Mirage Aerodynamic Performance Overpowered - Page 33 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-28-2020, 06:19 AM   #321
Hummingbird
Veteran
 
Hummingbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo View Post
Yes, I found the pages and cover on my hard drive finally.
The important thing is this isn't a Dassault document
It might not be, but the charts were nonetheless done by professionals, hence it's unlikely they would get it terribly wrong, esp. in terms of relative STR progression vs speed.

Hence I see nothing to support that the M2000 should suddenly out of the blue gain an advantage in STR below 330 ktas whilst being worse above that speed, esp. considering it's a pure delta with a much higher sweep angle and thus not really great the slower you go drag wise.

Also for the M2000 to suddenly out climb the F-16 in a straight vertical climb below 180 ktas it would need a higher T/W ratio at this speed, which I likewise have seen no evidence of.

Last edited by Hummingbird; 09-28-2020 at 06:21 AM.
Hummingbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2020, 07:07 AM   #322
jojo
Veteran
 
jojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: France
Posts: 4,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummingbird View Post
It might not be, but the charts were nonetheless done by professionals, hence it's unlikely they would get it terribly wrong, esp. in terms of relative STR progression vs speed.

Hence I see nothing to support that the M2000 should suddenly out of the blue gain an advantage in STR below 330 ktas whilst being worse above that speed, esp. considering it's a pure delta with a much higher sweep angle and thus not really great the slower you go drag wise.

Also for the M2000 to suddenly out climb the F-16 in a straight vertical climb below 180 ktas it would need a higher T/W ratio at this speed, which I likewise have seen no evidence of.
Ok, I agreed that the M-2000C STR may be to high below 350kt.
But now we have checked, we know that there is no real world charts of the Mirage 2000C available.
So like I told you, you can't take this "guesstimate" to argue about 0.5°/s STR or 0.5G STR.

Like I said, Elmo told Discord that the FM is under review. So let's cool down, wait and see.
__________________
Mirage fanatic !
I7 7700K/ MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X/ RAM 32 Go 2400 Hz/ SSD Samsung 850 EVO/ Saitek X-55 + MFG Crosswind + Rift S
Flickr gallery:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi
jojo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2020, 08:23 AM   #323
Thinder
Member
 
Thinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: London
Posts: 246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummingbird View Post
It might not be, but the charts were nonetheless done by professionals, hence it's unlikely they would get it terribly wrong, esp. in terms of relative STR progression vs speed.

Hence I see nothing to support that the M2000 should suddenly out of the blue gain an advantage in STR below 330 ktas whilst being worse above that speed, esp. considering it's a pure delta with a much higher sweep angle and thus not really great the slower you go drag wise.

Also for the M2000 to suddenly out climb the F-16 in a straight vertical climb below 180 ktas it would need a higher T/W ratio at this speed, which I likewise have seen no evidence of.

What you call professionals aren't listed as such, on the other hand, EDWARD AFB Flight Test Center and DRYDEN are and they both tested f-16 and its engines, if you can't comprehend what pressure recovery does to an engine or the difference between a turbofan and a bleeding turbojet, it is no reason to pretend that it doesn't play a role in F-16 mitigated performances in climb from sea level.

The Mirage out-climb F-16, and you've had the explanation of WHY given to you several times over with proper documentation, not the funny sources you base your assumption on, not to mention that chart giving the F-100-PW-229 for 38.000 Lb of thrust.

We still wait for your source saying it beat Mirage 2000 60.000ft/mn.

Here is Dassault official website data (Again).


https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en...t/mirage-2000/


__________________
MSI B450 GAMING PLUS MAX AMD Ryzen B450 ATX DDR4 Motherboard, AMD Ryzen 5 3600X, EVGA NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB, 32GB Kit DDR4-3200, 22' Samsung, Oculus Rift CV1. Thrustmaster T.16000M FCS HOTAS.
Mirage 2000C, F-15C, Mig-29, A4E.
Avatar: Escadron de Chasse 3/3 Ardennes.
So far so good...

Last edited by Thinder; 09-28-2020 at 08:26 AM.
Thinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2020, 12:09 PM   #324
Hummingbird
Veteran
 
Hummingbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo View Post
Ok, I agreed that the M-2000C STR may be to high below 350kt.
But now we have checked, we know that there is no real world charts of the Mirage 2000C available.
So like I told you, you can't take this "guesstimate" to argue about 0.5°/s STR or 0.5G STR.

Like I said, Elmo told Discord that the FM is under review. So let's cool down, wait and see.
Not arguing about 0.5 dps, I posted the figures to illustrate how the progression in STR of the DCS M2000 doesn't make sense. As for the vertical climb, we need a chart that shows the M2000 noticably beating, not equalling, the F16 in T/W below 180 ktas (both clean, 2790 lbs of fuel) for the performance in this area ingame to make any sense.

