Jump to content

So about the M2000 FM and current state...


falcon_120

Recommended Posts

At AGL 200 feet, 350 KIAS and above, there should quite a bit more buffeting and airframe shake. This is actually a DCS wide shortcoming of all flight models, for all fast jets. The strakes on M2KC inlets, little cannards on B-1B, are there to smooth out a rough ride that low. F-111 suffered from it.

 

Activate turbulence in weather settings.

 

 

For the Mirage 2000, the strakes on the air intake are there to delay stall on wing roots at high AoA.

I don't think there is anything in common with B-1B here...

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fuel consomption has been modified with the last update. It is no more possible to fly full throttle + PC during 30min and do M2.2 at 52000ft with fuel flow at 110kg/min.

Now at high altitude with PGPC, the fuel flow is progressively augmenting with speed, which seems more credible.

Good Job RAZBAM

Interesting! That was maybe the thing more off for me about the m2000, his massive endurance on AB, at least compared to the other modules I own.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting! That was maybe the thing more off for me about the m2000, his massive endurance on AB, at least compared to the other modules I own.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

 

Tried M2.0 @ FL400 : 244kg/mn

PS: Changing with speed...


Edited by jojo

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we stop comparing it with other in-game planes, btw? how do you know anything else in-game has an accurate FM to compare to? just stick to comparing it with what we know of the real thing.

Most Wanted: the angry Naval Lynx | Seafire | Buccaneer | Hawker Hunter | Hawker Tempest/Sea Fury | Su-17/22 | rough strip rearming / construction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we stop comparing it with other in-game planes, btw? how do you know anything else in-game has an accurate FM to compare to? just stick to comparing it with what we know of the real thing.

 

But thats the problem. We know that DCS "fudges" some of the simulated values relative to the actual values. But we don't know how consistent that is, especially between ED and 3rd party devs.

 

So the best we can hope for is some consistency in that and therefore the comparison we have to make is two fold. FM to real world (m2k DCS to M2k real). Real world vs other Realworld (m2k real vs F16real) , and then DCS to other DCS (DCS m2k vs DCS F16). And for the purposes of the SIM I don't care if the DCS FM is 10% off the real, as long as its 10% off for each and every module in the same way because I can only compare it other simulated planes in the sim.

 

So really, the best comparison of any FM is to other in game FM's. Since I'm not dogfighting a "Real" plane, but I am dogfighting the other simulated plane. And we need to look at the "real" FM's to try to figure that out and normalize it.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried the F-15C in DCS, passing M2.0 at FL400 engines are burning roughly 35 750 lbs/h per engine, which is about 270kg/mn.

 

Since F100-PW-200 does provide a little bit more thrust, I think we are good.

 

I did some more test about M-2000C using fuel flow.

Full AA load + fuselage tank.

Take off and full AB to 600kt then throttle down. 300ft AMSL.

- 600kt: 104kg/mn - 10.4kg/Nm

- 450kt: 54kg/mn - 7.2kg/Nm


Edited by jojo

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please remember, that AdA gave a very positive opinion on the FM

 

 

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 AOA, in fact most supersonic aircraft have the optimum maneuvering AOA in this range, perhaps even slightly higher. The difference in this test between M2000 and the F-16 and F-18 is obviously brutally large.

 

You don't have to be a scientist to figure in the M2000 the lift/drag ratio is really off as soon as you start to increase a bit the AOA. I mean really really off, not 10%.

 

Next in the test I perform a landing and I aerobrake the aircraft with the inverted T on horizon line. In the real aircraft, from a HUD video during aerobraking the longitudinal G is -0.15...-0.13

In simulator it is almost double that value.

A video with a Mirage aerobraking for 14 seconds (and still going when filming stops):

Can you do that in DCS?

 

Then in the test I take off again and made another landing. During aerobraking I perform some small stick pulls, increasing the AOA with 1.5 to 2 deg. Look at the longitudinal G - with an AOA increase of just 1.5 to 2 deg in a fraction of a second the longitudinal G practically doubles!!!

