Jump to content

Mirage Aerodynamic Performance Overpowered


Recommended Posts

Gents,

 

After many hours and many engagements I am sure it is apparent to anyone that the Mirage 2000C is a potent dogfighter. It got to the point however, that it seemed to be a bit too untouchable and I began to do some research.

 

First and foremost I am an actual military pilot with considerable dogfight history so I realized early on that something didn't seem right. After talking with multiple French acquaintances who have flown or have flown against the Mirage in real life we came to a few realizations.

 

Main questions I asked:

 

1.) Is the Mirage really this superior in ACM? (Dogfighting)

 

Yes and no. The mirage with its delta wing has an ability to gain first shot opportunity on almost any fighter if the pilot desires but it comes at a cost. The high bleed rates of the delta wing also leads to high drag at low altitudes and its lack of thrust makes it a dog once its bled down.

 

2.) What are the weaknesses then if any of a delta wing fighter with fly by wire? because I cant seem to find any (In game).

 

As stated above, its high drag wing and relatively weak thrust give mirage pilots a hard time once they execute an energy excursion in order to employ on their opponent. Once bled down it is difficult to regain an advantage or energy and is often bested by the F-16 and most certainly the F-15.

 

3.) Given the answers above, in your opinion is the module modeled correctly?

 

No. In game at low airspeeds the mirage begins to turn at a higher sustained turn rate then when it is in its designed rate band (roughly 320-450KIAS) at 15k ft and if tested against its true EM diagram (unclassified document listed below) the module fails to resemble the true numbers.

 

Mirage+2000+at+15k.jpg

 

As seen above, although it holds a decent sustained turn rate at airspeed, as it bleeds down its turn rate is significantly affected. In game as the aircraft bleeds it actually sustains higher turn rates at lower airspeeds.

 

Overall I think its a good module, but I would like to see the developers take into account the real data and model the aircraft to perform as it should so users can fully experience the positives and negatives of such a unique aircraft. It should not be able to have the benefits of a delta wing without the drawbacks as well. Thoughts welcome.

 

Thanks!

-Leroy

53599127_Mirage2000at15k.thumb.jpg.20396d8326f813b9feb3c3b3ca5f803b.jpg

Edited by Leroy24
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 351
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Leroy24,

 

I agree with your points 1 and 2. :thumbup:

 

I don't have a definitive opinion on you point 3, because I haven't flight tested it in DCS.

But I still can make two remarks about it:

 

A] The flight model of DCS M-2000 has evolved several times (*) and is still considered WIP re: fine tuning of performances; I'm therefore not surprised of your conclusions; it would be interesting to precise at which date (or DCS version) you made comparative tests: that can have tremendous importance re: validity of conclusions drawed.

(*) exhaustivity non guaranteed: Feb 2 2016, Apr 15 2016 (major), Aug 12 2016, Sept 9 2016, Sept 23 2016, Nov 11 2016 (1.5.5).

 

B] The EM diagram you provide is indeed in the public domain but it is not an "unclassified true EM diagram". It is an estimation, which is pretty old, and may be wrong.

In fact, it is wrong on some 'easy to check' values, for example:

- internal fuel is 3160kg, not 2960 (200kg error)

- max external fuel is 2570kg, not 2205 (365kg error)

- I have doubt about empty weight too but didn't take the time to check.

One can say it's relatively tiny errors, but it shows that this document is not at all "official" and should not be "blindly" trusted as the absolute truth / goal to attain in DCS.

 

Regards,

Az'

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent points Leroy24

My Hardware: Z390 AORUS Master - Intel 8700K 3.7 GHz @ 4.9 ghz (Delid Copper IHS) - G.SKILL 32GB DDR4 3200 (14-14-14-34 CL) - GigaByte 2080ti OC 11gb - 2 EVO Nvme 500GB - Virpil Warbird Base T-50CM2 and TM Throttle + Trackhat + G25 + AOC AG271QG 27"

 

My Modules: JF-17, F-16C, AV-8N/A, F-18C, ASJ37, MiG-15Bis, MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, NS430, FC3, A-10C, Mirage 2000C, L-39, F-5E-3, SA342, Spitfire.

