Jump to content

The Mirage F1 Info Thread


Schmidtfire

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

I think it is faster than the MiG21 at higher altitude by a small amount. im interesting in the fuel economy of the jet. It's engine is very similar to the JF-17's engine (Thrust wise) and weighs a similar amount. It carries somewhere in the realm of 5100lb of internal fuel and the tanks it carries are quite large. hopefully the fuel doesnt burn up as fast as the MiG-21 goes through it


Need to read up more on this. But it seems like the F1 might have a little bit less range compared to MiG-21. I expect it to be thirsty.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Schmidtfire said:


Need to read up more on this. But it seems like the F1 might have a little bit less range compared to MiG-21. I expect it to be thirsty.

 

I dont know, im re-doing the internal fuel calculations and its coming out to about 7250lb internal now which sounds more correct. All I know is that the internal fuel capacity is 4100 Liters (Im having trouble converting to lbs)


Edited by Get_Lo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

I dont know, im re-doing the internal fuel calculations and its coming out to about 7250lb internal now which sounds more correct. All I know is that the internal fuel capacity is 4100 Liters (Im hacing trouble converting to lbs)


Depending on the profile you fly, I have read that the F1 has a range of 375-459 miles. It should be comparable to the MiG-21bis and maybe even a bit shorter.

Edit. F1 should be pretty similar to MiG-21bis at higher altitudes. MiG-21bis carries a lot less fuel internally, but it seems that they are comparable in range.
It's quite late here, so my calculations might be off 😃     


Edited by Schmidtfire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:


Depending on the profile you fly, I have read that the F1 has a range of 375-459 miles. It should be comparable to the MiG-21bis and maybe even a bit shorter.     

its longer than that for sure, according to some sources the F1 has similar range to the F16 (both on internal fuel only)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think we need more realiable info. Max Range I have seen stated is 459. Wiki states "425 km (264 mi, 229 nmi) hi-lo-hi at Mach 0.75/0.88 with 14 × 250 kg (551 lb) bombs." 

I guess we will find out eventually. But I expect the F1 to be thirsty, like most other interceptors and fighters designed during the 1960's. F-16 on internal fuel won't get you very far in combat. So that's another factor. I can fly across Caucasus map in the MiG-21bis, high and straight ferry flight without loadout. But flying sorties and still get back home without running dry is another feat.   


Edited by Schmidtfire
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

Ok, I think we need more realiable info. Max Range I have seen stated is 459. Wiki states "425 km (264 mi, 229 nmi) hi-lo-hi at Mach 0.75/0.88 with 14 × 250 kg (551 lb) bombs." 

I guess we will find out eventually. But I expect the F1 to be thirsty, like most other interceptors and fighters designed during the 1960's. F-16 on internal fuel won't get you very far in combat. So that's another factor. I can fly across Caucasus map in the MiG-21bis, high and straight ferry flight without loadout. But flying sorties and still get back home without running dry is another feat.   

 

All I can say with certainty is that the fuel load is very very similar to the F16C and the only other factor that would determine range has to do with the engine efficiency. The F1 uses a turbojet engine that is quite different and less powerful than the F16s turbofan so at best I can speculate. either way the F1 has the option for some rather large external fuel tanks. Much larger than what the MiG21 can carry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Get_Lo said:

F-16 I think is fastest, Viggen close as well but the Mirage F1 will not be that fast compared to those at low altitude, it will be faster than the F5 for sure but even the MiG-21 (if you dare) can go over 750knts

Mig 29A i believe is faster then F-16 on the deck, and definetly up high. Cockpit bubble of the F-16 creates bad occilation (happens in game) limiting it's top speed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CrazyGman said:

Mig 29A i believe is faster then F-16 on the deck, and definetly up high. Cockpit bubble of the F-16 creates bad occilation (happens in game) limiting it's top speed.

I dont think its faster on the deck but I know for a fact that the MiG-29A is glitched as far as high altitude speed goes. Ive gotten the MiG-29A to Mach 3.3 before running out of fuel

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

its longer than that for sure, according to some sources the F1 has similar range to the F16 (both on internal fuel only)

The Mirage F-1 Is good for a turbo jet. But it's not a turbo fan, so it's fuel ecconmy is always going to be poorer then the F-16 which is more of a air pusher turbofan design (for a fighter at least)engine anyway.