 

There is no need to perform any other test to realize the M2000 flight model is not bad. It is amusingly bad. In the first turning test I wouldn't be surprised if an F-104 would perform better that the M2000. In fact, I also performed the turning test in the F-5, but with 100% fuel and the LE/TE flaps "UP" to make its small wing even less efficient at 10-12 deg AOA. The F-5 turned about 140 deg in the test. Gee, I never knew the Mirage 2000 is so aerodynamically inefficient at an AOA of just 10-12deg! The French aerodynamicists are the worst in the world! Who would have thought!!!

 

It blows my mind how the author of the Mirage flight model, who if I'm not mistaken is an aeronautical engineer, doesn't see all of this! This is elementary stuff and elementary observations, it's not rocket science.

 

"This is a French Air Force-approved simulator" is a nice trick that probably works on naive and uninformed people. Then convince a French Air Force pilot to register on the forum and say the real aircraft behaves just like the simulator in the tests described above and he really sees no problem at all. Go ahead. I'm serious. Get a real pilot here to tell everybody how the real aircraft would behave in the tests described here.

 

I know a major revision of the avionics is in the works. Even if they get that as good a a real military simulator, with the current flight model it would have no value.

 

Any moment jojo will appear to "get things straight" and "defend the module" :D Cause we all know its flight model was made by NASA scientists and is close to perfection...

z.trk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 AOA, in fact most supersonic aircraft have the optimum maneuvering AOA in this range, perhaps even slightly higher. The difference in this test between M2000 and the F-16 and F-18 is obviously brutally large.

 

You don't have to be a scientist to figure in the M2000 the lift/drag ratio is really off as soon as you start to increase a bit the AOA. I mean really really off, not 10%.

 

Next in the test I perform a landing and I aerobrake the aircraft with the inverted T on horizon line. In the real aircraft, from a HUD video during aerobraking the longitudinal G is -0.15...-0.13

In simulator it is almost double that value.

A video with a Mirage aerobraking for 14 seconds (and still going when filming stops):

Can you do that in DCS?

 

Then in the test I take off again and made another landing. During aerobraking I perform some small stick pulls, increasing the AOA with 1.5 to 2 deg. Look at the longitudinal G - with an AOA increase of just 1.5 to 2 deg in a fraction of a second the longitudinal G practically doubles!!!

 

There is no need to perform any other test to realize the M2000 flight model is not bad. It is amusingly bad. In the first turning test I wouldn't be surprised if an F-104 would perform better that the M2000. In fact, I also performed the turning test in the F-5, but with 100% fuel and the LE/TE flaps "UP" to make its small wing even less efficient at 10-12 deg AOA. The F-5 turned about 140 deg in the test. Gee, I never knew the Mirage 2000 is so aerodynamically inefficient at an AOA of just 10-12deg! The French aerodynamicists are the worst in the world! Who would have thought!!!

 

It blows my mind how the author of the Mirage flight model, who if I'm not mistaken is an aeronautical engineer, doesn't see all of this! This is elementary stuff and elementary observations, it's not rocket science.

 

"This is a French Air Force-approved simulator" is a nice trick that probably works on naive and uninformed people. Then convince a French Air Force pilot to register on the forum and say the real aircraft behaves just like the simulator in the tests described above and he really sees no problem at all. Go ahead. I'm serious. Get a real pilot here to tell everybody how the real aircraft would behave in the tests described here.

 

I know a major revision of the avionics is in the works. Even if they get that as good a a real military simulator, with the current flight model it would have no value.

 

Any moment jojo will appear to "get things straight" and "defend the module" :D Cause we all know its flight model was made by NASA scientists and is close to perfection...

 

 

 

 

Well, yes a delta wing has a lower lift/drag coef than a trapezoidal wing so what's you're point ? :huh:

Plus you have no idea what g's you are pulling which is important and could explain an excessive speed bleeding

 

 

And finally in reference to you're final landing a tailstrike is not a proper way to aerobrake :smilewink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 AOA, in fact most supersonic aircraft have the optimum maneuvering AOA in this range, perhaps even slightly higher. The difference in this test between M2000 and the F-16 and F-18 is obviously brutally large.

 

You don't have to be a scientist to figure in the M2000 the lift/drag ratio is really off as soon as you start to increase a bit the AOA. I mean really really off, not 10%.

 

Next in the test I perform a landing and I aerobrake the aircraft with the inverted T on horizon line. In the real aircraft, from a HUD video during aerobraking the longitudinal G is -0.15...-0.13

In simulator it is almost double that value.

