British pilot on the mirage

Here is a nice little text about our beloved Mirage:

https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2000-pilot-interview-cutting-it-in-the-electric-cakeslice/

Nice article! Aesome to hear from a real Mirage 2000 pilot!

Thanks for the sharing. It seems he did enjoy the experience :thumbup:

There was a question once about engine surge, we can read it isn't that easy to flame out the engine.

Brilliant enjoyed that many thanks

Great read, thanks! I imagine the vertical climb maneuver will be on to-do list of most of people here once they get to the pit ;)

there's one thing that caught my eye:

The Tornado was extremely competent at the role of interceptor

wuuut ?

I imagine the vertical climb maneuver will be on to-do list of most of people here once they get to the pit ;)

f**k yeah !

Dassault's test pilots used to perform tail slide during airshow, but to do it voluntarily was forbidden in FAF (engine wear).

Nice read & pictures, thanks :thumbup:

Thank you for sharing.

Interesting article, I enjoyed it.

Always great to have feedback from real Mirage 2000 pilots ! :D

Here is a nice little text about our beloved Mirage:

 

https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2000-pilot-interview-cutting-it-in-the-electric-cakeslice/

Very interesting & educational. Thanks for sharing with us!

Good point about pulling the power when leveling off while on final.

 

wuuut ?

 

ADV was a pretty good interceptor.

Keep in mind that the only requirements for a good interceptor is Climb-rate, Service ceiling and max-speed, which the Tornado is no slouch in. Plus, it had a decent Radar and Weapons package.

ADV was a pretty good interceptor.

Keep in mind that the only requirements for a good interceptor is Climb-rate, Service ceiling and max-speed, which the Tornado is no slouch in. Plus, it had a decent Radar and Weapons package.

Given the Tornado:

- high wing loading

- low thrust to weight ratio (barely 1 at empty weight !)

- the lack of relaxed stability

I wouldn't bet on Tornado F3 climb rate and high altitude handling.

From what I read, the Tornado F3 was supposed to loiter on CAP rather than scrambling to rush for high altitude.

The tactics were built on BVR and the 2 guys crew SA. They invested early in L16 datalink.

However they screwed when they introduced AIM-120B without the plane to missile datalink.

You surely don't want to go to the merge against F-16/ Mirage 2000/ MiG 29 in Tornado F3.

Does anyone know what the limitations of the M2000Cs ejector seat are that he hinted at in the article?

ADV was a pretty good interceptor.

Keep in mind that the only requirements for a good interceptor is Climb-rate, Service ceiling and max-speed, which the Tornado is no slouch in. Plus, it had a decent Radar and Weapons package.

due to the length increase of its fuselage it had a quite incredible range allowing it to remain on station for long periods of time.

Given the Tornado:

- high wing loading

- low thrust to weight ratio (barely 1 at empty weight !)

- the lack of relaxed stability

I wouldn't bet on Tornado F3 climb rate and high altitude handling.

 

From what I read, the Tornado F3 was supposed to loiter on CAP rather than scrambling to rush for high altitude.

The tactics were built on BVR and the 2 guys crew SA. They invested early in L16 datalink.

However they screwed when they introduced AIM-120B without the plane to missile datalink.

 

You surely don't want to go to the merge against F-16/ Mirage 2000/ MiG 29 in Tornado F3.

Nobody said anything about merging...he said it was a good Interceptor, not that it would beat dedicated dogfighters in WVR. The classic Interceptor scenario is still Bombers(or whatever) in high altitude regimes. The F3 also had engines tuned for medium to high altitude performance. I mean, it´s not perfect...but then again it´s a converted ground attack plane. Doesn´t mean it doesn´t suck in typical fighter tasks.

It had thrust to weight ratios slightly lower then a Mirage 2000 at 0.78 vs. 0.83 at NTOW, but it had a boatload of fuel for AB, long legs (so it could either patrol longer or intercept earlier) and as I said a decent weapons/avionics package.

I wouldn´t say it would beat a 2000C in a dogfight, but that´s not what was claimed here.

Also, it´s not like there were many of them around XD

Given the Tornado:

- high wing loading

- low thrust to weight ratio (barely 1 at empty weight !)

- the lack of relaxed stability

I wouldn't bet on Tornado F3 climb rate and high altitude handling.

 

From what I read, the Tornado F3 was supposed to loiter on CAP rather than scrambling to rush for high altitude.

