Removed

The + is always a waypoint. Sometimes the pilot put a waypoint on the target to make his life easier.

So what happens when you designate gnd target? How is it on hud?

 

Enviado desde mi Moto Z Play mediante Tapatalk

So what happens when you designate gnd target? How is it on hud?

 

Enviado desde mi Moto Z Play mediante Tapatalk

 

The way it is now, you get the roll command - - around your designation diamond. Then you can start to pull up.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by jojo

The way it is now, you get the roll command - - around your designation diamond. Then you can start to pull up.

 

Oh, we were back on talking about normal ccrp thats why.

 

 

 

Enviado desde mi Moto Z Play mediante Tapatalk

Oh, we were back on talking about normal ccrp thats why.

 

 

 

Enviado desde mi Moto Z Play mediante Tapatalk

 

Yes, because of cthulhu68

So what happens when you designate gnd target? How is it on hud?

 

Enviado desde mi Moto Z Play mediante Tapatalk

You position CCRP diamond over target and press designate button. A cross that looks just like waypoint cross should appear on that point but it doesn't. The cross gets placed way off and that's where bombs go.

You position CCRP diamond over target and press designate button. A cross that looks just like waypoint cross should appear on that point but it doesn't. The cross gets placed way off and that's where bombs go.

 

Current implementation is incorrect, correct behavior can be seen in Jojo's linked video. (Making sure we are all on the same page here :))

You position CCRP diamond over target and press designate button. A cross that looks just like waypoint cross should appear on that point but it doesn't. The cross gets placed way off and that's where bombs go.

 

No, it should not. Look at the youtube link above. Do you see a + in the HUD ?

Edited December 13, 2017 by jojo

But we are talking about different approaches i think.

 

Video is too long. Where is that part?

 

Enviado desde mi Moto Z Play mediante Tapatalk

The video link is about CCRP and is pointed to start at 28'30"

Oooh, ok i see now. Way different that our simulation. :(

 

Enviado desde mi Moto Z Play mediante Tapatalk

So.... a few months after the M-2000C launched, I asked about an included English cockpit and was told it was "imminent" or something like that.

 

Any update?

 

If RAZBAM's plans have changed and you're no longer planning to do this, can you at least add the cockpit livery scan functionality to your entry.lua, so that my cockpit mod doesn't need to modify any of the lua in the main installation directory? This prevents me from installing my cockpit mod into the Saved Games folder.

So there is no mark of any type in the designated CCRP aiming point? I can't see any in the video...

So there is no mark of any type in the designated CCRP aiming point? I can't see any in the video...

Nope, just command wings.

 

Enviado desde mi Moto Z Play mediante Tapatalk

Current implementation is incorrect, correct behavior can be seen in Jojo's linked video. (Making sure we are all on the same page here :))

 

Are we customers ever going to see an accurate implementation of all the current systems that are not correct? Just checking, maybe Zeus or Cpt Smiley could give us an insight of their plans.

/bump

 

Let's get this topic back up high on the threads list, because I saw users who most probably haven't found it buried on page 4 ;)

 

Still tracking :)

 

++

Az'

Hello guys,

 

I've been discussing various issues regarding the Mirage's FM on this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=199528, but as suggested I will further elaborate it here.

 

About those little strakes besides the Mirage's intakes which some people believe to be producing some sort of wonder lift, they are indeed producing some vortexes, but not so powerful as people might think. If they would do such great benefit at their size, why does the F-18E/F or Su-27 or F-16 need such a big LERX? The lift contribution of those strakes can't be great! And about sealed slats, I have never heard of something like that in my life, so if they are something special please let me know. The slats alone never produce vortexes, but only re-accelerate the airflow over the upper surface at higher alphas, thus increasing only the AoA by a couple of degrees by prolonging the linear CL vs AoA slope, NOT the CL itself. By experience, these only increase the maximum AoA somewhere between 6 to 10. For the Mirage, my experience tells it would increase the critical AoA by around 7. It's just my guess, yet I hope I'm not far from truth.

 

I will do a direct demonstration to estimate the Mirage 2000C's maximum lift coefficient using some known input data of a similar wing to that of the Mirage's and extrapolate the result.

 

This is the MIG-21's maximum lift coefficient versus critical AoA vs Mach.

[ATTACH]160841[/ATTACH]

 

Careful, the upper curve on the diagram is for flaps out, flaps which are blown to increase the CL quite much (gets around 1.25). The max CL for clean wing is depicted by the next curve which shows a rough CL defined at 0.8. It is closer to 0.9 in reality.

 

So the Mig-21 has it at about 0.9 with flaps up. The 21 has non-slatted wings and the maximum AoA is known to be around 20..21 (when the onboard idicator shows 33). The zero AoA lift coefficient for the MIG-21 is around 0.05, so it produces slight lift at 0 alpha. The lift slope is (0.9-0.05) divided by 18 (substracting about 3 degrees from the maximum AoA gives you an overall correct linear lift slope for deltas), ok? This makes 0.047. The vortexes contribute to increase both the lift slope and critical AoA, thus maximum lift coefficient, but also increase the induced drag by some amount. Reality is as it is, and in aerodynamics it might be very different than what you'd expect, that's why the professionally determined experimental data remains the best so far. CFD and theoretical aerodynamics can sometimes give incredibly high lift and incredibly high drag or vice-versa on each of them.

