Current state of M2000c

[Baco]

Technically the Eagle is the macdaddy of cold war 4th gen fighters.

It was designed to cross the atlantic without refueling, if they needed to cross for whatever reason and head over to Europe. It was designed to be the mig/su killer...

 

Goly Gee the Mc Donnel Douglas designers could see the future!?

designed as an SU killer? really?

In the 70s, when the Eagle was designed the SU were only 17 and 22 ;)

No Mig 29, no SU 27, or above...

 

So yes it was design to be the best interceptor they could come up with and for over 30 years it Was... but NOT designe to kill Su´s ;)

 

 

Actually the SU 27 was design to defeat the Eagle ;)

[razorseal]

Goly Gee the Mc Donnel Douglas designers could see the future!?

designed as an SU killer? really?

In the 70s, when the Eagle was designed the SU were only 17 and 22 ;)

No Mig 29, no SU 27, or above...

 

So yes it was design to be the best interceptor they could come up with and for over 30 years it Was... but NOT designe to kill Su´s ;)

 

 

Actually the SU 27 was design to defeat the Eagle ;)

 

I wrote something, but I deleted it... I want to ask a simple question

 

Can you tell me what plane the F15 was designed to defeat? What did they have in mind? I wanna know :)

Edited February 8, 2019 by razorseal

[Jester986]

The F-15s design was a direct responseto the perceived threat of the Mig-25. Ironically it was strictly an interceptor and not the super fighter the west thought it was. So bad American intelligence led to arguably the best fighter ever...

[fjacobsen]

The F-15s design was a direct responseto the perceived threat of the Mig-25. Ironically it was strictly an interceptor and not the super fighter the west thought it was. So bad American intelligence led to arguably the best fighter ever...

 

 

 

..and to follow up on that history....

The F-15 became so expensive that the US couldn´t buy it in sufficient numbers, thereby came the idea of the "Lightweight Fighter" that eventually would lead to the F-16, as well as (via the YF-17) the F/A-18.

 

 

Initially the F-16 was only meant to have a simple search radar, where the thought was that F-15's should go in with radar guided missiles, while the F-16's should go in with heatseekers and guns.

But a combination of developement of cheaper, but at the same time more complex and efficient solid state radars, and demand from the European customers (Norway, Denmar, Netherlands and Belgium) to add something better than a simple search radar, meant that the base for the very efficient F-16 multirole fighter was laid.

It can be seen that the prototype YF-16 had a much slimmer nose than the production F-16's.

 

 

Both the F-15, F-16 and YF-17 (later F/A-18 ) was also a result of the "Fighter Mafias" influence on fighter designs, but thats a different story.

Edited February 8, 2019 by fjacobsen

[GGTharos]

Nope, what was desired was a 'high-low' mix. The F-15 never 'became' so expensive, it always was 'so expensive', same as every super-fighter being developed at the time (or any time), eg. the F-14.

 

 

 

The lightweight fighter was an attempt to flood the air force with cheap little fighters for specific purpose, and it very quickly became clear that the concept was inadequate - those aircraft quickly caught up to the cost of an eagle.

 

 

 

..and to follow up on that history....

The F-15 became so expensive that the US couldn´t buy it in sufficient numbers, thereby came the idea of the "Lightweight Fighter" that eventually would lead to the F-16, as well as (via the YF-17) the F/A-18.

[fjacobsen]

Nope, what was desired was a 'high-low' mix. The F-15 never 'became' so expensive, it always was 'so expensive', same as every super-fighter being developed at the time (or any time), eg. the F-14.

 

 

 

The lightweight fighter was an attempt to flood the air force with cheap little fighters for specific purpose, and it very quickly became clear that the concept was inadequate - those aircraft quickly caught up to the cost of an eagle.

 

 

 

 

Well depends on which sources You read- but You are right that the F-16 became more expensive as initially planned, but that also made it favorable among countries that had to nenew their fighter fleet.

[Top Jockey]

Keep in mind that the AI uses only a simple flight model, even if it's a modul that has a PFM!

 

True. Mirage 2000-5F are upgraded former Mirage 2000C, dame engine and flight control.

 

Buy there are differences between human and AI Mirage, and Mirage 2000-5 in DCS is all ED.

 

Hello.

 

Yes, what I was trying to know is, if in real life the Mirage 2000-5 does have a significantly more powerful engine than Mirage 2000 C, and some kind of flight controls software improvement / update.

 

Thank for your time.

 

edit:

 

I asked it, because at the sim, the 2000-5 really appears to turn tighter and faster than the 2000 C.

Edited February 9, 2019 by Top Jockey

[jojo]

Same flight control, same M53-P2 engine.

 

In game different AI flight model...

[Top Jockey]

Same flight control, same M53-P2 engine.

 

In game different AI flight model...

 

Thank you.

 

That was the reason for the confusion - if both of the Mirages have similar performance, why give different AI flight models.

[jojo]

Thank you.

 

That was the reason for the confusion - if both of the Mirages have similar performance, why give different AI flight models.

 

I already explained above: Mirage 2000-5 is an old AI model from ED.

Mirage 2000C, flyable and AI is from Razbam.

[razorseal]

The F-15s design was a direct responseto the perceived threat of the Mig-25. Ironically it was strictly an interceptor and not the super fighter the west thought it was. So bad American intelligence led to arguably the best fighter ever...

 

 

I dunno about ya'll but this F15 got shoo'd away by the SU-27 like a bulldog pushing away a little puppy :lol:

 

 

[jojo]

Guys, Flanker Vs Eagle has nothing to do in this thread. :music_whistling:

[razorseal]

Guys, Flanker Vs Eagle has nothing to do in this thread. :music_whistling:

 

I know I know... sorry... back on track...

