need evidence F1 EE flight model tweaks coming?

[Bananabrai]

On 7/9/2023 at 10:51 PM, Harley Davidson said:

Well I've been doing some testing as the claims of the flight model is realistic.  Some things I've found:  service ceiling for the F1 is 66,000ft, try and get to that altitude, 2. specs say ferry range (combat patrol)is 2:15min with belly tank and super 530's, try that...  Max speed is Mach 2.2, try and get above Mach 2.0 for more than 5 min, engine will blow up and die. Also try landing at 140 knots clean, which was one of the pluses to the F1.....Can't really get any radar lock over 15km...

You say that the flight model is complete, or close? humm...   just saying......

 

2h15min combat patrol with belly tank -> pretty easy. I did a 1,5h 660nm round trip once with @Bremspropeller, ~50% low level, with 2-3min dogfight after target run, flying home 200nm above M1.0. 300nm inbound with 2 bags and 6x400kg high drag bombs, outbound clean. We landed with 800kgs. 

140 KIAS clean, with only ~1000kgs (which is about the fuel level one should have at landing), should be possible, Ill try it as well. 

Radar locks above 15km are possible, they depend on target size of course.

[Bremspropeller]

"Ferry range" and "combat patrol" are mutually exclusive for starters, but if people insist on using wiki data that's just copied from another inaccurate source, then they're bound to be let down by reality.

I just about ran the F-14A on my wing out of fuel on a 200NM+ attack mission with a similar bombload two days ago, flying the F1EE myself. It's all a matter of using at least correct'ish profiles. In the F1 that means cruising high and fast (+30kft and above M0.85).

 

[HawkEXO]

On 7/9/2023 at 2:51 PM, Harley Davidson said:

Also try landing at 140 knots clean, which was one of the pluses to the F1....

 

I land at 140 knots regularly.  Usually with about 600 liters of fuel and no stores onboard except the outboard fox2s.

Granted my approach speed is higher, but the wheels touch down right at about 140 knots.

[fausete]

Hi guys, I was on holiday so didn't have access to the documentation which I needed to answer this properly. But basically, everyone answering that using wikipedia data to back your claims is a bad idea is right. That data is either suppositions or specific fuel/speed/altitude situations that cannot be blindly applied to all cases.

For example the landing speed. Our F1 module is capable of landing at 140 kt, but only when very very lightly loaded (almost empty of fuel). If you are trying to land it full, it won't be possible to do so at such low speeds. It is the same for the real aircraft, according to the performance data we have. This is what wikipedia is refering to when it says the landing speed is 140 kt. It means the minimum landing speed is about 140 kt, not that the aircraft can land at that speed always.

Regarding maximum Mach: the limiting factor is the maximum impact temperature of 135 ºC (as others have stated), this corresponds to about Mach 2.1 for the altitudes with the coldest temperatures (so above 35000-40000 ft). Obviously for altitudes below that, it's impossible to reach such high Mach numbers. This matches the performance data we have.

About the operational ceiling: I don't know where wikipedia gets its numbers from but what we know is at what altitudes the aircraft is capable of maintaining a climbrate of 500 ft/min and our module complies with them with a high degree of precission, and that corresponds to altitudes much lower than those 66k ft. @IvanK is a Mirage III pilot and has provided some interesting insight.

Again, as has been mentioned before, endurance can reach 2:15 hours with the described payload easily as long as the aircraft is flown with the right profile: Mach of around 0.6-0.65 and altitude of 20-25k ft. Obviously the value stated in wikipedia corresponds to the aircraft being flown in maximum endurance conditions, it doesn't mean that no matter what you do, you'll have 2:15 hours of flight time with that payload.

In general, we appreciate the feedback of our customers and it has been crucial for the development of the module (both bug fixing and feature addition) over the past year but I think this thread is not serving that purpose anymore. At this point, it has taken away many hours of module development in testing claims and checking documentation. You are free to continue discussing but we won't intervene anymore unless evidence from reliable sources (or contact info to said sources) is provided.

Edited July 17, 2023 by fausete

[Loukuins]

In the manuals I have touchdown is at 136Knots for 8700Kg and 157 for 11000Kg.

I'm just giving informations btw, not saying that anyone is wrong, I just wanted to share, I'm sorry if it was the wrong time/place to do it.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Loukuins

[Vibora]

Elaborating on @fausete's good answer. We’d like to point out some specific performance data that was mentioned in this thread. Considering always ISA, except when mentioned:

Mirage F1’s ceiling, complying with a rate of climb of 500 ft/min, is 52,200 ft at ISA or 53,000 ft at ISA -10°C.

Maximum speed at flight levels between 38,000 and 50,000 is Mach 2.1.

