Mirage supercruising?

[Veritech]

A couple fo days back I was RTB with 2000lb of fuel and two Magics under my wings at aproximately 7000 feet and I was steady at Mach 1 with full military thrust. Is that even possible? I didn't save the track, but I will next time i see it. Has it happened to anybody out there?

[Eddie]

Achieving transonic speeds at mil power in low drag configurations is perfectly normal for most 4th Gen fighters, and it's not supercruise.

[Rlaxoxo]

Just because you can hit mach 1.0 - 1.1 don't mean you're supercrusing

[GGTharos]

What Eddie said, and:

 

You're actually in the transonic area of flight, because not airflow around the aircraft is supersonic.

 

The military definition of supercruise demands not just speed >= M1, it requires that it:

 

1) Be efficient (so, no AB for example)

2) Provide significant tactical advantage in terms of changing the pace of combat.

3) Do it all with a useful combat load.

 

In this case, IMHO you'll definitely fail #2 since M0.95 -> M1.0 doesn't really change things, and you're probably not hauling a tactically useful payload ... so no, you're not supercruising :)

 

A couple fo days back I was RTB with 2000lb of fuel and two Magics under my wings at aproximately 7000 feet and I was steady at Mach 1 with full military thrust. Is that even possible? I didn't save the track, but I will next time i see it. Has it happened to anybody out there?

[Veritech]

What Eddie said, and:

 

You're actually in the transonic area of flight, because not airflow around the aircraft is supersonic.

 

The military definition of supercruise demands not just speed >= M1, it requires that it:

 

1) Be efficient (so, no AB for example)

2) Provide significant tactical advantage in terms of changing the pace of combat.

3) Do it all with a useful combat load.

 

In this case, IMHO you'll definitely fail #2 since M0.95 -> M1.0 doesn't really change things, and you're probably not hauling a tactically useful payload ... so no, you're not supercruising :)

 

I do fail number #2 but the aircraft was in horizontal flight with no AB engaged at Mach 1.0/1.1 at times.

 

So far I couldn't met that performance by the Flanker in any of its variables regarding Weight and Altitude.

 

Thanks for the answer!

[Esac_mirmidon]

And is normal to hit 1000 knots at sea level with AB on?

 

Clean configuration and 100% internal fuel.

 

 

[Veritech]

And is normal to hit 1000 knots at sea level with AB on?

 

Clean configuration and 100% internal fuel.

 

 

 

690 Mph max at low altitude regarding Wikipedia. Yes, I know, you can't rely too much on it, can't you? But any other source out there would tell you that.

 

I do love the module, can't stop flying the M2000 even though it gets kicked in the ass in open terrain due to shorter range of its missiles, but I do think that the flight module should be adjusted, adding as well that the behavior at low speed and ground handling and behaviour while on the tarmac does not look too realistic. Seems that the aircraft floats while taxing.

 

I know tweaking the behavior at slower speeds could/wil?l affect the rest of the model, but I don't mind waiting as long we get the closest thing to reality.

[jojo]

1st- M-2000C speed indications are Mach number and knots, so please lets forget km/h and mph.

2nd- I already answered about SL top speed

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2919153&postcount=13

 

And there already is a whole subject about it.

 

Obviously some tweaking are necessary.

[Esac_mirmidon]

More than some tweaking.

 

1.1 Mach to 1.52 at sea level is a LOT more.

[Rlaxoxo]

More than some tweaking.

 

1.1 Mach to 1.52 at sea level is a LOT more.

 

If you try on the latest 2.0 patch you can't go more then 700 knots

[Esac_mirmidon]

Thats good news.

 

I´m totally amazed with the M-2000C. And with every patch the improvements are simply great.

 

PD: Sorry. The same in the last 2.0.3 version.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by Esac_mirmidon

[Rlaxoxo]

Thats good news.

 

I´m totally amazed with the M-2000C. And with every patch the improvements are simply great.

