Mig-21bis is now faster then Mirage-2000C In 2.0

[Rlaxoxo]

I think Razbam overdid the engine performance and drag fixes a bit

 

Up high 9,000 - 11,500 I could barely hit Mach 2.05 (1040 Kph IAS)

 

In Mig-21 If I don't slow down I hit the wall of Mach 2.3 (1290 Kph IAS) and flame out my engine

 

At low altitude basically what's happening is the following ...

 

Mirage is accelerating quite nicely and then after you reach the 1140 Km/h IAS you hit a brick invisible wall and instantly slow down to 1160 - 1170 Km/h IAS and that's your top speed

___

Clean config 100% fuel

 

Here's the pictures

 

#1 - Low altitude max speed - Mig2-1bis

I could go 30 kph faster but my engine died

 

#2 - High altitude max speed - Mig-21bis(IAS)

 

#3 - High altitude max speed - Mig-21bis(TAS)

It was a bit higher The engine turned off while i was taking the screenshot

 

________

#1 Mirage - Low altitude max speed (IAS)

 

#2 Mirage - High altitude max speed (IAS)

 

#3 Mirage - High altitude max speed (TAS)

Edited January 16, 2016 by Rlaxoxo

[Corsair]

Payload ? Setup ? Figures ?

 

..details ?

[Brisse]

Maybe, but it was over-performing A LOT before, and don't forget they added transonic drag now too.

 

Here's how much the envelope was off before:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2627991&postcount=135

 

It seems much closer to the blue envelope now. I haven't done any super serious testing yet, but I was barely able to supercruise with a clean aircraft at 35 000ft which seems to be correct behaviour.

 

Performance at sea level seemed a bit underwhelming though. Barely able to go supersonic at full afterburner. Haven't looked at real envelope how it should be though.

 

Edit: Did they remove the charts from the manual? I can't find them...

Edited January 15, 2016 by Brisse

[Hook47]

I think you overdid the engine performance and drag fixes

 

Need more data on your configuration. In certain setting the MiG may eclipse the speed of the M2000, especially in EAB and at SL

[Brisse]

Just finished this graph. Does look a little underperforming at high altitude. Wasn't able to sustain flight at 45 000ft. It's still much closer than previous version though.

 

 

Note: It will supercruise at certain altitudes if you use the AB to punch through the transsonic region, but I didn't bother to put it in my graph.

[Santi871]

Just finished this graph. Does look a little underperforming at high altitude. Wasn't able to sustain flight at 45 000ft. It's still much closer than previous version though.

 

 

Note: It will supercruise at certain altitudes if you use the AB to punch through the transsonic region, but I didn't bother to put it in my graph.

 

 

I would swap the x and y axes of your graph.

[il_corleone]

Yep, a little underperforming on high alt, but it is really closer to the real thing than before! hats off!

[Brisse]

I would swap the x and y axes of your graph.

 

Sorry, I did it like that on purpose because I also posted it in another thread where I wanted to compare it to a graph another forum member did before the update and he had the axes like this. It's easier to make direct comparisons between the two that way.

[grunf]

Sorry, I did it like that on purpose because I also posted it in another thread where I wanted to compare it to a graph another forum member did before the update and he had the axes like this. It's easier to make direct comparisons between the two that way.

No need to swap the axes, it's a standard H-M diagram, or at least half of it. :D

[Rlaxoxo]

I just did a side by side comparison with a friend Mig-21 vs Mirage

 

We were both around 700 Kph going straight at 3,000 meters

 

On 3 we punched in full AFB and Mig-21 went off like a rocket and out-accelerated Mirage like it was nothing

 

And to top that off I had higher top speed then

 

Mig-21bis - 1270 Kph - Top speed IAS

Mirage - 1145 Kph - Top speed

 

I'll upload a video shortly

[TomCatMucDe]

seems like the MiG needs an FM update

[cauldron]

I just did a side by side comparison with a friend Mig-21 vs Mirage

 

We were both around 700 Kph going straight at 3,000 meters

 

On 3 we punched in full AFB and Mig-21 went off like a rocket and out-accelerated Mirage like it was nothing

 

And to top that off I had higher top speed then

 

Mig-21bis - 1270 Kph - Top speed IAS

Mirage - 1145 Kph - Top speed

 

I'll upload a video shortly

 

Sounds like either RAZBAM got it right, or MIG21has it wrong, FC3 also seem to be "too" fast. So, the hard question to answer is, balance ie. a dcs standard or realism of one module vs non-realism "other" modules. Or, maybe the correction to M2000 was slightly over-done? Hard to say.