Maximum speed at 20,000 ft is Mach 1.7 and at 10,000 ft is Mach 1.26.

Note that these values are the theoretical maximum and they might be out of the envelope.

Landing speed at S.L., with 9500 Kg and an AoA of 10°, is around 160 Kt.

We get all those values with very high precision when tested in our simulation, as well as any other values regarding takeoff, landing, climb, cruise, rate of turn or any other flight model aspects. And it shouldn’t be otherwise, since our simulation is based on real engineering data of the Mirage F1. In fact, the whole set of aircraft performance was extensively tested even before we signed the contract with ED, as it was a requirement to prove the fidelity of the module. Though, obviously, we kept making adjustments when needed.

We can’t post any real tables, but you can find some data in our Flight Manual. Some flight manuals of other Mirage F1 versions are available online, if you are really interested. There will be differences in the systems but the performance should be the same.

We also get constant feedback from real, highly experienced Mirage F1 pilots, as @peyvolt already stated in this same thread.

All in all, we can say that our simulation represents the Mirage F1 to the highest level of accuracy, making it a professional approximation as a simulator of the real counterpart.

Nevertheless, we keep working on improvements, based on our own research or on user’s feedback, which we highly appreciate when they are discussed in a polite manner. In particular, we keep investigating and improving the aircraft behavior at high AoA, and asymmetrical loads as there’s not much real data at such regimes.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Vibora

[Hez]

Just wanted to say a thank you for all the effort Aerges has put into this module so far. It is easily my favourite airframe to fly.

And to echo the statements of CrazyGman, the thing is not at all to be underestimated in cold war PVP, be that 2-circle or even 1-circle fighting.

ECW stats were reset recently for the quarter, so this is unfortunately everything, but suffice to say the thing is lethal. Probably about ~50% or more of these would be gun kills.

It just takes a bit of time to get used to and has to be flown to it's strengths.

Edited July 20, 2023 by Hez
Typo

[Bananabrai]

On 7/17/2023 at 10:06 AM, fausete said:

maintaining a climbrate of 500 ft/min

I think the official definition of service ceiling was: "50ft/min climb at constant speed can be maintained"?

Wasn't it?

On 7/19/2023 at 1:05 PM, Vibora said:

10,0000 ft is Mach 1.26.

One '0' to much

[Vibora]

46 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

I think the official definition of service ceiling was: "50ft/min climb at constant speed can be maintained"?

Wasn't it?

Negative, 500 ft/min.

Quote

One '0' to much

Fixed.

[streakeagle]

I have gotten fairly proficient with the Mirage F1. But when playing the instant action dogfight practice mission, I could never beat the MiG-19 and almost always ended up with the MiG-19 on my tail in a desperate rolling scissors to avoid being gunned. If I tried to maintain energy or extend, I would get killed almost every time.

I watched @CrazyGman's YouTube video on how to dogfight in the F1. Per the video, I edited the instant action dogfight mission to start the F1 with just over 2,000 kg of fuel. I started with 2 x Magic 1 on the wingtips and 1 x 530 on centerline. I burned up the 530 killing the MiG-23, then used the F10 menu to add the MiG-19. As I crossed 2,000 kg while engaging the MiG-19, I could now hold my own and force high angle-off gun passes. As I dropped below 1,500 kg of fuel, I could get behind the MiG-19 and eventually saddle up for a solid short range gun kill. I could not ever get a missile tone with the Magic 1. But until I cut the weight down, there was nothing I could do against an AI MiG-19. I don't know how practical it is to fight with the fuel so low. Maybe that's a better idea with the F1 EE and its refueling probe. But it was nice to beat a MiG-19 in a knife fight. I suspect a player flown MiG-19 would be harder to kill. The player can't cheat on aerodynamics like AI can, but a player can fly to the strengths of the aircraft and avoid tactics that would fail.

[FongFic]

On 7/4/2023 at 7:45 AM, HWasp said:

 

1. Don't ever compare FMs to the AI, because they are not accurate at all, that MiG-19AI might outrate an F-16. They are UFOs as you said.

2. If you can't control your speed and you just get a "wet fart" out of it, maybe learn to fly it, and try again?

(btw the MiG-19 is a very good rate fighter, it might outrate the F-1 for real, this does not depend on age, the MiG-17 and 15 will also outrate it for sure)

 

Sure, i can not defeat an AI Mirage F1 in a dogfight when flying in F5E. 
This is the video that i have captured to show how broken AI FM is.

 

[fausete]

AI uses a simplified flight model that is a bit generous regarding energy conservation (this applies to all modules), as far as I know, improvements to it are being worked on. Also, as far as we know, the information we inputted into the AI FM is correct.