HWasp

Ok, that is understandable, but given the comlete lack of data otherwise, it might still be better to assume, that it has similiar thrust profile, and use that, (I really wouldn't think, that a slightly improved version of the same, with the same intake, etc, would be that completely different...) Again, I really can't see how the break procedure can help us with this +/-0,5-0,7G difference. Especially with the airbrakes involved. It works, of course, but my problem is with drag between 5 - 12-ish AoA clean. I can't test that with airbrakes out at all....

I have on more point for the HUD tape video: The Jx=0,68 on take-off. If that matches exactly the value we need on take-off on this version, that means in the vid external conditions (lower temperature) compensate for the different engine. If we could agree, that because Jx=0,68, ---> temperature is considerably lower than 15C ---> thrust in those conditions does actually match our version, because of the matching acceleration, that would mean, we only have to account for the possible weight difference of the B version (I know there are aerodynamic differences, but given the total lack of usable data...)

That is a very big claim, given there is no info there about actual thrust. Given, there are that many unknowns, it would be still better to try and interpolate data from the B-version video, because at least weight and thrust differences are known, so with those accounted for it might be less wrong, than vids like this. The previous FM might have had too much drag increase above 14-15 degrees AoA, certainly possible, but please keep in mind, I am talking about the 5-12 AoA range mainly. I think the high AoA range is ok, since it was fixed, and increasing the rate of drag increase slightly between 5-14 does not have to affect that area seriously.

Yes, and also to stay reasonably close to the best glide speed and not end up with a whole lot of induced drag at low speed range of the drag curve. Look, I can fly the whole thing between 170 and 180 kts easily. (And still have hydraulics in DCS, but this is a different subject then) The video looks like a partial engine failure, someone in the description says it was a control unit malfunction, so it's not a complete loss off thrust. How is that relevant for glide ratio? Here is the same slowing below 180 already at 10000 M2000_engine_out_proc_err_180_alltheway_1122.trk

I think I have found a problem here, testing the procedure: At 5000 feet I made an intentional error, and slowed down below 170 kts in level flight instead of the 230 minimum. Problem is, I still made it easily, actually had to drop the gear at 2000 feet. Also the flare is not a problem at all starting from this lower speed. 230 kts on final is a very high approach speed, there must be a good reason to keep it there. If I can do the same procedure with such an error, something must be off a bit. I tested the glide ratios at speeds 240 - 160: 240 : 8,1 AoA 5,5 220: 7,4 AoA 7 200: 6,75 AoA 8 180: 6 AoA 10 160: 5,4 AoA 12 I'm sure the approx 8 L/D base given by this procedure must be ok, but I find it very strange, that plane could still have 5+ L/D at 160 kts where AoA is 12 I would be very interested to see, what would happen, if the drag curve would be steepened a bit to hit the 4,8G / 340 sustained according to the video (I think AoA around 12) Please see track attached: M2000_engine_out_proc_err_170_1122.trk

Ok, thanks. It works, tried it, but I think this test is a bit "low resulotion" regarding the +/- 0,5 or 0,7 Gs sustained at 340, we are looking for. This is a very good reality check for gross errors, but I don't think there is any. I would call this whole discussion "performance tuning discussion", and for this matter a HUD video, like the one you posted, or things with similiar detail are suitable I think. It's very unfortunate, that hud footage is a 2 seater with different engine.

Thanks! Is this a straight in procedure, or does it start over the airfield similiar to the MiG-21 for example? This would be quite important, as turns increase descent rate quite a lot.

Thanks, now I understand better. That would be great, sounds interesting!

To be honest, I did not fully understand the points Kercheiz brought, on how exactly are we sure about what version this aircraft is. Information is very scarce, it's quite sad, if one of the only sources is not valid. While I do really like the module and the FM overall now, it would be really important to back this up with some solid sources, because otherwise it will be constant debate without an end.

For me this data point shows around +10%+ overperformance in STR at that speed.

