Mirage 2000 outturning F-18 at low speed- is that accurate?

[Kercheiz]

12 minutes ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

You didn't mention anything about the engine! Did you manage to windmill restart it from 200KIAS or glided home?

He's citing Ian Black, he's not him

He likely only lost the afterburner (and this may be a safety from the FADEC), not a full flameout.
The backwards slide stunt has been done in airshows, and they don't flame out.

 

[myHelljumper]

19 minutes ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

I like how people like you throw all sorts of statements out of their own imagination with little knowledge. Deltas not stalling eh? Well, you've said "stall speed". Well, for the sake of what you understand, actually no other wing has a stall speed, because the stall has the only correct definition it was born with at the beginning of aviation, not the derived and wrongly understood definitions that they teach you at flight school! If you have some basic knowledge of aerodynamics, what is a stalled condition by definition? Let's see your answer!

Now, an F-18 can maintain 1G even when flying as slow as 80 KCAS (yes, at a lower weight) and of course can slowly maneuver in roll-yaw at the same time, but your wannabe M-2000 lover can't do that without going constantly under 1G when flying below 100KCAS even if being 2 seconds away from fuel starvation. I'm talking facts not biased imagination! The F-16 can also hold 90KCAS for the same condition, again with better handling characteristics even than those of the F-18, not to mention how well above those of the M-2000. Indeed the delta wings (including those of the F-16) perform a bit better (not tremendous, but it counts) at higher and higher altitudes due to small details with big effects, such as the Reynolds number which favors the deltas and provide a somewhat increased L/D ratio compared to denser air, but I don't wanna go off-topic for these details.

3 year flaming necro, how nice.

Please be nice to people, your behavior here is not constructive and I will lock the topic if the flame war resumes.

If you have issue with the Mirage FM please create a post/bug report with a video/track of the behavior and your sources showing the behavior incorrect.

Thanks.

[Maverick Su-35S]

On 7/15/2018 at 12:04 AM, Aries144 said:

I flew some 1 vs 1 dogfights against 5 or six other players the other night. Fights begin after the merge. 2 heat seeking missiles and guns. I flew against F-15s, Su-27s, and F-18s. I beat them all with no losses- and I'm not that good.

 

I was able to out turn and out accelerate the F-18s at speeds as low as 110 knots, which I found strange.

 

Is the current flight performance accurate or is there an issue?

 

The answer is...NO, it is an issue regarding the M-2000's lift coefficient + engine thrust tables. As I've also tested many years ago (still not fixed correctly to this day and probably will never be if you and I don't seem to care about it).

1. @ 28.5 AoA, the M-2000 aerodynamically produces a 1.65 in terms of maximum lift coefficient (one of the most important numbers for tight turns and low radius) as opposed to the real aircraft's almost 1.3 maximum lift coef at that AoA. So it already overperforms in terms of lift. Just the fact that it can do a Split-S with 50% fuel in roughly 500m turn radius says enough. In a horizontal turn it will obviously be much lower somewhere in the 400m margin which is absurd.

2. The engine thrust is overrated for both MIL and full AB exactly as it was initially left that way. It's a DIY test to compare it in DCS with the F-15 or F-16 which have a correct forward acceleration and you'll see how good it accelerates and keeps up with them and even outaccelerates them in the vertical like a rocket, thing which is totally abnormal considering it's real thrust to weight ratio which is very low for modern fighters, around 0.7 with regular loadout versus above mentioned ones which have it near 1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000#Specifications_(Mirage_2000)

I'm already sick of this subject so I'll let you judge it on your own! This aircraft needs big attention from those who modeled it's FM as well as it's flight controls system which turns out to have erratic behavior in various conditions as the following tracks can provide:

M-2000 maximum lift coef if now 1.65 instead of initial 1.9, but still far from the real maximum 1.3 at 30AoA.acmi

M-2000 maximum lift coef if now 1.65 instead of initial 1.9, but still far from the real maximum 1.3 at 30AoA.trk

3 hours ago, Kercheiz said:

He's citing Ian Black, he's not him

He likely only lost the afterburner (and this may be a safety from the FADEC), not a full flameout.
The backwards slide stunt has been done in airshows, and they don't flame out.

