Acceleration.

[Zomba]

Is the high acceleration of the M2K normal? Especially through the high drag transonic range it seems to accelerate rapidly through this regime without any difference compared to subsonic or supersonic. I also notice it can supercruise under full mil power at altitude with 2x Magic and 2x Super missiles loaded.

 

Edited December 26, 2015 by Zomba

[Aginor]

I also noticed the supercruising. I have full fuel and a centerline fuel tank, I am supercuising at Mach 1.02 at 14,000ft.

[Rlaxoxo]

I also noticed the supercruising. I have full fuel and a centerline fuel tank, I am supercuising at Mach 1.02 at 14,000ft.

 

Any 4th gen fighter can do that but supercruising is defined by going Mach 1.5+ with no AFB and F-22 is the like the only plane that can do that + some other

[howie87]

Something seems very wrong to me at altitudes above 15 - 20,000ft.

 

You can put the aircraft in a verticle climb at 180 knots in afterburner and it will just accelerate straight through to 60,000ft.

 

Even a clean, low fueled F-15 can't do anything approaching this.

 

I think (and hope) the engine model is still a work in progress.

 

Try taking off in full burner, pulling to 45 degrees nose high at 350 knots and seeing what happens.

 

Then try the same in the F-15, MiG-21 or Su27.

 

At the point where they begin to lose thrust and you have to drop the nose to maintain airspeed the M2000 actually gains thrust and speeds up to Mach 1.4.

 

Pretty sure it shouldn't be able to supercrise at Mach 1.3 with 4 missiles either.

[Aginor]

Any 4th gen fighter can do that but supercruising is defined by going Mach 1.5+ with no AFB and F-22 is the like the only plane that can do that + some other

 

That's a definition by people who want the F-22 to be special. To everyone else supercruising means flying supersonic without afterburner.

[Zomba]

Well, whatever the definition is, being able to push past transonic under mil power and external stores is a bit unusual. Will be interesting to see how the modeling iterates over the coming updates.

[Aginor]

Yeah, I think either the engine is a bit too strong or the drag is a bit too low in the FM.

I tend to say the latter is more likely.

[3rd Wing - Raiden]

The Mirage 2000C weights 16,350 lb with no fuel and its engine generates 21,400 lbf of thrust with afterburner.

 

So as long as the Mirage is fuelled with less than 5,000 lb and no weapons, it should be able to climb 90° and still accelerating.

[GGTharos]

No, it shouldn't, nor should any other aircraft. Thrust decreases as altitude increases, and there is a similar power leak related to mach number.

[OnlyforDCS]

Yup flew a bit more today and something indeed feels off. I think that it is definitely drag related maybe even thrust. I noticed that on landing and performing aerobreaking the aircraft will hardly lose speed, i.e. aerobraking doesnt seem to do anything.

 

Sent from my HTC One M8s using Tapatalk

[Manuel_108]

Guys, be thankful that the 2000C's engine can supercruise with ext. stores and make a continuous climb to 100.000ft, it's just that good.

[howie87]

Guys, be thankful that the 2000C's engine can supercruise with ext. stores and make a continuous climb to 100.000ft, it's just that good.

 

No... It's not. The flight model is flawed.

[Aginor]

One more point towards the drag theory is deceleration. I had the impression that the airbrakes don't slow down the aircraft much, and even with engine idle it gains loads of speed when descending.

 

We should measure the deceleration compared with the diagrams in the manual, with the same configuration, perhaps we can tell Razbam a bit more accurately where to look.

[Manuel_108]

No... It's not. The flight model is flawed.

 

I was being mildly sarcastic. Thing is, I'm sure that the FM will be awesome after some minor tweaks. The Fishbed needed a lot of tweaks as well, it's no big deal.

[OnlyforDCS]

Yup flew a bit more today and something indeed feels off. I think that it is definitely drag related maybe even thrust. I noticed that on landing and performing aerobreaking the aircraft will hardly lose speed, i.e. aerobreaking doesnt seem to do anything.

 

Sent from my HTC One M8s using Tapatalk

 

Tested some more, seems I was wrong. Disregard previous, seems that aerobreaking works ok, just needed a slightly higher AoA on flare and touchdown.

