Sustained turn rate tested

[Hummingbird]

Tested the sustained turn rate of a clean Mirage at SL and found that I could hold ~6 G's at Mach 0.65 @ full AB, and only a mere ~7 G's sustained at Mach 0.9.

 

This does not live up to the values on the charts, and I am able to hold quite abit more in the F-15C which shouldn't be the case.

 

 

Actual 15,000 ft values with 2 x R-550 missiles:

Edited December 28, 2015 by Hummingbird

[IvanK]

For the record the top chart comes from this publication:

 

 

There are a total of 8 Performance charts that relate to Mirage 2000C performance. These charts also include comparisons with F20 and F16/J79.

Happy to post the remaining charts.

 

The actual data is based on performance calculations by the authors using reliable sources.

 

The Fighter symposuim for which this document (approx 100pages) was produced was sponsored by Northrop .... hence the F20 content. At the time the Malaysians were looking at an F5E replacement the 3 contenders were the F20, Mirage 2000 and the f16/J79 (as the US at the time was only prepared top offer the F16/J79 too the Malysians).

Edited December 28, 2015 by IvanK

[Hummingbird]

New tests conducted at 50% fuel clean:

 

Max sustainable G at Mach 0.9 @ SL = 7 G's

 

By comparison the ingame F-15C will hold over 9 G's at that speed.

 

Track coming up.

[Hummingbird]

Condition: 50% fuel, clean, Full AB

 

Max sustained G at SL @ Mach 0.9 = ~7 Gs

 

[GGTharos]

There are a total of 8 Performance charts that relate to Mirage 2000C performance. These charts also include comparisons with F20 and F16/J79.

Happy to post the remaining charts.

 

The actual data is based on performance calculations by the authors using reliable sources.

 

That would be awesome.

 

I get the impression that these calculations may be overestimating some things.

[Hummingbird]

That would be awesome.

 

I get the impression that these calculations may be overestimating some things.

 

How so? You believe the estimations for a game more? :huh:

 

AFAIK said chart was based on real life Mirage performance figures, same for the F-16A charts which can actually be verified looking in the F-16C manual.

[Hummingbird]

That the F-15C should be able to beat the Mirage 2000C in STR & ITR is a pretty laughable idea tbh, yet that's what it's like ingame atm and by a big margin.

[jojo]

For the record the top chart comes from this publication:

 

 

There are a total of 8 Performance charts that relate to Mirage 2000C performance. These charts also include comparisons with F20 and F16/J79.

Happy to post the remaining charts.

 

The actual data is based on performance calculations by the authors using reliable sources.

 

The Fighter symposuim for which this document (approx 100pages) was produced was sponsored by Northrop .... hence the F20 content. At the time the Malaysians were looking at an F5E replacement the 3 contenders were the F20, Mirage 2000 and the f16/J79 (as the US at the time was only prepared top offer the F16/J79 too the Malysians).

 

If I understand correctly, this famous 15 000ft chart is not provided by Dassault, it's an estimation made by the authors of the book ?

 

It's still interesting... Would be happy to see the rest of it.

[GGTharos]

How so? You believe the estimations for a game more? :huh:

 

AFAIK said chart was based on real life Mirage performance figures, same for the F-16A charts which can actually be verified looking in the F-16C manual.

 

I may be misunderstanding or misreading some maneuver components, yeah.

[Croaker47]

STR occurs at 6.5G at Mach 0.9 at 15k ft, though, doesn't it? How would 7G be "mere" in that case? STR at Mach 0.65 is also at 4.5G, not 6. Is it over-performing? If so, why the comment about the F-15 at the end? I am confuzzled.

 

I'm pretty sure I'm missing something here, these doghouses are the bane of my existence. Can someone show me the light... again...? :doh:

[Hummingbird]

A quick F-15C test for comparison.

 

Condition 100% fuel, clean, full AB.

 

Result:

9.7 G sustained at 1060 km/h (Mach 0.86)

7.2-7.4 G sustained at 850 km/h (Mach 0.69)

 

 

 

The ingame Mirage cannot approach these figures, infact in terms of both STR & ITR the ingame F-15 has it all over the ingame Mirage atm, which is very suspect as it should be the reverse.

[Hummingbird]

STR occurs at 6.5G at Mach 0.9 at 15k ft, though, doesn't it? How would 7G be "mere" in that case? STR at Mach 0.65 is also at 4.5G, not 6. Is it over-performing? If so, why the comment about the F-15 at the end? I am confuzzled.