 

Copy that! Thanks a lot for this info;).

2 hours ago, myHelljumper said:

3 year flaming necro, how nice.

Please be nice to people, your behavior here is not constructive and I will lock the topic if the flame war resumes.

If you have issue with the Mirage FM please create a post/bug report with a video/track of the behavior and your sources showing the behavior incorrect.

Thanks.

Sorry for your misinterpretation, but I'm actually very constructive in telling what's wrong. I'm respectful and looking forward for the benefit of DCS, NOT it's drawbacks as people like you and other actually tend to think. The way I'm treated by some who don't want to listen, verify or learn is actually the one non-constructive, sorry!

Thank you as well!

Edited October 30, 2022 by Maverick Su-35S
Uploaded a wrong acmi file

[Kercheiz]

2 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

The answer is...NO, it is an issue regarding the M-2000's lift coefficient + engine thrust tables. As I've also tested many years ago (still not fixed correctly to this day and probably will never be if you and I don't seem to care about it).

1. @ 28.5 AoA, the M-2000 aerodynamically produces a 1.65 in terms of maximum lift coefficient (one of the most important numbers for tight turns and low radius) as opposed to the real aircraft's almost 1.3 maximum lift coef at that AoA. So it already overperforms in terms of lift.

2. The engine thrust is overrated for both MIL and full AB exactly as it was initially left that way. It's a DIY test to compare it in DCS with the F-15 or F-16 which have a correct forward acceleration and you'll see how good it accelerates and keeps up with them and even outaccelerates them in the vertical like a rocket, thing which is totally abnormal considering it's real thrust to weight ratio which is very low for modern fighters, around 0.7 with regular loadout versus above mentioned ones which have it near 1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000#Specifications_(Mirage_2000)

I'm already sick of this subject so I'll let you judge it on your own! This aircraft needs big attention from those who modeled it's FM as well as it's flight controls system which turns out to have erratic behavior in various conditions as the following tracks can provide:

M-2000 maximum lift coef if now 1.65 instead of initial 1.9, but still far from the real maximum 1.3 at 30AoA.acmi 646.13 kB · 0 downloads

M-2000 maximum lift coef if now 1.65 instead of initial 1.9, but still far from the real maximum 1.3 at 30AoA.trk 3.86 MB · 1 download

Copy that! Thanks a lot for this info;).

Sorry for your misinterpretation, but I'm actually very constructive in telling what's wrong. I'm respectful and looking forward for the benefit of DCS, NOT it's drawbacks as people like you and other actually tend to think. The way I'm treated by some who don't want to listen, verify or learn is actually the one non-constructive, sorry!

Thank you as well!

 

No, lift coefficient at 28.50 AoA is 1.40 with slats fully deployed. I don't know where you get this data from.

When it comes to static thrust, the acceleration (Jx coefficient in HUD) is exactly where it should be for every loadout.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Kercheiz

[Maverick Su-35S]

1 hour ago, Kercheiz said:

No, lift coefficient at 28.50 AoA is 1.40 with slats fully deployed. I don't know where you get this data from.

When it comes to static thrust, the acceleration (Jx coefficient in HUD) is exactly where it should be for every loadout.

 

Jx coef in HUD for determining acceleration? That means you consider the thrust minus drag? What if the drag is also too high? If you'd want to analyze the "static thrust" parameter alone in a sim to not be affected by drag you'd really want to know your exact weight, start a climb from as close to sea level as possible at critical AoA (for lowest radius) and go perfectly into the vertical at zero G while reducing thrust to idle to not climb too much from sea level altitudes then go to full AB such that when it comes on your airspeed will be close to zero (get used to do it right) so that you could simulate a static thrust on the plane and if you have set a plane weight which matches the engines thrust, then you should be having the plane's X acceleration close to zero. The weight force is your engines thrust. Tweak the weight of the plane and redo the test until it equals the max AB thrust into the vertical near zero airspeed close to sea level.

Now..., you don't know how to calculate a lift coefficient based on the lift formula?