The F-1 thrust to weight is nothing to write home about. Better then the F-5 but worse then the MiG-21bis. It should retain energy in turns way better then the MiG 21 though


Edited by CrazyGman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahah! I found the fuel weight in this old manual 
03d26992125a3a9c56b207e9a5641a75.png
https://gyazo.com/03d26992125a3a9c56b207e9a5641a75

7489lbs internal fuel, actually slightly more than the F-16

Just now, CrazyGman said:

The Mirage F-1 Is good for a turbo jet. But it's not a turbo fan, so it's fuel ecconmy is always going to be poorer then the F-16 which is more of a air pusher turbofan design (for a fighter at least)engine anyway.

The F-1 thrust to weight is nothing to write home about. Better then the F-5 but worse then the MiG-21bis. It should retain energy in turns way better then the MiG 21 though

 

Turbojet is less efficient yes but keep in mind the thrust values of these two engines, the F16 has to use a lot more fuel (although it uses it more economically)


Edited by Get_Lo
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

I dont think its faster on the deck but I know for a fact that the MiG-29A is glitched as far as high altitude speed goes. Ive gotten the MiG-29A to Mach 3.3 before running out of fuel

Even with the glitch the F-16 is limited to pretty much just mach 2 at alt. The MiG 29 flies higher and faster at alt to mach 2.25

The F-16 doesn't like altiudes above 40000ft. It needs burner to do it. It's wings are just too small, and as mentioned the F-16 block 50 is a air pusher. It does fantastic for acceleration at low alt but the block 52s do better at higher alt (less bypass ratio). The F-16 has slightly better acceleration then the MiG 29A at low Alt.


Edited by CrazyGman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

Ahah! I found the fuel weight in this old manual 
03d26992125a3a9c56b207e9a5641a75.png
https://gyazo.com/03d26992125a3a9c56b207e9a5641a75

7489lbs internal fuel, actually slightly more than the F-16

Turbojet is less efficient yes but keep in mind the thrust values of these two engines, the F16 has to use a lot more fuel (although it uses it more economically)

 

Yeah the thrust to weight is much better in the F-16 esspessially at Mil power. The F-16 has probably the best fuel burn ratio in game for 4rth gen fighters. Better then the F/A-18 the F-15 and the Tomcat. I know the Mirage 2000 is close to it though


Edited by CrazyGman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Get_Lo said:

a full combat load that you might see on the Cold War server would consist of 2 R530s on inner wing pylons and 4 AIM9Ps on outer wing and wingtip. as well as a big 1200/2000l fuel tank on the middle. But R530s arent very scary missiles IRL so I wouldnt stress too much about it, I know how much you like playing on REDFOR 😛

 

Well... honestly, if I were in an Il-28 and this thing dropped in behind me with an R530 - I'd get pretty nervous.

 

A lot depends on the era and whether you're flying bomber or not. If you are in a fully loaded bomber, without counter-measures, flying subsonically...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Well... honestly, if I were in an Il-28 and this thing dropped in behind me with an R530 - I'd get pretty nervous.

 

A lot depends on the era and whether you're flying bomber or not. If you are in a fully loaded bomber, without counter-measures, flying subsonically...

Pretty sure the R530 had a better chance of blowing up the launch aircraft than the target lol 😛 but its still one of my favorite missiles no matter how bad it is ❤️ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/19/2021 at 9:13 AM, Schmidtfire said:

Im very excited about the upcoming Mirage F1. This thread is meant to provide more knowledge on the F1 and what to expect when the Mirage F1-CE module (and other variants) arrive.

 

I start with a couple of questions on the F1-CE:

 

Does it have a HUD or is it just a gunsight?

 

CCIP / CCRP capability for Air-Ground?

 

Air-Air weaponry limited to AIM-9 or will we have access to R. 530?

 

 

 

I believe the F1CE had both, as well as the R.550 Magic 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 4/27/2021 at 1:20 AM, CrazyGman said:

Even with the glitch the F-16 is limited to pretty much just mach 2 at alt. The MiG 29 flies higher and faster at alt to mach 2.25

The F-16 doesn't like altiudes above 40000ft. It needs burner to do it. It's wings are just too small, and as mentioned the F-16 block 50 is a air pusher. It does fantastic for acceleration at low alt but the block 52s do better at higher alt (less bypass ratio). The F-16 has slightly better acceleration then the MiG 29A at low Alt.

