Gators Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Hello everyone, First of all I would like to say that you guys have done fantastic job to give us one of the most beautiful and efficient aircraft from my point view. This is the first time I post on this forum just to highlight a little problem with the FBW limiter Air/Air. I spoke yesterday with a good friend, which was a M-2000C french pilot 10 years ago, about the FBW limiter switch. The basic config for Air/Air combat with the M2000C is 2*Magics, 2*S530 and the central fuel tank. During the flight, the pilot never touches the FBW limiter and most of the time the switch is managing by the ground crew following the config (Air/Air or Ground) before the flight. I have read on the forum that the FBW limiter can be switch on A/A position only when the center fuel tank is empty, but it is wrong. There is 100% of chance that the M-2000C can support 9Gs with a full central fuel tank, 2 Magics and 2 S530. Maybe this problem will be corrected in the futur or maybe there are some others technical constraints with the code to simulate the difference between the center fuel tank and bombs on this payload but this is how it works in real life :thumbup:. I can get a lot of more informations on this plane and on how it is used in real life if you guys are interested. Cheers [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
pered Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Hmmmmm, if you're trustworthy, hit us with information! Gotta catch them all bandits! :joystick:
jojo Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 There are other Mirage 2000 crew who confirmed the AA/ CHARGES switch is set to CHARGES with fuselage fuel tank, and set to AA when empty. Mirage fanatic ! I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi
XeNoise Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Yesterday i started from ramp with 2x magic and 2x530 + fuel tank, the configuration was on A/A by default, no alarms. Maybe it was a bug since i also remember that it was requiring a/g mode with the same config.
Gators Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 Gents, No misunderstood, I am not saying that all my words don't need confirmation, I just get informations from one side and I share its with you. I think it is a chance to know someone that flew with this plane, I mean exactly this plane because he was at the "EC 2/12 Picardie". Here are some points, I think most of them are already known and will be fix in a futur update. Sorry if there are some recurrence : - FBW Limiter A/A : 2 Magics + 2 S530 + center fuel tank (full or empty) - FBW Limiter CHARGE : Wings fuel tanks and/or Bombs + 2 Magics - Landing Gear alert : "Vi<225kt and N<80% with LG in" OR "Vi>260kt LG out" - AP is really good only missing the star on the HUD : Right after take off, most of pilots turn on the autopilot. In flight, if they want to change the attitude of the aircraft, for small changes they use the trim joystick and for big changes they press the trigger on the hotas, pass through the AP, change the altitude/heading and release the trigger. Like this, the plane is very stable and the trim always good. Because the plane is naturally instable, this is how the AP have to be manage to get a stable plane. When the AP is OFF, the pilot have to manage the trim manually (even if it is a FBW plane). What's more, on that kind of plane, the main task of the pilot is to do the war, not piloting. That's the kind of information I got and I have some others less important at this state of development. One more time, no critic in my words just information that I share with you. I know the plane is in BETA and maybe all that stuff are already known by the RAZBAM team and are going to be fix. 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Gators Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 Gents, In order to add some credit to my affirmation, I let you google this : "BEAD-air-A 2012-002-I". This is a report of one M-2000C incident during a PO. It is in french, but you can see some pictures of the plane ready for the mission with a central fuel tank full of fuel and the FBW limiter on A/A :thumbup: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Azrayen Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) The star missing is already reported (and other related AP things). The info about the fuel tank and FBW setting is interesting, will try to cross check it :) But AFAIK (several trustable sources), it's correct in DCS now i.e. A/A only when central tank is empty. Edited December 31, 2015 by Azrayen
sedenion Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 For first instance, Jojo found that the Mig-29 is limited to 4G with the central fuel tank: https://books.google.fr/books?id=NZhENgENhEQC&pg=SA5-PA7&lpg=SA5-PA7&dq=mig+29+g+limit&source=bl&ots=8MXR50FRxC&sig=GvC_cIRaP5B2arzD7iscZSDsDbg&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-peKX44bKAhVJThQKHfJqB1AQ6AEISTAF#v=onepage&q=mig%2029%20g%20limit&f=false So, it appear that is by definition a physical limitation applied to all aircraft. No reasons for the M2000 be so much stronger than the Mig-29... However, the procedure tells that switch must be set to AA only when the tank is empty, but this is a safety procedure. Obviously real things are not so simples and maybe (but how to know precisely ?) we could turn the AA switch when the tank is only 3/4 empty...
Exocet Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Gator? Best Fs9 mirage 2000 freeware? its you? ;) >[]
Fox One Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 - Landing Gear alert : "Vi<225kt and N<80% with LG in" I suspected the simulator was not right about this. When performing aerobatics or dogfight, every time speed drops below 230 the alert sounds, pretty annoying. This does not happen in the youtube HUD video peforming aerobatics when the speed is below 230. Thanks for the info! My DCS videos
gospadin Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 ... So, it appear that is by definition a physical limitation applied to all aircraft. No reasons for the M2000 be so much stronger than the Mig-29... There's no reason for them to be the same, either. It all comes down to how each one was designed. My liveries, mods, and missions for DCS:World M-2000C English Cockpit | Extra Beacons Mod | Nav Kneeboard | Community A-4E
sedenion Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 There's no reason for them to be the same, either. It all comes down to how each one was designed. Funy to see the same argument used in different places to defend an opposite assumption... Technology and engeneering is nearly the same everywhere in a given era for simple reason: The laws of physics are the same, the materials used are the same, the design constraints are the same in average...You can find some aircrafts that are more robust than others, with little changes in characteristics.. But except a strange or excentric design they all have nearly the same resistance on hard points. Furthermore, the real weak point for G-load sustains here, is not the aircraft, but the pylon, the fuel tank itself, and attachment points. If something should going wrong, it's here, before on the aircraft. And there is no "super special design" to attach X tons to another piece... you will not find a tank/pylon that can support 9G and another that can only support 5G for the same category of aircraft with similar weight. 9G vs 5G is nearly the double of material resistance limits... So, you'ill found some concordances between each aircraft with minor changes according some safety standards and fuel tank weight... i guess, a limitation around 6G - 4G depending these factors.