Here is how:

(Weight * lift axis G load) / (0.5 * velocity^2 * ref. area).

Do that using actual sim data and you'll get around 1.65 and at lower speed even more than 1.75. It's not my words, it's the numbers, go check them out.

Here are 2 good fresh tracks:

1.65 for DCS M-2000 CL max not 1.4, not a realistic 1.3.acmi

DCS M-2000 maximum lift coef of 1.65.trk

Regards!

Edited October 30, 2022 by Maverick Su-35S

[myHelljumper]

46 minutes ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

Jx coef in HUD for determining acceleration? That means you consider the thrust minus drag? What if the drag is also too high? If you'd want to analyze the "static thrust" parameter alone in a sim to not be affected by drag you'd really want to know your exact weight, start a climb from as close to sea level as possible at critical AoA (for lowest radius) and go perfectly into the vertical at zero G while reducing thrust to idle to not climb too much from sea level altitudes then go to full AB such that when it comes on your airspeed will be close to zero (get used to do it right) so that you could simulate a static thrust on the plane and if you have set a plane weight which matches the engines thrust, then you should be having the plane's X acceleration close to zero. The weight force is your engines thrust. Tweak the weight of the plane and redo the test until it equals the max AB thrust into the vertical near zero airspeed close to sea level.

Now..., you don't know how to calculate a lift coefficient based on the lift formula?

Here is how:

(Weight * lift axis G load) / (0.5 * velocity^2 * ref. area).

Do that using actual sim data and you'll get around 1.65 and at lower speed even more than 1.75. It's not my words, it's the numbers, go check them out.

Here are 2 good fresh tracks:

1.65 for DCS M-2000 CL max not 1.4, not a realistic 1.3.acmi 396 kB · 0 downloads

DCS M-2000 maximum lift coef of 1.65.trk 2.35 MB · 0 downloads

Regards!

 

It's not like Kercheiz wrote the FM .

4 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

real aircraft's almost 1.3 maximum lift coef at that AoA

Can we ask for a source or is that common knowledge ?

4 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

The engine thrust is overrated for both MIL and full AB exactly as it was initially left that way

Can we also have a source on that ? Because we used some publicly available documents that details the M53-P2 thrust and consumption curves to create the engine. We reduced its thrust compared to the document as they didn't take some limitation into account so if anything it can be slightly underperforming.

4 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

It's a DIY test to compare it in DCS with the F-15 or F-16

How do you know how the 2000 is supposed to perform compared to these aircraft ?

4 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

which turns out to have erratic behavior in various conditions

Can you create a separate bug report with tracks or videos that highlight these CDVE issues ?

46 minutes ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

What if the drag is also too high

Drag was tuned using SME feedback as well as know procedures like the engine out glide and landing procedure, will you also tell us that this is incorrect ?

46 minutes ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

Now..., you don't know how to calculate a lift coefficient based on the lift formula?

If you want to have a constructive discussion, drop the superiority tone.

4 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

Sorry for your misinterpretation, but I'm actually very constructive in telling what's wrong. I'm respectful and looking forward for the benefit of DCS, NOT it's drawbacks as people like you and other actually tend to think. The way I'm treated by some who don't want to listen, verify or learn is actually the one non-constructive, sorry!

I'm not the only one that is finding you unconstructive here, maybe everyone is not wrong and maybe the issue is your tone, I really don't want to close this topic but it's only up to you.

Edited October 30, 2022 by myHelljumper

[Despayre]

29 minutes ago, myHelljumper said:

It's not like Kercheiz wrote the FM .

Can we ask for a source or is that common knowledge ?

Can we also have a source on that ? Because we used some publicly available documents that details the M53-P2 thrust and consumption curves to create the engine. We reduced its thrust compared to the document as they didn't take some limitation into account so if anything it can be slightly underperforming.

How do you know how the 2000 is supposed to perform compared to these aircraft ?

Can you create a separate bug report with tracks or videos that highlight these CDVE issues ?

Drag was tuned using SME feedback as well as know procedures like the engine out glide and landing procedure, will you also tell us that this is incorrect ?