Edited January 15, 2016 by cauldron

[Brisse]

Rlaxoxo's results may very well be realistic.

 

I calculated the thrust to weight ratios of both aircraft at gross weight.

 

MiG-21bis

8 725 kg

71 kN static thrust with afterburner

T/W = 71000/(8725*9.81)= 0.83

 

M2000-C

13 800 kg

95.1 kN static thrust with afterburner

T/W = 95100/(13800*9.81)= 0.70

[grunf]

Rlaxoxo's results may very well be realistic.

 

I calculated the thrust to weight ratios of both aircraft at gross weight.

 

MiG-21bis

8 725 kg

71 kN static thrust with afterburner

T/W = 71000/(8725*9.81)= 0.83

 

M2000-C

13 800 kg

95.1 kN static thrust with afterburner

T/W = 95100/(13800*9.81)= 0.70

Mig also has an emergency afterburner, maybe he had it turned on. IIRC it provides 95kN :D

[Rlaxoxo]

Rlaxoxo's results may very well be realistic.

 

I calculated the thrust to weight ratios of both aircraft at gross weight.

 

MiG-21bis

8 725 kg

71 kN static thrust with afterburner

T/W = 71000/(8725*9.81)= 0.83

 

M2000-C

13 800 kg

95.1 kN static thrust with afterburner

T/W = 95100/(13800*9.81)= 0.70

 

So you're saying Mig should be faster then Mirage acceleration wise?

 

Doesn't make sense

[OxideMako]

So you're saying Mig should be faster then Mirage acceleration wise?

 

Doesn't make sense

 

Unless the drag of a MiG-21 is significantly higher than a Mirage, yes. Thrust/Weight ratio is quite important for acceleration.

[Brisse]

Mig also has an emergency afterburner, maybe he had it turned on. IIRC it provides 95kN :D

 

97 kN at full emergency afterburner

 

Source:

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, page 39, By Alexander Mladenov,Adam Tooby

 



Let's do that calculation again :)

 

T/W = 97000/(8725*9.81)= 1.13

[hesterj]

Wow, seems that other countries would be better off just copying the Mig-21 and upgrading the avionics and weapons for a better plane, rather than trying to produce their own aircraft.

[ttaylor0024]

Wow, seems that other countries would be better off just copying the Mig-21 and upgrading the avionics and weapons for a better plane, rather than trying to produce their own aircraft.

 

There are more factors than that. Wouldn't be very useful for an aircraft to only be able to fly 30-45m sorties for most countries.

 

EDIT: Got some numbers for you guys to think about how the aircraft is supposed to be accelerating.

 

Per the manual, the SNECMA M53-P2 produces 21,400lbs thrust with afterburner

 

Configurations of the aircraft:

 

Max Takeoff weight = 37,500lbs = 0.57

Drop tank, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 27,908lbs = 0.77

NO droptank, 100% fuel, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 25,408lbs = 0.84

70% fuel, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 23,316lbs = 0.92

50% Fuel, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 21,921lbs = 0.98

Edited January 15, 2016 by ttaylor0024

[cauldron]

Ok, i'm going to validate Brisse's tests. So far the "transonic" drag seems to be supersonic drag as well. I'll post a graph soon. Remember Transonic is usually from ~M.85 ish up to M1.0 ONLY. the lower side depends on wing and fuselage design (ie area rule etc.) of when transonic drag effects start occurring.

 

But preliminary tests show that at 32000ft M2000 from M1.4 when reduced to MIL power falls back to M.9 even in the following condition: 50% fuel CLEAN - no tanks bombs or missiles.