Gators Posted January 2, 2016 Author Posted January 2, 2016 Hi, Please do not bring with you some "I guess so" or "I don't think so" without evidence. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
sedenion Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 Hi, Please do not bring with you some "I guess so" or "I don't think so" without evidence. I'am fair enough to say "I guess" and "I think" by honesty... and this is because i have no precise data to say "I know", that i say "I guess"... For further "evidences", just uses logic. If the Mig-29 is limited to 5G with central fuel tank, it is obviously for safety reasons according some material resistance factors, and obviously, then, not surprisingly it is same for the Mirage 2000... And, this is perfectly logical. However, what that mean ? Inflicting 9G * ~1.5 tons of tension to some mechanical parts is judged "not safe" for engineers... BUT, that does not means that above "5G" or "6G", everything explode... maybe in fact, the 2000 can pull 7.5/8G with a full 1300L fuel tank without any damage... and maybe the same for Mig-29. For the same reasons, the fuel tank does not magically sustain "9G" just because it is now "empty", this is patently a safety procedure. ( however, some seems to confuse "physics reality" and "safety procedure", as procedures apparently have for them the same value than the gravity constant... )
LuSi_6 Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 think of this, the EF2000 is the first(!) true 9g fighter. Meaning, it can pull 9g with full (internal!) fuel. No 4th gen fighter is allowed to pull that in the same contition. The Mirage pulling 9g with full centerline fuel tank (and therefore full internal load) is very very unlikely. :pilotfly: Warthog HOTAS, Saitek Pedals, Oculus Rift :joystick:
Corsair Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 (edited) Uhm. The Tyffie is not te first fighter capable of pulling 9 G with full internal fuel load... as for its centerline tank, it is also load factor limited. Edited January 2, 2016 by Corsair
RoflSeal Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 Pulling 9G with internal fuel load is nothing special. Pretty sure the first 9G airframe that could pull 9G with heavy payload was the Strike Eagle.
Corsair Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 Pulling 9G with internal fuel load is nothing special. Pretty sure the first 9G airframe that could pull 9G with heavy payload was the Strike Eagle. Not quite certain about that either..
sedenion Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 think of this, the EF2000 is the first(!) true 9g fighter. Meaning, it can pull 9g with full (internal!) fuel. No 4th gen fighter is allowed to pull that in the same contition. As far as i know, many aircraft can pull 9g with full interal fuel... what you say sound strange to me... The Mirage pulling 9g with full centerline fuel tank (and therefore full internal load) is very very unlikely. That is not impossible, physically speaking, but maybe it's not safe for a bunch of reasons. Also, the M2000 can sustain 11g mechanically speaking (how long ? don't know). FCS of the Mirage 2000 to allow 9G manouvring and a roll rate of 270°/sec when configured for air-to-air combat although the pilot can pull an extra 30kg rearward force on the joystick to allow an extra 2G for a total of 11G.Well, as i said before, the main question is about amovible parts: pylons, attach points, etc... in most case, screws or "holes" are what breaks up before the rest.
LuSi_6 Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 As far as i know, many aircraft can pull 9g with full interal fuel... what you say sound strange to me... That is not impossible, physically speaking, but maybe it's not safe for a bunch of reasons. Also, the M2000 can sustain 11g mechanically speaking (how long ? don't know). Well, as i said before, the main question is about amovible parts: pylons, attach points, etc... in most case, screws or "holes" are what breaks up before the rest. well, in RL you want to bring plane and pilot home in a safe way. There's no point if you could do something but then ending up with a grounded airframe because you "over g'd" it. These limits are there to make sure you can fly the plane for many years and not to fly it once or twice :smilewink: :pilotfly: Warthog HOTAS, Saitek Pedals, Oculus Rift :joystick:
Corsair Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 There's no point if you could do something but then ending up with a grounded airframe because you "over g'd" it Well, there's a point in doing so, if you need to save your life (case of a HAF 2000 pulling 14 G, IIRC, resulting in airframe damage and pilot injuries.. but alive).
Azrayen Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 (edited) @ OP, sorry but cross check confirmed that A/A is only allowed when centreline fuel tank is empty. OTOH, CONF should not be triggered in this case (low level sensor inside centerline FT should be taken into account). Bug=>reported. Edited January 5, 2016 by Azrayen
TomCatMucDe Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 Does it make sense to go in the merge and eventually a dogfight with a central tank even if it's empty? With FBW in AA of course.
Corsair Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 Merge can also happen with the wing bags, so yes it makes sense
mvsgas Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 (edited) Has anyone tried to find the manuals for the Mirage 2000C S5? I do not know what to look for, what are the names for this manuals? I ask because on the F-16, the manuals for flight limitations are -1 (e.i. 1F-16CM-1 is the Pilot manual for USAF block 40 to 52 after CCIP modification circa 2008, 1F-16CM-1-1 shows aircraft limitations and 1F-16CM-1-2 is the stores/weapons speed and accelerations limits) F-16 Technical Order (T.O.) manuals/publications will even tell you the specific tail numbers that those manuals can be used for. Would the Mirage 2000C S5 have something similar? Besides the manual posted on the forums. Edited January 3, 2016 by mvsgas To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
Recommended Posts