Should the M2KC be able to hold up against the Viper in a 2 circle fights?

[myHelljumper]

23 minutes ago, HWasp said:

Dropping the gear at 5000 is a pretty damn big difference! That should have been important to note really

What is the reason for that? If I'm flying to survive an engine out like that, I will drop the gear only when landing is assured, otherwise it will just ruin my glide.

I would never drop the gear unless a technical reason makes it necessary.

btw if that is the case, why was it so important to fly from 40nm at 260 if you can just start the scenario at 10k 260 14nm? It's the gear, what will ultimately decide the difference...

Yeah as I said before I forgot to write that, my mistake.

That's how the procedure is described, I think that's because that gear will take 20 seconds to lock and you need some time to notice it didn't work and to use the emergency gear handle.

Also, 230 kt is a minimum speed (I guess I forgot to add that too), you should slow down at least to under 270 kt at it is the maximum speed for the gears. 230 kt should be the speed just before the flare.

I'm also barely able to make it work when doing the final at 230 kt, maybe the gear induced drag is a bit too much.

[HWasp]

11 minutes ago, myHelljumper said:

Yeah as I said before I forgot to write that, my mistake.

That's how the procedure is described, I think that's because that gear will take 20 seconds to lock and you need some time to notice it didn't work and to use the emergency gear handle.

Also, 230 kt is a minimum speed (I guess I forgot to add that too), you should slow down at least to under 270 kt at it is the maximum speed for the gears. 230 kt should be the speed just before the flare.

I'm also barely able to make it work when doing the final at 230 kt, maybe the gear induced drag is a bit too much.

I don't see how can you establish useful data from this if half the equation is gear drag , which is also just a big unkown. How can you establish from this, which part of the equation is wrong?

If clean config glide is the question for the L/D, there needs to be a gate, an exact altitude and distance to pass with the clean aircraft.

Now the result is:

A- gear drag is too high

B - L/D is too low

C - both gear drag and L/D are wrong

D- ?

So basically the whole thing doesn't make sense.

 

[myHelljumper]

13 minutes ago, HWasp said:

I don't see how can you establish useful data from this if half the equation is gear drag , which is also just a big unkown. How can you establish from this, which part of the equation is wrong?

If clean config glide is the question for the L/D, there needs to be a gate, an exact altitude and distance to pass with the clean aircraft.

Now the result is:

A- gear drag is too high

B - L/D is too low

C - both gear drag and L/D are wrong

D- ?

So basically the whole thing doesn't make sense.

 

Because the aircraft can do 14 nm per 10 000 ft at 280 kt as described ? Since the procedure falls short only if we drop the gear, I conclude that the landing gear might have too much drag.

Edited November 6, 2022 by myHelljumper

[Galinette]

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

I don't see how can you establish useful data from this if half the equation is gear drag , which is also just a big unkown. How can you establish from this, which part of the equation is wrong?

If clean config glide is the question for the L/D, there needs to be a gate, an exact altitude and distance to pass with the clean aircraft.

Now the result is:

A- gear drag is too high

B - L/D is too low

C - both gear drag and L/D are wrong

D- ?

So basically the whole thing doesn't make sense.

 

Hi

What doesn't make sense is messing up a FM set up around a LOT of reference points (the above being one of many) because viper players are upset of the performance comparison. I'm ready to tune stuff brought with valid arguments and sources, not this.

The only thing that might be concluded here is, maybe the gear drag is too high (despite it being checked like the airbrakes). And if it was decreased, you won't have anyway a big margin in the no engine landing procedure.

Can we close the topic? I've got a radar to develop and it will likely be endless debated as well (remember the "ludicrous" detection range which is now acknowledged as legit )

If really the M2000-C BFM performance is a problem for you, add a tournament rule to enforce the central tank.

And remember to practice your BFM. Tactics and skills are everything, endless two circle rate fight is boring.

Thanks

 

EDIT : I've tried again the no engine approach. Works perfectly with 100% fuel and gear down at 5000ft. Little margin. Thanks.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Kercheiz

[myHelljumper]

Yeah, we are splitting hair here.

While we want to be open about our model and try to demonstrate its accuracy where possible, I feel like this is going to be an endless debate.