A video with a Mirage aerobraking for 14 seconds (and still going when filming stops):

Can you do that in DCS?

 

Then in the test I take off again and made another landing. During aerobraking I perform some small stick pulls, increasing the AOA with 1.5 to 2 deg. Look at the longitudinal G - with an AOA increase of just 1.5 to 2 deg in a fraction of a second the longitudinal G practically doubles!!!

 

There is no need to perform any other test to realize the M2000 flight model is not bad. It is amusingly bad. In the first turning test I wouldn't be surprised if an F-104 would perform better that the M2000. In fact, I also performed the turning test in the F-5, but with 100% fuel and the LE/TE flaps "UP" to make its small wing even less efficient at 10-12 deg AOA. The F-5 turned about 140 deg in the test. Gee, I never knew the Mirage 2000 is so aerodynamically inefficient at an AOA of just 10-12deg! The French aerodynamicists are the worst in the world! Who would have thought!!!

 

It blows my mind how the author of the Mirage flight model, who if I'm not mistaken is an aeronautical engineer, doesn't see all of this! This is elementary stuff and elementary observations, it's not rocket science.

 

"This is a French Air Force-approved simulator" is a nice trick that probably works on naive and uninformed people. Then convince a French Air Force pilot to register on the forum and say the real aircraft behaves just like the simulator in the tests described above and he really sees no problem at all. Go ahead. I'm serious. Get a real pilot here to tell everybody how the real aircraft would behave in the tests described here.

 

I know a major revision of the avionics is in the works. Even if they get that as good a a real military simulator, with the current flight model it would have no value.

 

Any moment jojo will appear to "get things straight" and "defend the module" :D Cause we all know its flight model was made by NASA scientists and is close to perfection...

 

Here I am.

 

Go in your real Mirage 2000, take off and tell use what the same "test" gives...

 

Actually it's very funny you came to tell us how bad the Mirage 2000 is. The guys shot down in their Hornet or F-16 in gun dogfights will tell you how relevant your test is.

And given the early state of DCS F-16 and what I read about the FM, I wouldn't take it as reference yet :music_whistling:

And you're right, this isn't rocket science to understand that delta wing will creates more drag with AoA than conventional wing.

But Mirage 2000C was designed as high altitude interceptor with OK performance in dogfight and look down/ shoot down.

The delta wing isn't the best for gun dogfight, but it's very good for high subsonic or supersonic flight.

 

I did another test. It is described in a book by General Denis Mercier, former French Air Force chief of staff and former Mirage F1 & Mirage 2000C RDI pilot.

 

When the Mirage 2000 was still new, he took a Mirage F1 pilot for a flight in Mirage 2000B two seater.

At 4 000ft and 300kt he went inverted and pulled the stick.

The Mirage F1 pilot thought they would crash, but the Mirage 2000C got out of the inverted half loop at 1500ft.

 

So it's inverted half loop in 2500ft, and it does work in DCS.

Not a test out of my mind but with real world reference.

 

It isn't perfect, no flight sim is.

But it isn't half as bad as what you say, and you don't have proper reference to test.

And you give us a video about landing in external view with no idea of speed and weight.


Edited by jojo

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't say...

 

 

 

"This is a French Air Force-approved simulator" is a nice trick that probably works on naive and uninformed people. Then convince a French Air Force pilot to register on the forum and say the real aircraft behaves just like the simulator in the tests described above and he really sees no problem at all. Go ahead. I'm serious. Get a real pilot here to tell everybody how the real aircraft would behave in the tests described here.

 

 

 

Any moment jojo will appear to "get things straight" and "defend the module" :D Cause we all know its flight model was made by NASA scientists and is close to perfection...

 

 

Hello,

 

Hope you are well Fox One, Just wanted to reply to your post above. in fact the two comments i have quoted above.

 

We work closely with the AdA who use our mirage for training as shown many times over the years, myself and other team members are friends with many of the Pilots who we talk with on a daily bases. We even have a active mirage pilot in our newly formed test team for hte mirage which is why we can get the new cockpit to be as accurate as possible.