And dont worry, I'm very cooled down, unlike Thinder I'm not emotionally attached to either aircraft, and I'm happy to hear that RAZBAM are reviewing the FM.
Hummingbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2020, 11:47 PM   #325
Thinder
Member
 
Thinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: London
Posts: 246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummingbird View Post
As for the vertical climb, we need a chart that shows the M2000 noticably beating, not equalling, the F16 in T/W below 180 ktas (both clean, 2790 lbs of fuel) for the performance in this area ingame to make any sense.

Does it make sense that Edward AFB Flight Test Center explains in great length that an installed F 100 P&W 229 cannot produce its Max power at sea level before reaching MACH 1.0?

Since when does a turbofan reache the same level of pressure recovery at ANY speed than a bleeding turbofan?

You clearly have no clue what you are writing about, and everything you don't know, which is a lot, demonstrated by the USAF Flight Test Center or Dryden doesn't make sense to you. We got it.

The M53 is far less sensitive to pressure distortions which occurs at low speed and in the supersonic regime, this is a FACT and F-16 fixed inlet is NOT optimized for both end of this speed bracket.

You keep jumping up and down pointing out details that are proven to be factuals:

At 180 Kt, your F 100 P&W 229 is NOT producing 29.000 Lb of thrust.

At 180 Kt your F 100 P&W 229 coupled with the inlet will experience an level of airflow distortion that the engine architecture cannot cope with at the same level than a bleeding turbofan.

Mirage 2000 inlet are optimized for high AoA/Low speed with the addition of multishock cones giving it the ability to cope from low speed to Mach 2.5.s

NASA T-M 75703



This is not the case for F-16 inlets which are designed to provide it with the best possible pressure recovery at M 1.0.

Otherwise said, you keep asking for the Mirage to be nerfed in a region of its flight envelop where the design of its engine and inlets makes it equal/superior to F-16 despite the best evidences provided by real professional which actually tested the aircraft specifically on this topic.

Instead of wasting good forum space, providing false/inaccurate info you'd be better off learning to fly what you're got because asking you to deal with reality seems to be a tad too much.

To summarize, F 100 P&W 229 is not superior to M53 within the whole of its flight envelop, in some aspects, it is even inferior, pressure recovery and sensitivity to airflow distortion are a huge factor in engine performances.

F-16 drags more, in particular at low AoA, with an increased Cd going through the roof when it reaches its Critical Mach.

On the other hand Mirage 2000 has a totally carefree engine handling, which wasn't the case for early F-16 due to an even higher sensitivity to airflow distortion which caused several flame out. Unknown for M53.

F 100 P&W 229 is less sensitive to airflow distortion than previous engines but it retains typical turbofans sensitivity by design; to produce its thrust, it needs a clean airflow which the one shock inlet cannot provide it with at all flight regimes, altitude/speed.

Now, posting engine charts from a flight simulation then calling those who put them together "professionals" is misleading others, those are only estimates made by people which aren't professional.




http://www.f-16.net/downloads_file5.html

First your chart is wrong: F 100 P&W 229 cannot in ANY case produce 38.000+ Lb of thrust, second it was computed for slight simulation (Falcon 4) and never using the accurate EDWARD or NASA models and test results.

Second I know Raptor_One work well enough to know that he is not particularly known for not being biased when it comes to US aircraft or French for that matter.

Official documents will debunk his theories 90% of the time and unfortunately it is proven to be true once again, that's what happens when you don't go "by the book". Here is what the book says about thrust:

Quote:
Static thrust. The installed thrust of the engines can be measured directly on the ground on a static thrust stand. The principle of a thrust stand is quite simple. The aircraft sits on a pad and is connected by cables to a load cell that measures load (thrust) directly in pounds of force. By operating the engine at various throttle settings, a comparison of thrust at zero speed over a range of power settings can be made with predictions.

AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE FLIGHT TESTING

AIR FORCE FLIGHT TEST CENTER EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
Quote:
"inlets optimized for different flight speeds may cause a fighter with a relatively high thrust-to-weight ratio at high sped to be inferior a low speed".


FIGHTER AGILITY METRICS, RESEARCH, AND TEST PHASE I REPORT
KU-FRL-831-2

THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH, INC.
Flight Research Laboratory
Lawrence, Kansas




Come back when you got proper data from real professional using real "real life" procedures for testing.

......
__________________
MSI B450 GAMING PLUS MAX AMD Ryzen B450 ATX DDR4 Motherboard, AMD Ryzen 5 3600X, EVGA NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB, 32GB Kit DDR4-3200, 22' Samsung, Oculus Rift CV1. Thrustmaster T.16000M FCS HOTAS.
Mirage 2000C, F-15C, Mig-29, A4E.
Avatar: Escadron de Chasse 3/3 Ardennes.
So far so good...

Last edited by Thinder; 09-30-2020 at 02:41 AM.
Thinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2020, 05:20 PM   #326
arnokm
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Toulouse, France
Posts: 17
Default

Concerning the drag at low speed / high AoA, please read the second page of:
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICA...S-84-4.5.1.pdf
arnokm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.