[HWasp]

24 minutes ago, Kercheiz said:

Hi

What doesn't make sense is messing up a FM set up around a LOT of reference points (the above being one of many) because viper players are upset of the performance comparison. I'm ready to tune stuff brought with valid arguments and sources, not this.

The only thing that might be concluded here is, maybe the gear drag is too high (despite it being checked like the airbrakes). And if it was decreased, you won't have anyway a big margin in the no engine landing procedure.

Can we close the topic? I've got a radar to develop and it will likely be endless debated as well (remember the "ludicrous" detection range which is now acknowledged as legit )

If really the M2000-C BFM performance is a problem for you, add a tournament rule to enforce the central tank.

And remember to practice your BFM. Tactics and skills are everything, endless two circle rate fight is boring.

Thanks

 

I think you are mistaken here a little bit, because I don't give a sh.t about the F-16 or any specific module, don't care about balance, because I don't do guns only frequently (really only just sometimes) I fly early cold war jets, that's where the fun is for me.

 

The reason I started posting here was, that I thought something might be slightly off with the module, that is all.

 

Thank you very much for your hard work, overall I think it is quite excellent.

 

The STR issue remains an open question for me, you did not produce data, that would convince me, but of course that doesn't matter.

 

There is an unfortunate trend here in DCS, that modules with very scarce documentation, like the Hornet, perform in surprising ways compared to modules that have much more detailed documentation available, that makes me question their accuracy sometimes.

 

Hearsay is hearsay of course, but if the module's performance does contradict it directly, it is natural, that it raises questions.

I personally find it very strange, that this great possible feature of the aircraft is such a guarded secret, and they avoid sustained turns at airshows, like a plague... (hud video is prime example, had to look at it 5 times to notice that 2 seconds of actual sustained horizontal turn)

I really hope, that at some point some better evidence shows up, so this question gets settled.

Did not mean to be offensive in any way, again I do appriciate your hard work, even if I happen to question it like this.

Thanks!

[Galinette]

In the mean time, I managed to do the no engine landing. 30000ft, 40NM, 100% fuel. Glide at 280kts (needle indicator, not DCS). Level at 5000ft and slow to 230kts, pitch down with airbrakes, flare and land at 200kts. Burnt a tire and touched the grass at 30kts. It just works

 

[HWasp]

1 hour ago, myHelljumper said:

Yeah, we are splitting hair here.

While we want to be open about our model and try to demonstrate its accuracy where possible, I feel like this is going to be an endless debate.

Unfortunately the endless debate will remain, no way around that. Best of luck!

Thank you very much as well !

[Fulcrumkiller31]

I think the real secret here is how the mirage 2000 is a miracle of aeronautics! 

[bkthunder]

just my 2 cents, but I flew the M2000 for a while and it's a UFO. Did a lot of MP dogfights both with and against the Mirage, and it out-rates, outclimbs and out-maneuvers anything in game, including the F-18 which is already performing questionably too well. 

This just goes against all popular belief/knowledge about the mirage and delta wings in general. If this is truly realistic, chapeau to Dassault for making the best aircraft in the world. 
I hope your SME is not like that french pilot that, when inteviewed, declared that fighting an EF-2000 was like shooting fish in a barrel...

Edited January 29, 2023 by bkthunder

[Galinette]

2 hours ago, bkthunder said:

just my 2 cents, but I flew the M2000 for a while and it's a UFO. Did a lot of MP dogfights both with and against the Mirage, and it out-rates, outclimbs and out-maneuvers anything in game, including the F-18 which is already performing questionably too well. 

This just goes against all popular belief/knowledge about the mirage and delta wings in general. If this is truly realistic, chapeau to Dassault for making the best aircraft in the world. 
I hope your SME is not like that french pilot that, when inteviewed, declared that fighting an EF-2000 was like shooting fish in a barrel...

 

We don't develop models from "popular belief/knowledge about the mirage and delta wings in general", but trustable sources. And I know, there is a "self sustained DCS community myth about delta wings" that comes from nowhere but is highly persistent.

What you report about your personal MP experience is likely very biased by the respective player skills. It does not reflect the statistics of top level dogfight tournament rankings, where the 2000 is present and competitive, but not at all ruling them all. I invite you to check what these top tournaments are, and their best players, and results.

Besides this, we don't model anything with competitive and balancing ideas in mind. Only sources about the aircraft.