If you want to have a constructive discussion, drop the superiority tone.

I'm not the only one that is finding you unconstructive here, maybe everyone is not wrong and maybe the issue is your tone, I really don't want to close this topic but it's only up to you.

 

Yup, I noticed that too... a whole lot more assumptions went into that OPINION of the FM than into the ACTUAL FM I suspect... but of course, that's only my opinion.

 

Also, the assumption that just because someone arrived at a different conclusion than someone else, does not engage the need to sound like a jerk and talk down to others while trying to explain high school level math, ie, "Now..., you don't know how to calculate a lift coefficient based on the lift formula?" Ya, I'm sure no one on the dev team has any idea how to do that math. I guess it just never occurred to them that they'd need that for a flight model on a jet aircraft ...

[Kercheiz]

1 hour ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

(Weight * lift axis G load) / (0.5 * velocity^2 * ref. area).

 

Dear Sir,

You forgot air density...

And guess what, if you divide your result (1.65) by 1.225 (approx air density at sea level) you find 1.34

[Vyacheslav]

Hello, I noticed something.
At an altitude of 15 km, the Mirage 2000 accelerates to 2330 km / h (2 magic, 2 R530 and a fuel tank).
At the same time, the F-15 with similar suspensions (2 aim-9, 2 aim-7 and 1 fuel tank) at the same height accelerates only to 2100 km / h.

It seemed strange to me.

"Приветствую, заметил кое что.
На высоте 15 км Мираж 2000 разгоняется до 2330 км/ч (2 мажик, 2 Р530 и топливный бак).
При этом Ф-15 при аналогичных подвесках(2 айм-9, 2 айм-7 и 1 топливный бак) на этой же высоте разгоняется только до 2100 км/ч.

Мне показалось это странным".

[yami]

Are you sure about those speeds? At FL500 you can “only“ achieve around 576 kn (1066,752 km/h) CAS because going any faster would exceed Mirage’s M_MO of Mach 2,25.

Edited April 12, 2023 by yami
small typographic fix

[Kercheiz]

21 hours ago, Vyacheslav said:

Hello, I noticed something.
At an altitude of 15 km, the Mirage 2000 accelerates to 2330 km / h (2 magic, 2 R530 and a fuel tank).
At the same time, the F-15 with similar suspensions (2 aim-9, 2 aim-7 and 1 fuel tank) at the same height accelerates only to 2100 km / h.

It seemed strange to me.

"Приветствую, заметил кое что.
На высоте 15 км Мираж 2000 разгоняется до 2330 км/ч (2 мажик, 2 Р530 и топливный бак).
При этом Ф-15 при аналогичных подвесках(2 айм-9, 2 айм-7 и 1 топливный бак) на этой же высоте разгоняется только до 2100 км/ч.

Мне показалось это странным".

Is that M2.25?

If yes, that's not really surprising. At its max speed, the mirage 2000 is not limited by thrust and drag, but by shock cone intake (shockwaves are not properly stopped to the compressor) and thermal damage. Pilots feedback to this is, it's able to go faster, but it's forbidden.
In DCS the thermal damage (canopy, nosecone...) was not modelled. The shock cone limitation is modelled simply by a simple compressor ratio collapse, so the acceleration stops at M2.25 ; in real life this would be likely more complex (possible compressor damage, stall, or engine going into destructive scramjet mode)

In any way, the Mirage 2000C is not thrust limited to M2.25.

[Thinder]

On 4/1/2019 at 5:46 PM, FSKRipper said:

 

Ah, napkin math at work again. Began to miss you during the last months

 

But its April fools day so maybe I was wrong in taking you for real...

Yeah, looks much like Mirage 2000 bashing.

His definition of the word stall says it all, in the case of the Mirage, the stall doesn't occur because the boundary layer doesn't depart, it must be spoken of sink speed instead, at which the aircraft will still fly but the drag/thrust ratio will become negative and the vertical speed will follow, and that's not fanboy aerodynamics but Mirage 2000 pilot talk. (Fighter pilot podtcast).

Just remind him that the RAZBAM module is used by the Armee de l'Air for training at squadron level, so the notion of the flight model not been as accurate as it can be  declassified flies through the window.