Considering the 4,8G at 340 kts in the vid at around +1000 feet/minute (Ps= +16,6 feet/sec), I think the realistic STR G based on the video is around 4,9 to 5 Gs. +16,6 feet/second is really not that much looking at other EM diagrams, so I would consider this much less of a problem compared to the chevron being late at a high g-onset rate. The chart would look like this:

Ok, thanks, but how much is the difference? The screen from the video was shown by myHelljumper to validate the current STR. My point, to summarize is: When the pilot increases the G-load at a high rate (as it is the case with the 02:15 screenshot), the chevrons are lagging behind slightly, and at the point the screenshot was made, we are already beyond the G load for sustained turn at that speed. We can see that happen in the other direction as well, when the pilot unloads at 02:13 and G is only 4,8 while chevrons indicate Ps0. That would also be an incorrect data point to the opposite direction. The only moment I found in the video, where speed is reasonably stable for some time in a close to horizontal turn, is the turn at 02:03. Please consider this turn as a data point instead of the one shown previously, even though there is a around 1000 feet per minute climb there, this might be the most accurate. How on Earth would a HUD footage with speed, g load, etc shown not be usable data??? This is usable, we just need to be careful about certain things, like lagging indicators.

One further point against the chevrons for me is the pull at 02:10 Please see the screens: At 02:10 Speed is 409 and chevrons are indicating a large increase At 02:11 Speed is already dropped to 406, but the chevrons have just only reached the FPM This tells me, that there is a little delay in the indication, so I think there is a possibility of error while using the chevrons to determine the moment where PS=0. In this case, because your data point is at a moment, where G load is being increased quickly, I think at the moment where the chevrons indicate Ps0, we are already beyond that in the video.

Another interesting data point for me is at 02:03, where the pilot performs the only almost horizontal sustained turn for a short time, so speed is stable there actually, and not just going through the range quickly. There, with a very subtle climb rate, G sustained is 4,7-4,8G I tried to replicate this as close as I could in DCS, with 86% fuel load (I figured, 2 minutes of AB would get me there at that point), and DCS value is different, overperforming a bit. So for me there is 5,4 G vs 4,8 at a slightly lower speed and a very little bit higher V/S For me this 02:03 moment is the closest thing to an actual sustained turn, even though it's quite short, but speed is finally stable for a bit, and not just going through the range in a single screen

Thanks again for the detailed answers. I really like the module, even though I did not fly it a lot nowadays, the constant stream of updates, fixing the low speed behaviour, are really great things, overall I consider it great quality. Please don't get me wrong for continuing to press this possible issue here, even though the very detailed answers, looking the HUD tape video in more detail and testing it against DCS raised further questions for me. 1. I see you are treating the chevrons signaling speed change as a perfect indicator, but is that really perfect enough to deduct STR using it when the pilot just pulls through the range? Here is what I mean: just before 2:15 (the screen posted by myHelljumper) there is another instance of the chevrons crossing the FPM, but with a much lower G value. There at 2:13 vertical speed is also very low, chevrons are almost on the FPM but G load is only 4,8G (399 kts) Please see screenshots attached. For me it seems, that when the pilot is pulling through the STR range dynamically, the chevrons might not be accurate enough to indicate the PS0 moment during the maneuver:

Understood, thanks.

Airshow demos are not really standard ops, afaik demo flights are often started with less than maximum fuel for the obivious performance benefit, if safety permits. Unless one of your Mirage pilot contacts says for 100% they would never ever do this for a certain reason, I think the possibility should be considered. I did play around flying roughly similiar profiles to the video, with lots of AB and, I think it would be possible to fly this demo starting around 2500 kg and finish with 500+ kg. I would consider that safe.

Thanks for the answer! I still have a problem with this part, because you are using a single parameter to check 2 other. We should know either the fuel state or the temperature to make a 100% assumption. I have just made a take-off in DCS with temperature set to 30 Celsius and 80% fuel. Jx is exactly 0.68. If this display is during summer, then this is still a possible combination. M2000_30Celsius_Jx068_1122.trk