 

Also at anything else other than full mil power the plane will slow down pretty nicely coming off burners. Also airbreakes seem to work pretty good too.

[GGTharos]

It's really not showing down like it should. You should have some 5000lbs breaking force once you pull AB out.

[cauldron]

Before any more comments about "feelings" check your data scientifically vs the charted flight envelopes, so far they seem to be quite close to the charts - whatever my feelings may be.

[Hummingbird]

It's really not showing down like it should. You should have some 5000lbs breaking force once you pull AB out.

 

That would depend on the speed you're going ;)

[GGTharos]

Before any more comments about "feelings" check your data scientifically vs the charted flight envelopes, so far they seem to be quite close to the charts - whatever my feelings may be.

 

Your feelings are close to the charts? Because the performance values aren't :-)

[Zomba]

That gave me a little chuckle, GG.

 

I'm away for work at the moment, but the mention of using enough flare on touchdown reminded me of something I found: When I was doing a few landings and hitting the 14 degree AOA on the glidescope I was hesitant to pull more flare just before touchdown thinking I would earn a tail strike. This caused a pretty solid landing impact, but no damage. What's the recommended flare rotation? I'd go find myself, but no PC for now and curiosity is killing the cat.

[jojo]

That gave me a little chuckle, GG.

 

I'm away for work at the moment, but the mention of using enough flare on touchdown reminded me of something I found: When I was doing a few landings and hitting the 14 degree AOA on the glidescope I was hesitant to pull more flare just before touchdown thinking I would earn a tail strike. This caused a pretty solid landing impact, but no damage. What's the recommended flare rotation? I'd go find myself, but no PC for now and curiosity is killing the cat.

 

with 14 AoA, on -3 degrees standard glide path your nose is 11 degrees above horizon.

 

Once on runway you will tail strike with nose 15 degrees above horizon.

 

So I would say you can pull 3 more degree on flare, ground effect will do the rest.

Edited December 27, 2015 by jojo

[CHRISXTR3M3]

I think we've been taking the wrong "approach" with our landings. Here's an example of perfect braking on landing lol.

 

 

 

 

Honestly though after watching some approach and landing videos I think the A2A for approach definitely needs to be around 11 or 12 degrees to glide down and decrease energy. Also I either read or heard a pilot in a documentary mention they weren't allowed to use fbw for landing the mirages for some reason...I'll look for the source and link it.

[Zomba]

This has become an unexpectedly interesting discussion. I stumbled on a conversation concerning Australian Mirage IIIs and from what I gather they had a stability assist system of some sort and on landing approach they had to switch a pitch assist mode off otherwise it will try and keep the nose pitched up on the approach AOA on touchdown, much like the M2000 FBW does in DCS. Would this be for the same reasons?

 

Just a little disclaimer: This was a while ago and I might be mistaken with how I heard and remembered it. Plus also it's concerning two very different aircraft, so there's that. Just wondering if they had common reasoning.

[ttaylor0024]

I think we've been taking the wrong "approach" with our landings. Here's an example of perfect braking on landing lol.

 

 

 

 

Honestly though after watching some approach and landing videos I think the A2A for approach definitely needs to be around 11 or 12 degrees to glide down and decrease energy. Also I either read or heard a pilot in a documentary mention they weren't allowed to use fbw for landing the mirages for some reason...I'll look for the source and link it.

 

Gear up landings happen more often than you think. There's a saying in the aviation community, "There are two types of pilots; those who've landed gear up, and those who will."

 

As far as the no FBW thing, I just noticed on landing in the sim that the aircraft had full elevator up deflection when I was on the ground rolling out.... Could have something to do with that, or it could just be a bug. Would be interesting to read none-the-less.

 

EDIT: ^Looks like it is a thing

[OnlyforDCS]

It's really not showing down like it should. You should have some 5000lbs breaking force once you pull AB out.

 

Tested some more, pulling it out of burner at about Mach 2,0 at 30,000ft down to mil power, it will slow down rapidly to about Mach 1,1, at which point it will almost stop slowing down. Pulling the throttle back just one percent from mil at that point will quickly drop you into subsonic. This is with the standard 2x2 missile loadout.