 

In relation to the FM, the one presented in DCS is a close as we can get to the real aircraft. clearly we have some limitations due to the 2000c sill being in active service, but you will not find a more accurate version anywhere else.

 

I see form your posts you have some great feedback ref the Mirage, can i ask have you flown in a mirage 2000c ? are you a Mirage pilot, if so please contact me.

 

 

Now onto your comment regarding jojo, He is a great guy and has been apart of the Razbam Mirage development since FSX days, he is a fountain of knowledge and has helped us improve the mirage to new levels, as well as helping with the testing of new features as we implement them. He is a great guy.



 

Water cooled i9-9900K | Maximus Code XI MB | RTX3090  | 64GB | HP Reverb G2 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Go in your real Mirage 2000, take off and tell use what the same "test" gives...

 

 

silly...

 

 

The guys shot down in their Hornet or F-16 in gun dogfights will tell you how relevant your test is.

 

 

Because somebody shot down somebody else this somehow makes what I said wrong? On what logic?

 

 

And given the early state of DCS F-16 and what I read about the FM, I wouldn't take it as reference yet music_whistling.gif

And you're right, this isn't rocket science to understand that delta wing will creates more drag with AoA than conventional wing.

 

 

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 Mirage is also a delta wing aircraft, but conceptually superior to the F-15. It also has leading edge slats so the wing has "variable polar" characteristics, it continuously moves the slats and adapts to the existing AOA to optimize its characteristics, something the F-15 doesn't do at all. So the Mirage compared with the F-15 has A LOT OF STUFF in its favor. Its only minus is a smaller thrust/weight ratio.

 

So the results of the turning test are for F-15, F-16 and F-18 are 200, 200 and 210 deg. Do you think it is a coincidence they are practically similar? It's not. This is what a high performance aircraft of 4th generation would behave like, of course the numbers are similar.

 

On the other hand the result of the turning test for the Mirage 2000 is 95 deg. Perhaps you think it differs so much from the F-15, F-16 and F-18 because the Mirage 2000 is not a " high performance aircraft of 4th generation ".

 

No. I'll explain to you where the very big difference comes from. The difference is explained by the fact that the F-15, F-16 and F-18 flight models were made by competent aviation engineers. The Mirage 2000 flight model was made by... a guy with different qualities ;)

 

 

As I already said, the Mirage 2000 flight model is not a little off. A little off would be fine and I would have no criticism, as you said no simulator is perfect. But it is completely off, as this simple test proves. You just need a little common sense to see it, but you know what they say, common sense is not that common...

 

I would like to hear from you a comment about the fact that on landing during aerobraking an increase in AOA of only 1.5-2 deg would instantly DOUBLE the longitudinal G. In you opinion this makes sense and is plausible, correct?

 

 

I did another test. It is described in a book by General Denis Mercier, former French Air Force chief of staff and former Mirage F1 & Mirage 2000C RDI pilot.

 

When the Mirage 2000 was still new, he took a Mirage F1 pilot for a flight in Mirage 2000B two seater.

At 4 000ft and 300kt he went inverted and pulled the stick.

The Mirage F1 pilot thought they would crash, but the Mirage 2000C got out of the inverted half loop at 1500ft.

 

So it's inverted half loop in 2500ft, and it does work in DCS.

Not a test out of my mind but with real world reference.

 

 

This has nothing to do with what I am explaining here. I haven't said anything about the Mirage not producing sufficient lift, have I? What I am criticizing here is the drag that is excessive. The Mirage simulator "lift-producing abilities" I think are actually pretty close to the real aircraft and I actually have no criticism in this regard. In simulator the aircraft can generate very high pitch rates that look to me very similar with what can be seen from the well known Mirage aerobatics HUD video. Because it can produce plenty of lift, of course it can perform maneuvers with a small radius, like the split-s you described.

 

 

It isn't perfect, no flight sim is.

But it isn't half as bad as what you say

 

 

I haven't said the Mirage flight model is crap. Or the Mirage module in its entirety is crap. There is plenty of good stuff in it, like what I said just above. Do you think I am criticizing it because I don't have anything more interesting to do? I would like very much to have an accurate flight model on this interesting aircraft. I paid 60 bucks for it, just like you.

