Mirage 2000 performances

[sedenion]

Hi !

 

Yes, a new troll thread about Mirage 2000 performances... I just tested again (after long time not playing), to be clear, i simply tested a guns only dogfight against a mig-29 (100% fuel, no missils)... and, it is obvious that the Mirage 2000 is now clearly a flying brick... it is even less manoeuvrable than a Su-33, it loses its energy incerdibly quickly, even at low Gs, can barley make a simple loop (without payload !) except with a lot of momentum.

 

Well, i don't know if it is realistic, but, after all the people complaining that the Mirage 2000 was over-powered, all people asking for Nav and AG feature, i hope they are now happy that the Mirage 2000 is at last a good bomber ready for navigation and a balanced competitor for the Mig-21 :D

 

Thanks.

[myHelljumper]

Hi !

 

Yes, a new troll thread about Mirage 2000 performances... I just tested again (after long time not playing), to be clear, i simply tested a guns only dogfight against a mig-29 (100% fuel, no missils)... and, it is obvious that the Mirage 2000 is now clearly a flying brick... it is even less manoeuvrable than a Su-33, it loses its energy incerdibly quickly, even at low Gs, can barley make a simple loop (without payload !) except with a lot of momentum.

 

Well, i don't know if it is realistic, but, after all the people complaining that the Mirage 2000 was over-powered, all people asking for Nav and AG feature, i hope they are now happy that the Mirage 2000 is at last a good bomber ready for navigation and a balanced competitor for the Mig-21 :D

 

Thanks.

 

Have you any data to back you claims ?

 

According to the available data on the 2000 the aircraft performances are very close to the real plane.

 

The mig-29 have a better sustained turn rate, but the 2000 have a better instant turn rate.

 

I do not see how the plane performances have to do with the NAV and AG features.

 

Please, provide us ingame and real data to back your claims or this won't go anywhere...

Edited June 3, 2017 by myHelljumper

[Rex854Warrior]

Hi !

 

Yes, a new troll thread about Mirage 2000 performances... I just tested again (after long time not playing), to be clear, i simply tested a guns only dogfight against a mig-29 (100% fuel, no missils)... and, it is obvious that the Mirage 2000 is now clearly a flying brick... it is even less manoeuvrable than a Su-33, it loses its energy incerdibly quickly, even at low Gs, can barley make a simple loop (without payload !) except with a lot of momentum.

 

Well, i don't know if it is realistic, but, after all the people complaining that the Mirage 2000 was over-powered, all people asking for Nav and AG feature, i hope they are now happy that the Mirage 2000 is at last a good bomber ready for navigation and a balanced competitor for the Mig-21 :D

 

Thanks.

 

Energy loss is due to many more factors then just G's, depends on AoA, speed, power to weight ratio, etc....

In the Mirage it really depends on AoA, high AoA, high drag, high energy loss.

[sedenion]

In the Mirage it really depends on AoA, high AoA, high drag, high energy loss.

 

Juste make a gun's only dogfight against a Mig-29... try it... If for you all is ok, it's ok. Maybe i am a very bad pilot... this is perfectly possible.

[jaguara5]

In my first attempt against a Mig 29A AI (excellent pilot), guns only, i managed easily to kill him.

 

 

Very interesting posts from a real pilot

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12405&sid=a2799eb6b9dd24ac1d0b47cd2af88803&start=15

 

 

Edit - also here, a Mig 29 pilot was not impressed from the M2000

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

vs Mig 29.trk

Edited June 3, 2017 by jaguara5

[sedenion]

In my first attempt against a Mig 29A AI (excellent pilot), guns only, i managed easily to kill him.

 

So, i am a very bad pilot, because the only thing i successfully achieved on my side in three attempts (and verifying my throttle worked correctly) is to lamentablilly crashing on the ground even before the Mig-29 kill me. The Su-27 is to me a far better dogfighter...

 

Case closed.

Edited June 3, 2017 by sedenion

[Oceandar]

I believe you just need more time in M2K after long break as you said. I agree its harder against 29 or 27 in dogfight after RB updates recently but as Jaguara5 said its doable. Give it a chance ;)

 

Cheers

 

Sent from my SM-T211 using Tapatalk

[sedenion]

I believe you just need more time in M2K after long break as you said.

 

More time, or infinite time ? I very quickly reached the state where the Mirage 2000 simply fall without ability to regain energy... Never seen that before, especially without payload !...

[razo+r]

More time, or infinite time ? I very quickly reached the state where the Mirage 2000 simply fall without ability to regain energy... Never seen that before, especially without payload !...