Another fact: Mirage 2000 pilot doesn't fear the F-18 or F-16, they will win 90% of their engagement on the first few seconds of the fight on instantaneous turn only, and know better than be dragged at high AoA/low speed simply because it is the first thing they learn once assigned to their squadrons.

And to put an end to this funny rhetorics, I will mention an extract of Rafale flight testing where it is mentioned that aggressive Rafale pilots flew it in combat vs the 2000 at speed below 20kt, (yes sir, 18 kt to be precise)), and during the DACT vs F-22, the Rafale pilot who didn't come from an air defense squadron (all green at the time) could turn and roll at 80kt.

Please talk again about derived and wrongly understood definitions and elaborate on how a delta can do this...

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Thinder

[Thinder]

On 7/14/2018 at 10:04 PM, Aries144 said:

I flew some 1 vs 1 dogfights against 5 or six other players the other night. Fights begin after the merge. 2 heat seeking missiles and guns. I flew against F-15s, Su-27s, and F-18s. I beat them all with no losses- and I'm not that good.

 

I was able to out turn and out accelerate the F-18s at speeds as low as 110 knots, which I found strange.

 

Is the current flight performance accurate or is there an issue?

 

Why don't you ask the French fighter pilots who train with RAZBAM module? According to Ate (Rafale pilot who flew thew 2000) the module drags even more than  the real thing...

Just think: Empty, their respective TWR is 1.332 vs 0.957, depending on combat weight at the moment of the event I don't see why the 2000 wouldn't out-turn the F-18 at 110 kt, its approach speed is 140 Kts with throttle back/low thrust, so at full A-B it should be able to sustain airspeed lower than 140kt and maneuver at 110Kt.

You'll have to figure what was your actual weight at the time of the engagement and if possible at all, that of the F-18, but just to give you an idea, the F-18 carries nearly 1000Kg of internal fuel more than the 2000, and its FCS is lower, so at combat weight as understood at squadron level (2 AAMs 50% internal fuel), the difference is even greater than simple empty weight TWR.

Mirage 2000 Mirage 2000 Dassault-Aviation

It's not the best part of its flight envelop but it is not slouch either.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Thinder

[Kercheiz]

I will add that thrust depends a LOT of speed. You can't use the advertised single value thrust to compute a TWR at speed.

[Thinder]

3 minutes ago, Kercheiz said:

I will add that thrust depends a LOT of speed. You can't use the advertised single value thrust to compute a TWR at speed.

True, especially in the case of the M53-P2, but it goes for both engines and on static thrust only the difference should still be favoring the 2000, more to the point, nobody here has accurate flight envelop curves and data for this aircraft as to say precisely at which airspeed it would be in thrust deficit because of high AoA at low speed, I just use common sense here.

In any case, what I heared their pilots say isn't what is said by its bashers, quite thy opposite, sure, it haven't been re-engineed like the F-16 but in the case of the C, it retains its low wing loading and relatively high TWR and its best asset is still its instantaneous turn rate.

I flew it some time ago in a mission vs 2 X Mig 23 and 2 X Mig 29, if you manage your airspeed by limiting the number of Gs you pull, you can win the fight, which is what I have done and I'm not a genius at this level, fact is, AdlA has certainly asked RAZBAM to nerf its performances a little, because if it is declassified in the case of the C, it is not for the 5F.

I'd say the 2000C is a more demanding aircraft to take to its best performances and manage energy at the same time than the F-18/16, but it has its own strength and flown properly will win those fights.

Listen to the podcast.

[Vyacheslav]

В 13.04.2023 в 01:19, Kercheiz сказал:

Is that M2.25?

If yes, that's not really surprising. At its max speed, the mirage 2000 is not limited by thrust and drag, but by shock cone intake (shockwaves are not properly stopped to the compressor) and thermal damage. Pilots feedback to this is, it's able to go faster, but it's forbidden.
In DCS the thermal damage (canopy, nosecone...) was not modelled. The shock cone limitation is modelled simply by a simple compressor ratio collapse, so the acceleration stops at M2.25 ; in real life this would be likely more complex (possible compressor damage, stall, or engine going into destructive scramjet mode)

In any way, the Mirage 2000C is not thrust limited to M2.25.