Thanks for showing this important data point. I think it would be important to discuss about fuel state in a bit more detail, because it has a very large impact on this subject. For me it seems like, that the current FM STR at 400 kts is accurate to the video if fuel is assumed to be 100% on take-off. (in that case at 2:15 with constant full afterburner we are at around 77% fuel and STR is around 6,8 G). So again to be clear, the FM is only accurate regarding this data point, if we assume, that the demo flight starts with 100% fuel in the video. I tested the 400 kts STR with different fuel loads, and the difference is of course quite huge. (I used your chart to show the data, I hope, that is no problem) - at 100% fuel sustained G is 6,5 - at 75% fuel sustained G is 6,9 (in DCS for me take-off + low speed aerobatics with constant full AB for 02:15 takes me to 77% fuel ) - at 50% fuel sustained G is 7,5 - at 25% fuel sustained G is 8,3 According to Mirage pilots, what is the usual take-off fuel for a standard 10 minutes airshow display? Are they using 100%? Please see the chart attached, STR at the previously mentioned fuel loads marked. Tracks for the STR at 400 at the mentioned fuel levels. (the 25% fuel test is a bit crappy because I did not disable G effects, so was blacking out constantly) M2000STR400kts100_1122.trk M2000STR400kts25_1122.trk M2000STR400kts75_1122.trk M2000STR400kts50_1122.trk

Well, for STR it does match the chart. Otherwise I suspect, that anomalies like that are there because some modules overperform a bit, like the F18 for example... Anyway, the MiG-29 charts are available publicly, and if the M2000 has superior max STR, there is a small problem, I think.

Made some quick tests for max. STR M2000 vs F-16 vs MiG-29 (clean, 25% fuel) For me max STR (standard dcs 20C SL almost) (infobar readings) - M2000 : 9,2G / 450 Kts ---> 22,2 DPS - F-16 : 9,2G / 470 Kts ---> 21,2 DPS (I think that is exactly as per HAF manual 22k lbs) - MiG-29A : approx 9G / 460 Kts ---> 21,2 DPS (this is really the least accurate test, that thing is more difficult to fly, but matches MiG-29 chart ) While these are hand flown tests, I think they are accurate enough to establish that currently M2000 has the highest maximum STR among these 3 modules. M2000STR_1122.trk F_16STR_1122.trk MiG29STR_1122.trk

https://hushkit.net/2019/08/12/mig-29-versus-mirage-2000-personal-account-from-by-air-marshal-harish-masand/ I have never ever heard any sources claim, that the Mirage 2000 is a superior rate fighter compared to the MiG-29 and F-16. A long time ago the airforce of my country was considering to purchase the Mirage 2000, and one of the negative aspects claimed was inferior sustained turn rate compared to the MiG-29 and F-16. Both F-16 and MiG-29 have a good amount of data publicly available and they both seem to be modeled accurately in DCS currently, so I would consider them a good point of reference. Obviously exact values cannot be determined by comparisons like this, but it is an important reality check, especially if there is no public data to refer to. Doing just a quick test to see what is going on, the M2000 seems to beat the F-16 (clean 25%fuel) regarding STR ------------------------------ So just to establish basic common grounds for this: - According to SMEs and public sources available, is the Mirage 2000C a superior 2 circle (rate) fighter against the MiG-29 and F-16C ? Yes/No (Please link source)

TW is the last thing an F-5 pilot should trust Sure, it could work as long as entry speed is high and the F-5 is careful not to bleed it off.

MiG-19 is a beast compared to the F-5, it has much better thrust to weight ratio. Also if the MiG-15 pilot stalls out trying to follow you into the vertical, that is entirely his mistake. As long as the F-5 keeps high speed, it can try anything to see if the 15 pilot makes a mistake.

To keep it simple and to the point: In a 1v1 merge there is no way to get on the six of a decent and aware MiG-15 with an F-5. There is no magic counter, regardless of speed, direction of the turns nothing will work, unless the 15 pilot looses sight or does something very dumb. You'll need to use your speed to either disengage or reset the fight if you have P-5s (it might be difficult to get a tone head-on though) The simple rule is: never ever slow down, even if it is behind you taking shots. Just jink, try get some speed as quickly as possible. In any 2v2 or many vs many, I'll just keep high speed and pretty much ignore the MiG-15 on my tail and try to get a shot on one of the other 15s that are occupied with my wingman or other friendlies.