 

The MIG-21's wings have an AR (aspect ratio) of around 2.2 for a wing sweep of about 49 degrees on the 25% chord line. The Mirage has a lower AR (merely 2) and a bit higher wing sweep. This overall, without the strakes vortexes, produces a lower lift slope than that of the MIG-21 but higher critical AoA. With the strakes induced vortexes (yet they form a bit far above the wing so I don't know how effective they are), the lift slope might be mostly the same of the MIG-21's while the Mirage's critical alpha, from what I determined with my personal analysis, would be of around 23..24 AoA without slats. Let's roughly consider that with the strakes on, the lift slope becomes as high as the 21's. The slats would increase the alpha by 7, thus by knowing the lift slope and the newer alpha, we can roughly estimate the maximum CL by also taking into account for the stall onset curve (where the linear CL vs AoA slope terminates). I couldn't find an airfoil section for the Mirage which would've been useful to better determine the zero AoA lift coefficient, but as I know that it is a bit more cambered than that of a MIG-21 and about the same as thick, I will generously double that of the MIG-21 and put it 0.1, although it would be lower in reality. We multiply the lift slope of 0.047 with (24(critical AoA for clean wing)+7(critical AoA increment for full slats)-3(to consider only the linear CL vs AoA function)=28 ) then we add the zero AoA lift coefficient of 0.1 and we get the maximum lift coefficient for AoA = 30..31.

 

0.047*28+0.1=1.42. So it can be roughly around 1.4 at 30 AoA.

 

Here are 2 useful document which I found just now.These can confirm what would be expected from such a wing:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670003842.pdf

 

The experimental data (plotted circles) proves a maximum CL to occur around 1.2 at 30 AoA for a non-slatted wing.

 

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21069/what-is-vortex-lift

 

 

Regards!

Edited February 1, 2018 by Maverick Su-35S

Hi :)

 

Again, I'm not fit enough to contradict you about formula or calculations, but I do know that (at least) that the numbers you quoted for the strakes enhancement are below reality.

The manufacturer is really proud of their achievement, and of the "coupling" of those strakes with the wing (this is the "magical ingredient" from what I've understood, and that is what other manufacturers haven't achieved as far as they said at DA). They re-did it in an even better form with their next fighter and its canards. Of course it's not the (little) surface of the strakes themselves that do all the work!

 

About the slats, I haven't seen someone here saying slats enhance lift directly; but I haven't got the time to read the whole other topic. From what I know, classical (sloted) slats enhance critical AoA; perhaps lift is a secondary consequence I guess (more AoA = more lift?).

I'm also no sure of the difference between classical slats and sealed slats (meaning no slot between them and the wing), don't the latter change the shape of the wing, its curvature? Does that changes lift? I'm not sure, and not sure I can check, but I will certainly try :)

AFAIK slats on this airctaft improve wing shape/speed, drag, lateral stability. Not bad?!

 

Finally, about this:

I will do a direct demonstration to estimate the Mirage 2000C's maximum lift coefficient using some known input data of a similar wing to that of the Mirage's and extrapolate the result.

 

This is the MIG-21's maximum lift coefficient versus critical AoA vs Mach.

Are you sure, with the expertise you seem to have, that it is relevant to compare a MiG-21 and a M-2000? As a layman regarding aerodynamics (and maths!) I mean, OK both wings are triangular (delta), but many differences apart from that!!

- aircraft stability (classic for MiG, not for 2000, possible only with FBW)

- classic tail vs pure delta design (no separate stabilisators)

- no slats vs automated slats

- no strakes vs strakes+coupling

- 1955 vs 1978 designs (first flight years)

 

Now, all my remarks don't mean that there is absolutely no lift problem on the FM (perhaps there is, perhaps not; let's continue to dig into that!), nor that there isn't room for improvement: please don't take my message as a tentative to kill the topic, it's really not that. :)

 

I guess CptSmiley might be the best person to answer most of your concerns, but I'm not sure he's available right now for long discussions. Let's be a bit patient, it's probably worth it!

 

Regards,

Az'

Edited February 1, 2018 by Azrayen

The sealed SLATs of Mirage 2000 are known to decrease drag more than to increase lift.

They also improve directional stability at high AoA.

This is why the SLATs are forced in for landing, and the plane is restricted to less than 15 degrees AoA in they can't extend.

 

The 100kt low speed pass was part of regular training at medium altitude and very low altitude for solo display.

During solo display the AoA was around 25 degrees.

 

Last point, the Mirage 2000 displays speed in knots.

So this isn't practical to talk about FM with km/h values...

Cz gain Vs longitudinal stability (Cm) with SLATs (BECS) and strakes/ lateral fin (aigrettes)

 

Compared to Mirage III the Cz is improved by +70%.