 

True, MiG-29 is faster high up because F-16 doesn't have regulated air intake.

 

When it comes to fuel efficiency early lightweight F-16A from 1980s with F100 engine had stunning performance being able to wait out every fighter, even full fueled F-14, still having fuel. Sometimes it fought mock dogfights against two adversaries one after another when they run out of fuel. It was perfectly balanced for dogfight.

 

But it's long gone. Later models like Block 50 had to receive more powerful engine to compensate for big airframe mass increase and it burns through internal tank as fast as most other fighters. And heavier airframe with the original wing make it suffer at higher altitude, contrary to original F-16A.

 

Mirage F.1 used turbojet not turbofan, so i expect it to have very fast throttle reaction and stable airflow but high fuel consumption.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Does there exist any Mirage F.1 operators out of CFB Cold Lake, Canada ?  I ask because I swear I thought I saw one of these a few days ago, it was doing about 400 knots, 500 ft above treetops, doing a banking turn...

 

It might have been an Alphajet, but didn't really get a good look. But it was high wing fighter jet for sure. Guaranteed not a Tornado either.


Edited by Rick50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2021 at 11:00 AM, bies said:

 

True, MiG-29 is faster high up because F-16 doesn't have regulated air intake.

 

When it comes to fuel efficiency early lightweight F-16A from 1980s with F100 engine had stunning performance being able to wait out every fighter, even full fueled F-14, still having fuel. Sometimes it fought mock dogfights against two adversaries one after another when they run out of fuel. It was perfectly balanced for dogfight.

 

But it's long gone. Later models like Block 50 had to receive more powerful engine to compensate for big airframe mass increase and it burns through internal tank as fast as most other fighters. And heavier airframe with the original wing make it suffer at higher altitude, contrary to original F-16A.

 

Mirage F.1 used turbojet not turbofan, so i expect it to have very fast throttle reaction and stable airflow but high fuel consumption.

Yeah the F-16A could just sip on fuel.  The F1s apparently isn't bad for fuel comsuption for a turbo jet, but it can't compete with a single engine turbo fan like the F-16 or Mirage 2000c. I imagine it will have better endurance then the MiG 21 and the F-5 though.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2021 at 4:59 PM, Positrons95 said:

Top Aces operates Alpha jets in Canada for training with the RCAF

 

That must have been it then! 

 

It had wing mounted external tanks (have no idea if they are "drop tanks" on a trainer!). 

 

I work near the north west corner of the CLAWR range at Cold Lake, and see jets training for this and that from time to time. Most often Hornets (most likely Canadian CF-18's), but other jets too, as Cold Lake is a popular training destination for many airforces! The range is larger than some nations...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

Yep, but I don't think it will be a good anti fighter weapon, because unlike the SARH version I don't see it being all-aspect, which is the main advantage of using these early Fox-1s. I think it will be more or less similar to the R-3R/S on the Mig-21, but maybe with a bit longer range and a larger warhead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

Yep, but I don't think it will be a good anti fighter weapon, because unlike the SARH version I don't see it being all-aspect, which is the main advantage of using these early Fox-1s. I think it will be more or less similar to the R-3R/S on the Mig-21, but maybe with a bit longer range and a larger warhead.

Interesting. Well the aspect doesn’t matter toooo much if you’re being sneaky. I see the sneakiness factor as basically the only advantage of an IR missile, besides the fire-and-forget. Thanks! Do you know an approximate range? (Like max range and max effective)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dug around the Mirage 3/5/F1 manuals on Avialogs but there are no hard numbers on there. My entirely uninformed guess is that knowing it's a pretty early missile, it's probably in the ballpark of an AIM-9P in terms of range, but with a bigger warhead and the maneuverability of an AIM-9B/R-3, so you could possibly take front-aspect near BVR shots at high enough altitude and speed (sooort of like the R-3R), for but rear aspect shots at low altitude, no chance.


If you want to be sneaky in multiplayer I don't see why I would take an IR R530 over a Sidewinder tbh.


Edited by TLTeo
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...