The tactics were built on BVR and the 2 guys crew SA. They invested early in L16 datalink.

However they screwed when they introduced AIM-120B without the plane to missile datalink.

 

You surely don't want to go to the merge against F-16/ Mirage 2000/ MiG 29 in Tornado F3.

The key is the word "competent", meaning it can get the job done. The merge against other fighters is not what the ADV was designed for. The ADV was supposed to defend the GIUK gap and the UK itself from Soviet long range bombers. It was competent at that and pretty much only that. When the cold war ended the Tornado ADV's mission needed to expand but the aircraft was not well rounded enough to perform all that was being ask of it. It was very fast at low level and had useful loiter capabilities, carried eight missiles (Sidewinder and Skyflash), but it's high altitude performance was poor and maneuverability lack luster. Competent but not outstanding.

Great read, thanks a lot for sharing!

Why do I get the feeling Baltic Dragon must have read this (or something very similar) several months ago...? Guys, remember this article when RAZBAM finally release the M-2000C campaign. ;)

Great read, thanks a lot for sharing!

 

Why do I get the feeling Baltic Dragon must have read this (or something very similar) several months ago...? Guys, remember this article when RAZBAM finally release the M-2000C campaign. ;)

:music_whistling:

Hey, but no tail sliding in the campaign!

They invested early in L16 datalink.

However they screwed when they introduced AIM-120B without the plane to missile datalink.

 

You surely don't want to go to the merge against F-16/ Mirage 2000/ MiG 29 in Tornado F3.

The lack of mcu for the AIM-120 was an oversight that was soon resolved.

Tornado certainly doesn't want to merge with those aircraft but those aircraft don't want to go BVR against an AMRAAM carrying F3 in just the same way. ;)

The key is the word "competent", meaning it can get the job done. The merge against other fighters is not what the ADV was designed for. The ADV was supposed to defend the GIUK gap and the UK itself from Soviet long range bombers. It was competent at that and pretty much only that. When the cold war ended the Tornado ADV's mission needed to expand but the aircraft was not well rounded enough to perform all that was being ask of it. It was very fast at low level and had useful loiter capabilities, carried eight missiles (Sidewinder and Skyflash), but it's high altitude performance was poor and maneuverability lack luster. Competent but not outstanding.

We do agree, but I was answering to that:

ADV was a pretty good interceptor.

Keep in mind that the only requirements for a good interceptor is Climb-rate, Service ceiling and max-speed, which the Tornado is no slouch in. Plus, it had a decent Radar and Weapons package.

Tornado, even F3 is not the one you think of when speaking about high altitude performance and climb rate.

It was weird to make an air defense fighter from a bomb truck, designed to ingress in terrain following profile with high by pass ratio engine (for a fighter).

You can't tell "it's a good interceptor because of its climb rate and high altitude performance".

However, like I said, it has:

- good loiter time

- good weapon system, a lot of missiles (same load as a F-15)

- crew aware of its strength and weakness.

I would like to read testimony of BVR training VS Mirage 2000C. Especially before the AMRAAM, with the Skyflash...

Very interesting read! Thanks for sharing.

there's one thing that caught my eye:

Keep in mind interceptor and dogfighter are two different things.

Nice article, thanks for sharing :)

Good to have an English speaker writing about the aircraft. A rare event.

Does anyone know what the limitations of the M2000Cs ejector seat are that he hinted at in the article?

I'm at loss.:huh: Note that he didn't talk about "limitations".:detective:

Comfort? It's a tiny cockpit.

Apart from that, it's a Martin Baker Mk-10 aka same reference as in the Sea Harrier, Hawk, F-5, F/A-18, Gripen aaannnnd... Tornado.:book:

(among a few others)

Hey, but no tail sliding in the campaign!

Wuuuut!?:smartass:

Hat, coat... :D

Does anyone know what the limitations of the M2000Cs ejector seat are that he hinted at in the article?

I think he only mentioned that the ejector seat was not french made as the rest of the A/C.

Here's the quote: Vive La France ! It’s Sexy. It’s French – Dassault make fine aircraft and apart from the ejector seat it pretty much is 100%.

Next sentence is: Future-Proofed – The M2000....

Which might have confused you

On the exchange programmes, check the following video: LINK

I found it (or rather - it was shown to me) about half way through development of the campaign :) and made me think that the chosen setting (exchange pilot) was a good decision.