 

My Maps: Nevada, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Leroy24,

 

I agree with your points 1 and 2. :thumbup:

 

I don't have a definitive opinion on you point 3, because I haven't flight tested it in DCS.

 

Your opinion should reflect reality: Turn rate decreases as speed decreases below the maximum power point. There might be small 'bumps' in some cases because of devices like flaps and slats (eg. Su-27), but anything that has you turning as fast or faster at slow speed as you do at max power or corner speed is wrong. The DPS goes down, never flat or up.

 

B] The EM diagram you provide is indeed in the public domain but it is not an "unclassified true EM diagram". It is an estimation, which is pretty old, and may be wrong.

In fact, it is wrong on some 'easy to check' values, for example:

- internal fuel is 3160kg, not 2960 (200kg error)

- max external fuel is 2570kg, not 2205 (365kg error)

- I have doubt about empty weight too but didn't take the time to check.

One can say it's relatively tiny errors, but it shows that this document is not at all "official" and should not be "blindly" trusted as the absolute truth / goal to attain in DCS.

 

Regards,

Az'

 

 

Doesn't matter - it's the best thing available, aside from taking the Mirage III charts and sticking the new engine on that (Ie. make a 2000C with the III engine, then just switch out the engines).

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't matter - it's the best thing available, aside from taking the Mirage III charts and sticking the new engine on that (Ie. make a 2000C with the III engine, then just switch out the engines).

 

It's not that simple. Even if both Mirage 2000 & Mirage III have delta wing:

Mirage 2000 have:

- bigger wing

- relaxed stability

- leading edge slats

- streaks on air intake sides.

Mirage fanatic !

I7 7700K/ MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X/ RAM 32 Go 2400 Hz/ SSD Samsung 850 EVO/ TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD base + Saitek X-55 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Rift S

M-2000C X-55 VR profile

M-2000C custom SERVAL symbols assignation

Flickr gallery:

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes jojo, you are right. It's only the closest airframe available.

 

Yes it looks the same, but under the skin it's a new plane, really.

Mirage fanatic !

I7 7700K/ MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X/ RAM 32 Go 2400 Hz/ SSD Samsung 850 EVO/ TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD base + Saitek X-55 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Rift S

M-2000C X-55 VR profile

M-2000C custom SERVAL symbols assignation

Flickr gallery:

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your opinion should reflect reality

I hope it will :D

Not sure you got my point, but thanks for the theoretical reminder anyway. :thumbup:

 

Doesn't matter - it's the best thing available

Is it?

To whom? ;)

(I'm not talking about M-III charts; and again, I will reserve my opinion)

 

Yes it looks the same, but under the skin it's a new plane, really.

+1

The few points jojo quoted make huge difference. "The closest" it may seem, but too far away IMO to be that useful, except for some general principles as stated (correctly) in his points 1 & 2 by OP.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, appreciate the quick responses and opinions.

 

I have seen many E-M diagrams in my career, and in my opinion as a professional aviator they are one of the most valuable sheets of paper available.

 

Now whether or not this EM diagram reflects the M2000C perfectly or not (can not comment on classified information) what I can say is its general purpose is to show an aerodynamic principal. As airspeed decreases below corner airspeed as stated above regardless of slats/flaps or any additions to the wing, the sustained turn rate will gradually decline. This should be even more so with a delta wing as it begins to increase AOA and substantially increase drag with its relatively low thrust capabilities.

 

Just to sum up, the point is not to debate the chart, it is to bring light that in no circumstance should the aircraft have a higher sustained turn rate at 150-200KIAS vs 450KIAS.

 

Thanks!