Made a flight to the practical ceiling for the Mirage 2000. The aircraft flies well at an altitude of 18 km at a speed of 2300 km/h with rockets and an external fuel tank.
Not bad, this is the best result for modules DCS.

I am attaching the track.

Mirage 2000.trk

[yami]

You have not reached anywhere close to 2300 km/h during this flight (in fact, CDVE–induced oscillations would kill you well before reaching 2000 km/h CAS). Also, I would not call FL600 “practical” — you had to overheat the engine, ignore pressurisation system warning and by the time you got there you did not have much fuel left.

[jubuttib]

On 7/15/2018 at 11:41 PM, Aries144 said:

I've only just begun to discover French military technology and I'm finding that it's been at the forefront of military technological innovation through the entire 20th century. Everything from innovative rifle designs

And before the 20th century too, they were the first to design a rifle that used smokeless powder in the ammunition in the late 1800s, with the Mle 1886 Lebel rifle. This improved accuracy, range and rate of fire massively.

Granted, they also slightly cocked that one up, by rushing the design of the cartridge and the gun to get the rifles into the hands of soldiers. The double taper on the cartridge made magazine designs for later rifles a lot more difficult (anyone who has seen the magazine on the Chauchat knows why this is an issue when trying to stack rounds, though the holes don't help on that), and the round nosed bullet wasn't very good aerodynamically. Both worked fine on the Lebel, because it had a tube magazine though, and the bullet was later changed to a Spitzer boat tail style, but the cartridge design hanging around until after WW1 certainly made subsequent firearms designs harder.

[FusRoPotato]

On 4/11/2023 at 5:15 PM, Vyacheslav said:

Hello, I noticed something.
At an altitude of 15 km, the Mirage 2000 accelerates to 2330 km / h (2 magic, 2 R530 and a fuel tank).
At the same time, the F-15 with similar suspensions (2 aim-9, 2 aim-7 and 1 fuel tank) at the same height accelerates only to 2100 km / h.

It seemed strange to me.

"Приветствую, заметил кое что.
На высоте 15 км Мираж 2000 разгоняется до 2330 км/ч (2 мажик, 2 Р530 и топливный бак).
При этом Ф-15 при аналогичных подвесках(2 айм-9, 2 айм-7 и 1 топливный бак) на этой же высоте разгоняется только до 2100 км/ч.

Мне показалось это странным".

Yeah I've been noticing a lot of unexpected flight characteristics of this plane. I've been so busy lately working on hypersonic stuff that I haven't had a good chance to getting back to this game, but there are definitely some things about the M2000 I'd like to look closer at.

For one, hardly any energy loss at high alpha compared to aircraft like the F-16 and F-18, which is not a typical characteristic of delta wings. Delta wings are best known for their ability to carry heavy payloads at high altitude, achieve high AoA's, and perform high altitude interceptions, not low altitude sustained rates. Their CL/CD/alpha drops too fast.

Secondly, I'm getting up to 600+ knots in no time, with less than mil power, on the deck, when fully loaded with all the bombs possible, a few magics, and a fuel tank. Acceleration and speed while clean isn't all that crazy, so I'd assume there no drag indices at all for payloads or drag in general is not being calculated properly.

There really aught to be a standard for all aircraft in this game to go through some basic low-grade CFD or Roskam estimations to figure out ballpark performance profiles for these aircraft, or at least dig into some university libraries to see if anyone's already done it to test their own algorithms. Just for example, I've come across more than a dozen papers so far estimating the Su-33's sustained turn rates, or have found that their CL/CD's are much much higher than previously known because their vortex interactions are vastly superior to things like the F-16 and F18 lerx. This is also a reason why the Eurofighter and J-20 perform so well at certain attitude commands.

Otherwise we have these aircraft that all either overperform or underperform unexpectedly because they are basing their flight model on guesses, warning labels, pretend SMEs, or "official" data that's simply not an honest representation of reality (it happens). They can't even copy inertia values to the right axis...