 

 

Brisse, check your graph again, its half done only, and the supersonic side has some definite "issues". RAZBAM, i think your transonic drag fix carried over to the supersonic side ;)

Edited January 15, 2016 by cauldron

[cauldron]

97 kN at full emergency afterburner

 

Source:

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, page 39, By Alexander Mladenov,Adam Tooby

 



Let's do that calculation again :)

 

T/W = 97000/(8725*9.81)= 1.13

 

Brisse, that's static thrust rating right? As the MIG21 & M2000 go faster and faster the drag on the MIG21 starts to degrade its performance significantly in comparison.

[jojo]

Rlaxoxo's results may very well be realistic.

 

I calculated the thrust to weight ratios of both aircraft at gross weight.

 

MiG-21bis

8 725 kg

71 kN static thrust with afterburner

T/W = 71000/(8725*9.81)= 0.83

 

M2000-C

13 800 kg

95.1 kN static thrust with afterburner

T/W = 95100/(13800*9.81)= 0.70

 

What are the loads of the planes ?

 

Because your Mirage weight is higher than a full AA load with 4 missiles and fuel tank.

 

BTW the Mirage can carry more load, and its AA missile are heavier.

Edited January 15, 2016 by jojo

[ttaylor0024]

What are the loads of the planes ?

 

Because you're Mirage weight is higher than a full AA load with 4 missiles and fuel tank.

 

BTW the Mirage can carry more load, and its AA missile are heavier.

 

Just edited my previous post, but fits here so I'll repost for visibility.

 

 

Per the manual, the SNECMA M53-P2 produces 21,400lbs thrust with afterburner

 

Configurations of the aircraft:

 

Max Takeoff weight = 37,500lbs = 0.57

Drop tank, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 27,908lbs = 0.77

NO droptank, 100% fuel, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 25,408lbs = 0.84

70% fuel, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 23,316lbs = 0.92

50% Fuel, 2x 530D, 2x Magic = 21,921lbs = 0.98

 

530Ds weigh 606lbs, Magics weigh 196lbs

 

 

MiG-21 Thrust 97KN with EAB, max takeoff weight 10,400KG. Thrust to weight at max takeoff- 0.93

 

You also have to remember that the MiG has ~5min of EAB time if I remember correctly, then it all changes.

Edited January 15, 2016 by ttaylor0024

[Rlaxoxo]

There is to much drag In mirage atm I can feel it

 

When you ran out of gas and you try to glide you super slow down to 300 kph

 

In an F-15 you can glide pretty efficiently around 600 kph or lower but with the mirage now I fly like a brick

 

Here's the pictures

 

#1 - Low altitude max speed - Mig2-1bis

I could go 30 kph faster but my engine died

 

#2 - High altitude max speed - Mig-21bis(IAS)

 

#3 - High altitude max speed - Mig-21bis(TAS)

It was a bit higher The engine turned off while i was taking the screenshot

 

________

#1 Mirage - Low altitude max speed (IAS)

 

#2 Mirage - High altitude max speed (IAS)

 

#3 Mirage - High altitude max speed (TAS)

[Brisse]

But preliminary tests show that at 32000ft M2000 from M1.4 when reduced to MIL power falls back to M.9 even in the following condition: 50% fuel CLEAN - no tanks bombs or missiles.

 

 

Brisse, check your graph again, its half done only...

 

Really? I'm pretty certain my numbers are right. Are you sure you are at MIL power, and not 85% or something? My numbers are the ones who are closer to the real flight envelope after all, and I didn't even cross check that until after I was done with my graph.

 

Brisse, that's static thrust rating right? As the MIG21 & M2000 go faster and faster the drag on the MIG21 starts to degrade its performance significantly in comparison.

 

Of course. It would be hard to obtain dynamic data for me to use and I didn't mean to do any serious work. It was just meant as a little hint to show Rlaxoxo that what he saw in his fairly unscientific test (drag race!) wasn't completely unreasonable.

 

What are the loads of the planes ?

 

Because your Mirage weight is higher than a full AA load with 4 missiles and fuel tank.

 

BTW the Mirage can carry more load, and its AA missile are heavier.

 

I just used the gross weight from each DCS manual. Maybe that was reckless of me. Should have fired up the mission editor and fetch my numbers from there using similar configurations.

 

Clean config 100% fuel:

M2000-C T/W = 0.89

MiG-21bis T/W = 1.15 (with em AB)

 

So the relative T/W is still similar to my last calculations when I used gross weight from each manual.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Brisse