 

Lateral stability at high AoA, + 5° to 7° compared to Mirage III.

 

The graphs comes from AGARD conference.

Edited February 1, 2018 by jojo

Guys, please, add the DDM sensorless Magic pylons, it's really annoying, I know that it has been mentioned here few times, but it seems that no one from devs did pay attention to this.

Hi Askerov24,

 

It may not be obvious with its title, but this topic is mainly about FM issues.

 

Yours is of course a valid issue, but not related to FM. I'm sure there is already another topic mentionning it :)

 

Regards,

Az'

Hi Askerov24,

 

It may not be obvious with its title, but this topic is mainly about FM issues.

 

Yours is of course a valid issue, but not related to FM. I'm sure there is already another topic mentionning it :)

 

Regards,

Az'

 

Yes, I'm sorry, the title confused me. Ok then, let's just hope it will be fixed soon.

Hi

...

- aircraft stability (classic for MiG, not for 2000, possible only with FBW)

- classic tail vs pure delta design (no separate stabilisators)

- no slats vs automated slats

- no strakes vs strakes+coupling

- 1955 vs 1978 designs (first flight years)

...

Regards,

Az'

 

Thanks for the reply! When I did that demonstration I knew exactly what I am saying, the differences and similarities. Maybe I wasn't too thorough into why it was a correct approach, but I'll try again now and answer on each of these mentioned lines.

 

1.Stability (which is split in many sub-types for the combination of aerodynamic and static effects) doesn't affect the maximum lift coefficient of a wing only. It does indeed affect the whole plane's maximum (global) lift coefficient through the static stability margin and also affects how the plane responds in pitching or yawing+rolling moments versus alpha (AoA) and beta (angle of sideslip), but I was only debating the wings lift potential. The fuselage lift is so little that it can be neglected, at least for these 2 planes, thus the comparison I've made is not affected.

 

So you are making a confusion. I was only talking about the wing's lifting capability alone, not how these planes respond in flight (pitch and yaw) or how their global maximum lift is affected by stability margin.

 

2.Again, the same thing as for point 1. You are mixing some things which are not the discussion. This is once again static stability debating. With tail or tailless, the wing produces Y lift at X alpha (or which way you want to see it).

 

3.It makes me feel that you didn't read how I extrapolated the data in that calculation. Of course it includes the slats effects. And btw, the term "sealed slats" doesn't exist aerospace terms, so it's only a term invented by someone's imagination when he/she saw the slat retracting and said to have sealed...!

 

4.Strakes+coupling? What does coupling and what kind of coupling has to do with this subject? Those strakes might help increase the lateral-directional static stability margin and have a reduced effect on our subject which is: wing lift alone. If you bring some terms in, let's discuss about them, no problem, but with something logic in between.

 

5.Sorry, but step by step it becomes more clear to me that you "throw" some dice without understanding what's the talk about. In other words "you don't get it". It doesn't matter that it's a wing made 200 years ago which I compare with a side panel from ET's ship as long as aerodynamically they provide comparable results, because that's what is important to observe. I understand that aerodynamics is not your domain, that's why I welcome you and everyone else into possibly important discussions, to share info and knowledge.

 

Getting back to how I grossly estimated the Mirage's wings maximum lift when the elevons are at 0 degrees of deflection (for the sake of not mixing stability trim with the fixed wing's shape that affects lift), as also depicted in those 2 links I provided, the lifting performance of a delta wing of various ARs (aspect ratio) with no slats is clearly proven by those diagrams. The wing of the Concorde which is of a much higher sweep than that of a mirage, lower AR and wing chords (which affect the Reynolds number) that are many times that of the Mirage helps it reach around 30 critical AoA with no slats, but with a detriment of having the max CL at 1.2.

 

Regards!

Cz gain Vs longitudinal stability (Cm) with SLATs (BECS) and strakes/ lateral fin (aigrettes)

 

Compared to Mirage III the Cz is improved by +70%.

 

Lateral stability at high AoA, + 5° to 7° compared to Mirage III.

 

The graphs comes from AGARD conference.

 

A-hA! The strakes are of benefit for better lateral-directional control, just what I was guessing for a while now is confirmed! There we go, the Cz to Cm is improved by 70% on the Mirage 2000C over the Mirage III. So we're talking Cm vs Alpha function values in essence, not lift, but only a ratio between lift and pitching moment. It can be numerator (Cz or CL) or the denominator (Cm) which affects this ratio and usually in this configuration (strakes position and size) it's only the pitching moment coefficient Cm (or denominator) that suffers a high modification and less the lift coef.

 

Here's an interesting topic talking exactly about these strakes, so we can close the strakes subject once and for all and understand that their main purpose is NOT to increase the wing's lift as it happens on an F-18 or Su-27, but to help the pilot have better rudder response and increase the lateral-directional static stability margin by aerodynamically moving the directional stability neutral point further aft and increase the Cn vs beta slope. Cn is known as the yawing moment coefficient and beta is the sideslip angle.

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=490

 

Regards!