed on the HUD.

This is the answer to why the radom is black (or grey, or another uniform different color), but in our precise case the color difference is not the radom itself, but the part right next to it, which is in fact, I think the radar or avionic module. The good answer were already provided, it is obviously a replaced and not repainted part from another aircraft. Mirage F1 had a long career, on the end, many aircraft was left on the grood to feed others with spare parts.

In the screenshot you provided I found the bogey pretty easy to spot. They did "this way" because that were the best way they managed to did it at the time. Lets back in time, there were no microchip, everything were done using simple electronic components, mostly analogic. This green noise cloud is a filtered version of what the radar sensor receive, the main problem is here : separating noise from interesting echoes, wich were not very easy using the rudimentary electronic of this times combined to radar emitter and antenna design. Brief, the analog electronic system can discard some obviously uninteresting received signals but cannot do a precision job. So, the precision job must be done by the pilot, examining this noise to spot what could be an interesting echo. As an image, think about radio, analog radio, with tuner. Imagine you are tuned to a specific radio station, when you are close to the emiter the signal is strong and you ear it clearly, but when you go far from the emiter, you ear signal with noise. Farer you get only noise because the signal is lost. The problem here is roughly similar, the interesting signal is lost in noise, because the signal is week and the tuner very sensitive. If you discard all the noise, you take the risk to discard the interesting signal, because electronic is too rustic, not precise enough to properly separate weak signal from back noise.

Indeed, I think I found the source of that 140° (https://encyclopedie-des-armes.com/index.php/aviation/air-air/1418-r550-magic) :

The answer was actually further in the text... here is nnother quote from the same page ( https://www.caea.info/fr/l-association/50-collection/armement/574-magic ) :

There is a need for switch commands that automatically opens the corresponding guard, this is especially true for Armement master. In the current state, binding a key or HOTAS button/switch to enable Master Arm is pretty useless since you need to open guard before. Same logic can be applyed to other buttons or switches that have guard or safety cover.

Look better, this is not hardware related, there is actually 10-12% dead-zone at throttle lower bound. And this is not related to axis positive or negative raw value, I tried reversed values the problem still the same. (I think Windows calibration is a pure cosmetic since pretty long times now, modern devices deals directly via HID drivers telling axes min and max values)

My two cents: I tend to second that. It seem american engine manufacturers often faced reliability and stall problems with their new - and very powerfull - engines when released (this is also true for the P&W F135 engine) because they make more complex engines they push to their bounds. French manufacturer have another history, and tend to make more simple design, less powerfull, but with reliability and maintenability as one of main goals (and this is also true for the M88-2).

Since I have no data it's only some guess, but I think the Magic "One" already had SEAM-like capabilities with Radar-Seeker slavery mechanisms. In favor of this hypothesis it is never claimed that Magic II introduced this capability, which it obviously has. Edit: Found some quote (translated from: https://www.caea.info/fr/l-association/50-collection/armement/574-magic ) Since I doupt the seeker's sensor itself had 140° focal cone, this imply that this 140° cone is provided by seeker mobility around gimbals guided by aircraft telemetry. In two words, the Magic "One" had SEAM-like and radar slave capability.

The F1C-200 too it seem... https://master194.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1483404&sid=1280fe8f62d38dd2f17c89af7049162d#p1483404 Edit: Unfortunately, not much data about the F1C-200, it seem to be simply an F1C with air refueling capabilities. My first guess is that technically speaking, Magic II and Magic "1" are interchangeable. Remain the question of historical consistency specific to spain air force...

It appear to be more consequence of spare replacement than official paint sheme. In the photo below, we see that noses (radome) are spare piece coming from other aircraft and they simply does not take time (and money) to repaint.

(This is "Super 530", without R... the hell of Matra's names "conventions"... )

That was even more complicated than I thought, thanks for the detailled explanation.

Speaking of available missiles... Currently the Mirage F1 in DCS can only carry and launch the R550 Magic (and Sidewinders)... But what about the R550 Magic II ? Does it require specific avionic not available in the Mirage F1CE ?