 

I'm pretty sure I'm missing something here, these doghouses are the bane of my existence. Can someone show me the light... again...? :doh:

 

Doghouse plots are for 15,000 ft, I am testing at SL which should yield significantly higher turn rates.

[Croaker47]

Doghouse plots are for 15,000 ft, I am testing at SL which should yield significantly higher turn rates.

 

Thanks for that, I didn't catch the "SL" in the original post, or if I did, I saw the 15k chart and entered my fantasy world.

 

Helpful community, here. :thumbup:

[RoflSeal]

I don't see much wrong with the F-15 based of this graph

[Hummingbird]

Results so far at Sea Level:

 

 

Mirage 2000C @ 50% fuel, clean

STR @ Mach 0.7 = 5.8 G's

STR @ Mach 0.9 = 7.0 G's

 

F-15C Eagle @ 100% fuel, clean

STR @ Mach 0.7 = 7.7 G's (8.4 G @ 37,000 lbs)

STR @ Mach 0.9 = 10.0 G's

 

 

This is obviously not supposed to be the case.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

I don't see much wrong with the F-15 based of this graph

 

No the F-15 figures look fine, it's the Mirage which is seriously underperforming.

[NineLine]

FM issues are known. Its very early in Beta.

[Brisse]

CptSmiley just made a post of things they are working on or have already fixed.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=156925

 

Some of those things I think might affect the sustained turn rate, so further testing on the current public version would be redundant. We won't be able to provide valuable feedback on this until we get our own hands on those updates.

[Hummingbird]

FM issues are known. Its very early in Beta.

 

That's good, just providing these tests as Cpt.Smiley from RAZBAM specifically asked for us do such tests here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=156448&page=10

 

Also GGTharos mentioned the Mirage was turning better than it should sustained, thus I decided to check it out and the result is that the reverse is actually the case: The ingame Mirage is falling way short of real life STR performance

 

GGTharos was probably basing his opinion on fighting the AI F-15 which is quite easily dispatched. A human player in the F-15 is another matter entirely :)

Edited December 28, 2015 by Hummingbird

[GGTharos]

The result is that you tested at an altitude that you don't have charts for, with the exception of the 15000' chart which also appears to be an estimate.

 

Me, I may have misunderstood certain maneuver values, but I'll have to figure that one out later.

Edited December 28, 2015 by GGTharos

[Hummingbird]

The result is that you tested at an altitude that you don't have charts for.

 

You're not honestly gonna go with that explanation are you?

 

You actually believe that the Mirage which can sustain more G's at all speeds than the F-15C at 15,000 ft suddenly won't be capable of this when moving down to Sea Level ? Better yet that at SL it can only match its 15,000 ft load factor?

 

If so I don't know what to say...

Edited December 28, 2015 by Hummingbird

[NineLine]

That's good, just providing these tests as Cpt.Smiley from RAZBAM specifically asked for us do such tests here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=156448&page=10

 

Thats fine, but might be a moot point now that they have some internal fixes already to go...

[Hummingbird]

Thats fine, but might be a moot point now that they have some internal fixes already to go...

 

We'll see.

 

Atm though the Mirage is performing at Sea Level as it should be performing at 15,000 ft.

[AussieGhost789]

You're not honestly gonna go with that explanation are you?

 

You actually believe that the Mirage which can sustain more G's at all speeds than the F-15C at 15,000 ft suddenly won't be capable of this when moving down to Sea Level ? Better yet that at SL it can only match its 15,000 ft load factor?

 

If so I don't know what to say...

 

It's not like it's impossible, is it? AFAIK, there are certain conditions where the F-15 has a greater STR than the F-16, even though the F-16 outperforms the F-15 in STR in most other conditions. So it is possible that the same could apply here, right? It's obviously not as simple as x > y in all conditions.

 

I'm not going to sit here and say either FM's are perfect, and I never could say that, but I guess my point is it's possible that the conditions favor the F-15. Maybe it's realistic behavior, maybe it's not.

Edited December 28, 2015 by AussieGhost789

[GGTharos]

There are other materials out there that confuse the issue (eg. one of the competition materials somewhere out there lists the Mirage 2000-5 with 2 missiles as having an ITR of 21.5deg/s at 4500m). Not all are available, in the end it's up to RAZBAM to choose what they'll go with.

 

Getting a really clear picture on what the Mirage can do is really hard given what's available to us on the net.