Edited May 11, 2023 by FusRoPotato

[myHelljumper]

2 hours ago, FusRoPotato said:

Yeah I've been noticing a lot of unexpected flight characteristics of this plane. I've been so busy lately working on hypersonic stuff that I haven't had a good chance to getting back to this game, but there are definitely some things about the M2000 I'd like to look closer at.

For one, hardly any energy loss at high alpha compared to aircraft like the F-16 and F-18, which is not a typical characteristic of delta wings. Delta wings are best known for their ability to carry heavy payloads at high altitude, achieve high AoA's, and perform high altitude interceptions, not low altitude sustained rates. Their CL/CD/alpha drops too fast.

Secondly, I'm getting up to 600+ knots in no time, with less than mil power, on the deck, when fully loaded with all the bombs possible, a few magics, and a fuel tank. Acceleration and speed while clean isn't all that crazy, so I'd assume there no drag indices at all for payloads or drag in general is not being calculated properly.

There really aught to be a standard for all aircraft in this game to go through some basic low-grade CFD or Roskam estimations to figure out ballpark performance profiles for these aircraft, or at least dig into some university libraries to see if anyone's already done it to test their own algorithms. Just for example, I've come across more than a dozen papers so far estimating the Su-33's sustained turn rates, or have found that their CL/CD's are much much higher than previously known because their vortex interactions are vastly superior to things like the F-16 and F18 lerx. This is also a reason why the Eurofighter and J-20 perform so well at certain attitude commands.

Otherwise we have these aircraft that all either overperform or underperform unexpectedly because they are basing their flight model on guesses, warning labels, pretend SMEs, or "official" data that's simply not an honest representation of reality (it happens). They can't even copy inertia values to the right axis...

 

I don't know what the F-16, F-18, Su-33, Eurofighter and J-20 have to do with the Mirage 2000C performances but ok.

If you are going to insult SMEs and the work of the team, the minimum would be to provide sources and tests to backup your claims. Otherwise we could just dismiss you as a pretend SME....

[Kercheiz]

2 hours ago, FusRoPotato said:

Yeah I've been noticing a lot of unexpected flight characteristics of this plane. I've been so busy lately working on hypersonic stuff that I haven't had a good chance to getting back to this game, but there are definitely some things about the M2000 I'd like to look closer at.

For one, hardly any energy loss at high alpha compared to aircraft like the F-16 and F-18, which is not a typical characteristic of delta wings. Delta wings are best known for their ability to carry heavy payloads at high altitude, achieve high AoA's, and perform high altitude interceptions, not low altitude sustained rates. Their CL/CD/alpha drops too fast.

Secondly, I'm getting up to 600+ knots in no time, with less than mil power, on the deck, when fully loaded with all the bombs possible, a few magics, and a fuel tank. Acceleration and speed while clean isn't all that crazy, so I'd assume there no drag indices at all for payloads or drag in general is not being calculated properly.

There really aught to be a standard for all aircraft in this game to go through some basic low-grade CFD or Roskam estimations to figure out ballpark performance profiles for these aircraft, or at least dig into some university libraries to see if anyone's already done it to test their own algorithms. Just for example, I've come across more than a dozen papers so far estimating the Su-33's sustained turn rates, or have found that their CL/CD's are much much higher than previously known because their vortex interactions are vastly superior to things like the F-16 and F18 lerx. This is also a reason why the Eurofighter and J-20 perform so well at certain attitude commands.

Otherwise we have these aircraft that all either overperform or underperform unexpectedly because they are basing their flight model on guesses, warning labels, pretend SMEs, or "official" data that's simply not an honest representation of reality (it happens). They can't even copy inertia values to the right axis...

 

So to sum up:
 - "All deltas have a poor CL/CD"
 - "Ah yes Eurofighter has a much better CL/CD than expected"  (oops it's a delta)
 - "I don't have CL/CD data about the Mirage 2000 but it's necessarily crap"
 - "Me, the pretend SME, have much more knowledge than so called official SMEs"

Edited May 11, 2023 by Kercheiz