 

PD: Sorry. The same in the last 2.0.3 version.

 

What the hell?

 

I can't go above 1290 kph at ground level ...

[Esac_mirmidon]

Default 2.0

 

No mods, stock instalation.

 

PD: I´ve run a Repair of my DCS 2.0.3, uninstal my Mirage 2000-C module and intalling again on a fresh and clean DCS version.

 

The same. 1000 knots at SL with AB On.

 

If anyone could test the same in Nevada to be sure it´s not only me.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Esac_mirmidon

[vparez]

Whats the temperature and altitude? Is the water on Nevada at sea level or a bit higher? Maybe that could explain the difference with my max of 993 kt over Black Sea in t=20degC.

[Esac_mirmidon]

i´m using the river south Las Vegas, plain terrain, T 20º, roughly 1.500 feet.

[vparez]

So, if the HUD velocity is TAS, then your slightly higher max velocity is in line with the higher altitude you are testing it on. Which would be logical if the 1.54 and 2.0 FMs are identical (I guess they are?) So this is the same story as in the other much bigger thread. We should just be a little patient and I am sure there will be more tuning of the FM before release.

[ZHeN]

one more thing I'd like to add on supercruising issue:

 

@ 40k feet when I reach 2.2M with full AB and then pull throttle to full mil, Mirage keeps going supersonic for incredibly long time. Not just ~1M/1.01M, but 1.8M-1.9M - that's a real tactical advantage (especially taking into consideration the fact that at such high altitudes engine consumes very small amounts of fuel - fuel flow @ 26-27) - I've run away like that from F-15C yesterday during online battle :D

Edited October 10, 2016 by ZHeN

[Veritech]

one more thing I'd like to add on supercruising issue:

 

@ 40k feet when I reach 2.2M with full AB and then pull throttle to full mil, Mirage keeps going supersonic for incredibly long time. Not just ~1M/1.01M, but 1.8M-1.9M - that's a real tactical advantage (especially taking into consideration the fact that at such high altitudes engine consumes very small amounts of fuel - fuel flow @ 26-27) - I've run away like that from F-15C yesterday during online battle :D

 

Which brings down to th epoint where we do need an improvement of the FM, not only regarding top speed but as well with slow speed performance as well. Anyways, the module is still on beta, let'/ hope it gets perfected before release.

 

PD: can't wait for the campaign!

[Esac_mirmidon]

So it´s not only me to be able to hit 1000 knots on DCS 2.0 at 450 meters height.

 

Because Rlaxoxo is only able to hit 1290 kph, and i´m reaching 1850 kph.

[Rlaxoxo]

So it´s not only me to be able to hit 1000 knots on DCS 2.0 at 450 meters height.

 

Because Rlaxoxo is only able to hit 1290 kph, and i´m reaching 1850 kph.

 

I changed the mission and put 100% fuel clean load and I managed to hit 1000 knots as well

 

I guess it was bug with older missions or something not sure

[Esac_mirmidon]

Thanks for take time to test it, Rlaxoxo.

 

In my case a new mission created with the editor. Not an older one.

[gospadin]

So, if the HUD velocity is TAS, then your slightly higher max velocity is in line with the higher altitude you are testing it on. Which would be logical if the 1.54 and 2.0 FMs are identical (I guess they are?) So this is the same story as in the other much bigger thread. We should just be a little patient and I am sure there will be more tuning of the FM before release.

 

TAS vs IAS at 1500' won't be that big of a difference

[gospadin]

I changed the mission and put 100% fuel clean load and I managed to hit 1000 knots as well

 

I guess it was bug with older missions or something not sure

 

If that's the case, could be they were calculating weight incorrectly from some weapons that have since been tweaked, or something similar like the "negative weight from the fuel in the left external tank" bug from a few months ago.

[Esac_mirmidon]

I was flying CLEAN.

 

Look at the pics.

[gospadin]

I understand that. I was purely suggesting a similar sort of math typo.