 

AoA above 15 degrees is bad, put the nose down. Those delta wings can act like a very big airbrake with a high AoA.

[sedenion]

AoA above 15 degrees is bad, put the nose down. Those delta wings can act like a very big airbrake with a high AoA.

 

I well understand that... but... i am not sure all is very balanced near 200kts between drag and thrust... because, even at landing, one time, i simply crashed because i losed for one seconds, too much speed, and NO WAY to recover... never seen before too. Ok, Delta wing can act as huge break, OK the M53-P2 is not super-powerfull, but... but...

[razo+r]

There's no but. If you die on approach then it's because you didn't watch the AoA. And of course there is no way to recover from a stall at low altitude. Looks like you need practice in keeping the AoA below the green line

[myHelljumper]

Ok then, case closed.

[jojo]

Edit - also here, a Mig 29 pilot was not impressed from the M2000

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

 

A more positive feedback from a British pilot:

https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2000-pilot-interview-cutting-it-in-the-electric-cakeslice/

[Knock-Knock]

Same Ian Black interview about the Mirage 2000C

[jojo]

Same Ian Black interview about the Mirage 2000C

 

Awesome, that's the video of the interview above :thumbup:

And Ian Black is still wearing the former French Air Force leather flight jacket.:smilewink:

[Hamilton]

A more positive feedback from a British pilot:

https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2000-pilot-interview-cutting-it-in-the-electric-cakeslice/

 

Excelent link man, thanx for posting! :thumbup:

[RED]

Nope

[Tripleinside]

this RAF pilot seemed to like it ...

https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2000-pilot-interview-cutting-it-in-the-electric-cakeslice/

 

considering what i've personally witnessed 2000s do in meetings, and talks i had with a friend who was a mirage 2000C rdm pilot, i too feel they've made a flying brick out of the module.

it doesn't accelerate properly anymore unless in clean configuration, and it can barely take off in "bomb truck" load !

The brakes, and the super 530 are way poorer than they are irl too. my friend would not comment on the RDI radar at all however.

 

All i can tell you is to be super careful with the AOA, and airspeed while dogfighting.

forget lead pursuits or you'll end up in the ditch, prefer lag pursuits as to ease off on the stick.

 

the nimble powerful fighter the Mirage is supposed to be, is no more in DCS, and that's that.

 

In my first attempt against a Mig 29A AI (excellent pilot), guns only, i managed easily to kill him.

 

 

Very interesting posts from a real pilot

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12405&sid=a2799eb6b9dd24ac1d0b47cd2af88803&start=15

 

 

Edit - also here, a Mig 29 pilot was not impressed from the M2000

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

Edited June 3, 2017 by Tripleinside

[sedenion]

and talks i had with a friend who was a mirage 2000C rdm pilot, i too feel they've made a flying brick out of the module.

it doesn't accelerate properly anymore unless in clean configuration, and it can barely take off in "bomb truck" load !

 

Thanks ! Even in clean configuration, the engine seem to be athmatic.

[Fox One]

I performed the following test. With 50% fuel at low altitude, I performed slow horizontal flight with a speed corresponding to an AOA of 20 deg. For both F-15 and Su-27 with the speed close to constant the necessary RPM was about 83-84%. With Mirage 2000 afterburner is needed.

 

How on earth could the difference possibly be that huge? Let's pretend for a moment the Mirage FM is accurate. This would mean the aircraft could only be classified as a disaster and a complete failure. Have you ever seen a relatively recent fighter aircraft of any type needing afterburner to perform slow speed/high AOA flight? The 20 deg AOA figure is actually quite conservative, with the likes of F-16 or Mirage 2000 slow flight is routinely performed at airshows with an AOA in the 25 deg region.

 

I really don't want to hear the "it's a delta/high drag" lecture. Yes it's a delta but not like a Mirage III delta. With the Mirage III performing slow speed/high AOA flight the elevons would be deflected upwards at a pretty considerable angle, effectively dumping lift of the platform and greatly increasing trim drag. Mirage 2000 is a relaxed static stability delta. Performing slow speed/high AOA flight the elevons are close to neutral or even deflected slightly downwards, further increasing lift, as you can clearly see here

 

If the Mirage 2000 was really so draggy and aerodynamically inefficient at an AOA of 20 deg compared with the like of F-15, the designers would have chosen a different aerodynamic scheme. They would have figured that much, that the plane won't be competitive. But the designers knew that a delta with relaxed static stability and a wing with adaptive polar due to use of leading/trailing edge devices/control surfaces can be competitive because trim drag would be reduced very much compared with a Mirage III.