 

So I wanted to fly some today. I fired up the M2000C, the plane draws me. I really enjoy flying it. I'm glad I made the choice of getting it! I'm really looking forward to them giving it a mid life update

[Extranajero]

So if you build your mission on what does work, you can already do some realistic missions. (I write this based on reading about journalist flying in air defense training mission or from pilots/ WSO stories from Mirage 2000C & N).

 

Are these stories and articles French language only ? if not can you give me the links ?

 

Sadly my French language skills are only good enough to say " Hello " " Goodbye " and " Thanks " :(

[jojo]

Are these stories and articles French language only ? if not can you give me the links ?

 

Sadly my French language skills are only good enough to say " Hello " " Goodbye " and " Thanks " :(

 

 

Yes, sorry. This is a paper book, not PDF.

 

 

 

 

Henri-Pierre Grolleau is a French aviation journalist. He has flown with a lot of air forces, including of course French Air Force and with Dassault.

Sometimes he is also published by Keypublishing in English (Air Forces Monthly, Air International or Combat Aircraft).

In this specific book he flew in the backseat of a Mirage 2000B + 4 Mirage 2000C Vs 1 Rafale + 1 Mirage 2000-5 + 4 Mirage 2000D for training exercise.

Edited May 1, 2019 by jojo

[Extranajero]

Damn, that looks like an interesting book :(

 

Thanks anyway though :)

[jojo]

Damn, that looks like an interesting book :(

 

Thanks anyway though :)

 

 

I made a summary of the article, you're missing the AA pictures of the original author. But I added map and scaled drawings for better understanding of the tactical situation.

 

 

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnlDBCHzPQWJhrQmuZwk-an4ULAiKQ

[HiCKS-BB15]

I made a summary of the article, you're missing the AA pictures of the original author. But I added map and scaled drawings for better understanding of the tactical situation.

 

 

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnlDBCHzPQWJhrQmuZwk-an4ULAiKQ

 

 

Many thanks for sharing:book:

[jpbordi]

if razbam make a new module M2000-5 with fox3, after the module M2000C , i buy immediatly , but i hope they can get enought information about specification on it.

Edited May 3, 2019 by jpbordi

[Extranajero]

I made a summary of the article, you're missing the AA pictures of the original author. But I added map and scaled drawings for better understanding of the tactical situation.

 

 

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnlDBCHzPQWJhrQmuZwk-an4ULAiKQ

 

Many thanks Jojo - and sorry again for the delay in thanking you :)

[River]

The M2000 is a great module in DCS but it is still unfinished and seems to get not much love anymore. It is a shame ...

 

INS alignment works even if you start taxiing or even take off, radar altimeter gives us lower fps, the button and switches behave ultra weird, still not possible to map cockpit illumination to axis and many other missing mappings. Never tried A to G because guess why ... Unfinished systems.

The takeoff itself is horrible, it's like the plane is glued to the runway, sinks again after wheels up, terrible, I start to hate this lovely module just because of this.

[jojo]

The M2000 is a great module in DCS but it is still unfinished and seems to get not much love anymore. It is a shame ...

 

INS alignment works even if you start taxiing or even take off, radar altimeter gives us lower fps, the button and switches behave ultra weird, still not possible to map cockpit illumination to axis and many other missing mappings. Never tried A to G because guess why ... Unfinished systems.

The takeoff itself is horrible, it's like the plane is glued to the runway, sinks again after wheels up, terrible, I start to hate this lovely module just because of this.

 

Razbam member is going from USA to French Air Force base for the second time. That’s some money invested in development. While it didn’t arrived yet, they surely plan to upgrade.

 

Yes, INS doesn’t fail as it should, but it doesn’t prevent you from aligning it properly.

 

It seems you don’t have the proper take off technique.

For AA load rotate at 122kt, put inverted T in the HUD on horizon, giving you 13 degrees AoA and wait for the plane to lift off. It won’t sink after that if you do your part. :smilewink:

[River]

It seems you don’t have the proper take off technique.

For AA load rotate at 122kt, put inverted T in the HUD on horizon, giving you 13 degrees AoA and wait for the plane to lift off. It won’t sink after that if you do your part. :smilewink:

 

Roger, I will give it a few runs and do exactely as you said yoyo. For me the M2000 is the only plane that has this weird takeoff behaviour. If I go full burner and hammer her ip quick and steep - no problem but feels very unrealistic. If I am patient and try to gentle lift her off the ground it always seems like my main wheels are glued to the runway. At liftoff it seems something pulls me back on the runway again for a second.

[jojo]

Jojo for me, take care since there is also a Yoyo around here :D

 

Any plane, even real life, if you sink after lift off it's you pulled it off too early.

There are famous accidents you can found on the web where pilots lift off to early, rise the gear and fall back gear up on the runway.

I'm talking high thrust fighters, up to the mighty F-22 !!!

 

Back to the Mirage, the inverted T is used for take off AoA and aero-braking after touch down.

 

For a perfect take off, you have to adjust your pitch rate in order to lift off when the inverted T reach the horizon.

[River]

Just tested your advice, without wind, easy peasy. All normal. Wind messes the Mirage takeoff up, checked the replays many times. It does crazy stuff right when the main wheels lift off. It is like the wind in the air is different calculated then on the ground. It feels like that something kicks in or is changing during takeoff roll.

 

Test it, no wind sukhumi kaukasus, full fuel, no weapons. AB on or off, doesn't make a difference.

Wind on and the main wheels do the crazy glue / magetic stuff.

I mostly fly MP and there is always wind, thats why all my takeoffs feel weird in the Mirage.

 

Never had problems with all the other modules ...