Jump to content

Fox One

Members
  • Content Count

    430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About Fox One

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 12/25/1977
  1. Phantom, LOL :megalol: The Phantom is "eagerly awaited" by a small minority. The vast majority would be DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED if the new "hot" module from ED is gonna be any old aircraft. Personally I would also be very surprised if it's a "full module" of an existing FC3 aircraft like F-15C. Here is what Matt Wagner said in October 2019 "Is there hope for an F-4 Phantom? If so, would it be off the mark wishing that the developer is Heatblur using the multi-crew experience and technology created building the Tomcat? The Phantom is such a legendary aircraft that we will
  2. Thank you for giving exactly the answer I was expecting :D In my second track (test2a) where I land with 30% fuel when the speed is 135kts and the inverted T is perfectly on the horizon line, the longitudinal G is -0.45. In the real aircraft in the video it is -0.15 In simulator, if you lower the nose gear to the runway, at 135kts the longitudinal G is -0.1 This deceleration is of course caused by aerodynamic drag and wheels drag. But I am generous and let's pretend the aerodynamic drag is zero and this -0.1 is entirely wheel drag. If you remove this -0.1 from the decelerati
  3. At the end of the video the pilot lands and performs aerobraking. As can be seen, the speed is decreasing very very slowly. Deceleration from 140 to 110 kts takes about 12.5 seconds. During this time the longitudinal G is between -0.15 and -0.13. Let's see how the simulator compares to that. In the attached tracks I deliberately land at high speed, so that when the speed drops to 140 kts I am already stabilized with the inverted T on the horizon line (or close to) and the engine is already in idle. In track 1a I land with 100% fuel and deceleration from 140 to 110 kts takes 5.3
  4. It doesn't generates more drag at "low speeds". It generates much much more drag at an AOA of 10 to 12 deg. I don't know what the idle thrust of Mirage 2000 engine is and I bet you also don't know. Two examples. MiG-29 engine RD-33 has an static idle thrust of 180Kgf (source, flight manual). Su-27 engine AL-31F has an static idle thrust of 250Kgf (source, technical description manual). Let's put Mirage's engine idle thrust somewhere in between, let's say 200Kgf. At 300kts and 10deg AOA, Mirage 2000's total drag is of SEVERAL TONS. 200Kgf of idle thrust is not gonna m
  5. The please repeat the test on your own if you can fly much smoother/precise, and post the track here. Let's see if you will get vastly different results.
  6. What happens, as I don't have the Viggen module?
  7. I just did some tests, tracks attached. With the M2000, F-18 and F-16, with 50% fuel, standard conditions, altitude 1500ft, I perform horizontal flight with 150kts speed. The M2000 needs an AOA of 12.6 deg The F-18 needs an AOA of 11 deg The F-16 needs an AOA of 14 deg How does this fits with your theory? In my opinion, you are generally right. However if that's the case (like the M2000 AOA in the test is 1.6 deg higher than on F-18 ) the difference is small. If the difference was big they would have designed the Mirage in a different way ;) test2000.trk test18.trk test16
  8. The Mirage lands with 14 deg AOA because it can't afford to deflect down 45 deg the ENTIRE trailing edge control surfaces like the Hornet does. It is basically like a plane that lands with "flaps up", and the 14 deg AOA approach is to keep the speed in a reasonably low range. Try to land the Hornet with flaps UP and 8.1 deg AOA on approach and see what kind of speeds you get... You truly don't understand at all the turn test and its purpose. The purpose of the test is to see how quickly the speed decreases from 300 to 150 kts if the engine is in idle (almost zero thrust co
  9. ^^^ I don't know best. I know when something is wrong by so much, that is obviously wrong ;)
  10. Hi =DECOY=, I am not a Mirage pilot. But I am convinced that by carefully studying what is out there and using a little "engineering common sense" the flight model can be improved A LOT. I know jojo is one of the knowledgeable guys on this forum and usually I read his posts. But I am quite disappointed that he is not exactly objective on anything regarding the M2000 simulator.
  11. silly... Because somebody shot down somebody else this somehow makes what I said wrong? On what logic? I also did the turning test described in my previous post in the F-15, that is classified as an aircraft with a "cropped delta wing". It turned 200 deg. But unlike the Mirage 2000, the F-15 is not a relaxed static stability aircraft. It is a conventional aircraft, and in flight its horizontal tail is producing a downward lift force, and this downward (adverse to the wing lift) lift force also generates drag. On Mirage the entire wing is producing an upward lifting force. The M
  12. You don't say... Attached is a track with a test I performed with the Mirage. With 50% fuel I accelerate to 360Kts, then I reduce throttle to idle. When speed drops to 300 I start a horizontal turn keeping the AOA between 10 and 12 deg, and I turn until the speed decreases to 150kts. The aircraft will turn approximately 95 deg. I performed similar tests with F-18 and F-16. Until the speed decreases to 150kts the F-16 will turn about 200 deg, the F-18 about 210 deg. If the Mirage 2000 would really behave like that IRL it would be a very poor aircraft. 10 to 12 deg is not a large
  13. For me landing with full flaps after main wheels touchdown even with full aft stick the nose wheel touches the runway in 2-3 sec (even at minimum vertical speed at touchdown). Can you keep the nose wheel up longer? In the first video in this thread it's 6 seconds. The airbrake I don't think it has any nose-up pitch effect in sim.
  14. The flight manual says aerodynamic braking is not recommended. It doesn't say aerodynamic braking is not possible, even pulling the stick fully aft. The first video link in this thread clearly shows IRL aerodynamic braking can be done nicely. However in DCS when landing with full flaps aerodynamic braking is not possible, even if you quickly pull the stick fully aft. Just not possible, even if you land with close to zero fuel and remove gun ammo. Obviously, in DCS F/A-18 there is still some stuff that is not accurate in the flight model. However in the sim aerodynamic braking is poss
  15. I'm sure most people here remember exactly the same discussion taking place when DCS Fw 190 D-9 appeared. One of the developers posted a factory drawing of the windshield saying they used that for the model, and model is 100% accurate and everybody is wrong to criticize the now famous "cockpit bar". What I find amazing is that developers really don't seem to understand that the forward-downward visibility angle through the gunsight reflector is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. This angle is already pretty small for most WWII fighter aircraft. And the developers appear to think reducing the angl
×
×
  • Create New...