 

Personally, I think you are blinded by your love for this aircraft. It is well known that when you are blinded by love, you are completely unable to view the object of your love in a critical way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Hope you are well Fox One, Just wanted to reply to your post above. in fact the two comments i have quoted above.

 

We work closely with the AdA who use our mirage for training as shown many times over the years, myself and other team members are friends with many of the Pilots who we talk with on a daily bases. We even have a active mirage pilot in our newly formed test team for hte mirage which is why we can get the new cockpit to be as accurate as possible.

 

In relation to the FM, the one presented in DCS is a close as we can get to the real aircraft. clearly we have some limitations due to the 2000c sill being in active service, but you will not find a more accurate version anywhere else.

 

I see form your posts you have some great feedback ref the Mirage, can i ask have you flown in a mirage 2000c ? are you a Mirage pilot, if so please contact me.

 

 

Now onto your comment regarding jojo, He is a great guy and has been apart of the Razbam Mirage development since FSX days, he is a fountain of knowledge and has helped us improve the mirage to new levels, as well as helping with the testing of new features as we implement them. He is a great guy.

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do so much thing wrong...

 

Mirage wing has a bigger wing area, a higher sweep and taper ratio than a F15 thus the mirage will generate more induced drag at low speed.

Plus the mirage delta is much less crop than the one of the F15.

 

Then, the mirage wing needs a higher AOA to maintain lift at a given speed, again basic stuff about delta wings. This is why a mirage lands with 14° AOA while it's around 8° for the hornet.

 

More AOA means more drag because of how the flow is impacting the plane so you're speed decrease, thus you need more AOA etc

 

And finaly in your track you do not enforce altitude, G's or bank angle, which will impact the results of your test.

 

So before calling someone incompetent revise your aerodynamic and before calling a FM crap look for user error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Im Glad you know best, have a good day sir:pilotfly:



 

Water cooled i9-9900K | Maximus Code XI MB | RTX3090  | 64GB | HP Reverb G2 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then, the mirage wing needs a higher AOA to maintain lift at a given speed, again basic stuff about delta wings. This is why a mirage lands with 14° AOA while it's around 8° for the hornet.

 

 

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...

 

 

 

 

And finaly in your track you do not enforce altitude, G's or bank angle, which will impact the results of your test.

 

So before calling someone incompetent revise your aerodynamic and before calling a FM crap look for user error.

 

 

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 contribution). This removes engine thrust from the equation and shows only the airframe efficiency. The turn itself is performed to KEEP THE ALTITUDE CONSTANT. If the altitude was not constant the speed would decrease faster or slower if the aircraft was climbing or descending, and this would make analysis and comparison more complicated.

 

The altitude of the test is what you see on the HUD and is held constant. The G or bank angle of the turn doesn't matter. It is what it is. What is held constant is the altitude and AOA.

 

So the test shows how quickly the aircraft at a constant altitude and close to constant (10 to 12 deg AOA) will decelerate from 300 to 150 kts with no thrust. The result is compared as the deg the aircraft is able to turn. It could have been time very well.

 

One aircraft performs much much worse than all the others. Which is obviously not plausible.


Edited by Fox One
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I perfectly understand the purpose of the test, yet the turn rate of the plane will matter if you are measuring the degrees of the turn. So in your test a 10° degree bank and a 50° degree bank will give vastly different measures.

 

Plus in your track, you put the aircraft in a bank, let the nose go down and then suddendly pull the stick to maintain toughly the same altitude, doing so you bleed speed.

 

And again I think your conclusion is wrong and your results are perfectly explained by the fact that mirage with it's delta wing will generate more induced drag (lower taper ratio) and more viscious drag (higher wing area) at a given lift coefficient


Edited by Rayak
typo about taper ratio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then, the mirage wing needs a higher AOA to maintain lift at a given speed

 

 

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.trk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Plus in your track, you put the aircraft in a bank, let the nose go down and then suddendly pull the stick to maintain toughly the same altitude, doing so you bleed speed.

 

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ;)

 

 

Well the F16 FM being still WIP that could be an explanation...

 

Can't look at the tracks right but I certainly will.

 

Still you don't answer to everything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Even if I don't the only thing your test shows is that mirage generates more drag at low speed which is already known

 

Another possible explanation is that engines have different idle thrust, might not make a big difference but has to be taken into account

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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