 

Flight models is an incredibly complex and difficult task. Very very few people have the required brainpower to make a decent FM. Sadly the creator of this FM is not one of them.

[gavagai]

I thought we already heard from Cpt Smiley that the high AoA drag of the M2K could be too high...

 

Hi guys, I'm keeping an eye on this and will be looking into it. I believe there to be an issue in too severe of a drag build up both pitch rate derivative coefficients and in alpha rate derivative coefficients at mid to high angles of attack that is causing it. It's fairly complex and need to be graceful how I solve it but just wanted to chime in that I'm on the case

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3113489#post3113489

 

The flight model is WIP and it is going to change again, and again... People have a tendency to assume that the most recent iteration is correct and final, but a quick look at the recent past indicates that to be a naive assumption.

[sedenion]

Flight models is an incredibly complex and difficult task. Very very few people have the required brainpower to make a decent FM. Sadly the creator of this FM is not one of them.

 

I think you are a bit nasty with Razbam ... As you said, FM is hard to do ... But, what you said reminds me that Razbam used some former Mirage III pilot feedbacks to adjust the FM. So, yes, in addition of some error due to an "overshoot" of fit to "data charts" (by creating FM with the ultimate goal to fit with "data charts", you easily forget how the aircraft should fly), they probably used too much Mirage III experience to evaluate the global performance. Anyway, this is only a guess... But i think razbam should relax with "data charts" and takes some time to evaluate the FM in a more global and intuitive way...

 

To me, the Mirage 2000 is now clearly under-powered (by drag, engine, both or whatever, i don't know)... even if some are able to dogfight against Mig-29: The Mig-21 could too, so this is not really the point. The plot is : Why the hell this is SO HARD, and why the Mirage 2000 seem to be barely more powerful and manoeuvrable than a Su-39... which appear clearly anormal for the Mirage 2000.

Edited June 4, 2017 by sedenion

[Tripleinside]

+10000

 

Thanks for the video, it's the same part of the display's program i mentionned in my previous post, but your sample is of better quality.

 

mad AOA, slow speed.... altitude and attitude maintained without the need of after burner at all.

when the burner quicks in, the plane is even able to exit the sequence doing a barrel roll, while our model would be burried in the deck in a similar situation.

 

I agree, our FM is way closer to a Mirage III than a 2000

[Fox One]

The flight model is WIP and it is going to change again, and again... People have a tendency to assume that the most recent iteration is correct and final, but a quick look at the recent past indicates that to be a naive assumption.

 

It's been 1.5 years since this module went "early access". And after 1.5 years what is discussed in this thread I would describe as a VERY MAJOR flight model error. This is not nitpicking. It's an error you don't need any real world diagram to detect; you need just a little common sense. How can you realease a FM version with such aberrant behaviour? Then say "ok guys, I'm on it". You embarrass yourself if you keep doing that every week. Modules made by ED and Belsimtek never went early access with such visible from the Moon flight model inaccuracies. Have you seen any perceptible change in F-5E flight model? Even now this Mirage flight model is still not ready for early access. By now after 1.5 years this FM should be in the "final touches" phase, not with elementary stuff grossly wrong.

 

I think you are a bit nasty with Razbam ...

 

After 1.5 years I think that's enough time to form an opinion, so I don't think I am being too harsh. For 1.5 years this FM was continuously tweaked one way or the other based on what people write on the forum. Right now this FM has ZERO credibility. I intended to write on the forum about several things that are obviously inaccurate, however I gave up. I would be only wasting my time. If the guy making the FM is not competent enough for the job and constantly needs arrows to point him in the right direction because he doesn't figures on his own obvious errors, there's really no hope.

 

I regret very much buying this module. Lesson learned. If the FM of future modules will be made by the same guy, this is definitely my first and last Razbam module. The good side - more money will remain in my pocket.

[sedenion]

After 1.5 years I think that's enough time to form an opinion, so I don't think I am being too harsh. For 1.5 years this FM was continuously tweaked one way or the other based on what people write on the forum. Right now this FM has ZERO credibility.

 

Some months ago, the FM appeared to me relatively okay... but at the same time, some people was complaining about some small innaccuracies with data charts (while beleiving that the "data charts" are the only thing you need to have a "realistic" FM). I think things taken the realy wrong direction from this time, but i was absent for long time, so i don't know.

 

For now, i consider the Mirage 2000 unplayable except for navigation, bombing and BVR (only BVR!)... but, to me this is NOT a mirage 2000, even if i never piloted a real M2k... this is something else, an aircraft that is clearly unable for dogfight.

Edited June 4, 2017 by sedenion