 

-Leroy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, I can confirm quantitatively that the sustained turn rate is above the provided chart in the area of 175 kt to 275 kt ... I'll be investigating this.

"Witness mere F-14s taking off from adjacent flight decks, gracefully canting left and right, afterburners flaming, and there’s something that sweeps you away—or at least it does me. And no amount of knowledge of the potential abuses of carrier task forces can affect the depth of that feeling. It simply speaks to another part of me. It doesn’t want recriminations or politics. It just wants to fly.”

― Carl Sagan

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to sum up, the point is not to debate the chart, it is to bring light that in no circumstance should the aircraft have a higher sustained turn rate at 150-200KIAS vs 450KIAS.

Totally agree :thumbup:

 

No, internal fuel is 3800 L. What mass that is depends on the characteristics of the fuel.

Hey! I'm the nitpicker here!! :D

Also, sorry but no. Internal fuel is 4000 liters.

I agree that mass will depend on density; mass is also how crews speak. ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, internal fuel is 3800 L. What mass that is depends on the characteristics of the fuel.

 

That is true for twin seat Mirage 2000D & Mirage 2000N.

 

For single seat Mirage 2000C & Mirage 2000-5 it's 3160kg.

 

From other flight manuals available on the net, Dassault seems to use 0.79 fuel density.

Mirage fanatic !

I7 7700K/ MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X/ RAM 32 Go 2400 Hz/ SSD Samsung 850 EVO/ TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD base + Saitek X-55 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Rift S

M-2000C X-55 VR profile

M-2000C custom SERVAL symbols assignation

Flickr gallery:

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently took a look at the EM diagrams provided with the DCS M-2000C manual for the Mirage 2000F-5.

 

I am a sailor and no aviator, so I might get something wrong here. But I tested the configurations and this diagrams seemed to be qualitative viable.

 

So for example I just tested the M-2000C in 1.5.5 and achieved the best sustained turn with around a little more than 11°/sec at around 0,8Ma at 5.5g (see TacView file)

 

This fits well in the picture of the DCS Manual:

attachment.php?attachmentid=151824&stc=1&d=1479404962

 

I guess 50% fuel and 2x550 with total weight of 20951lbs is closer to the clean with 23500lbs diagram than the diagram with external loads, so I would compare this diagram (which reflects the DCS reality) with the diagram in the first post.

 

I understood the EM diagram in the first post the way, that the Mirage 2000 hast the best sustained turn rate of over 12,5°/sec at 0.9Mach at over 6,5Gs. In game I cannot achieve a sustained turn rate if I pull 6,5gs at 0,9Mach with this configuration 15k ft. I get over 17°/Sec but loose energy fast. So the diagram in the first post, does not fit the EM diagrams as well as the ones provided in the manual concerning the quantities.

 

Looking at the quality and the pictured character it looks quite similar to me, even though that the DCS Manual ones (taken from the other sim?) indicate a more narrow sustained turn rate speed band than the one in the first post. And isn´t that a delta wings character, the narrow speed rate band?

 

(I don´t want to argue what is right and what is wrong, just want to understand the issue ;) )

M2000clean15kft.thumb.PNG.802f707eb295596c0d888050cf8f39a3.PNG

Edited by SNAFU

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Unsere Facebook-Seite

Link to post
Share on other sites

DCS, close dogfight against low fuel Flanker, Mirage is far superior and it turns 30-50% faster than Flanker even with flaps on (who's engine power btw is degraded in latest update and bleeds speed as hell). That's just too unreal.

 

Mirage turn rate is aggregated and that makes Le Mirage all aspect dominant in DCS witch is far from reality. It has supercruise abillity, all aspect radar and if you add its aggregated resistance to multiple missile hits you get almost arcade platform in DCS. If ED wants to give artificial advantage to "the" new module of RASBAM they should do it little bit stealthy and not too obvious as did.

 

I won't buy that Mirage anyway just because of this policy, and maybe I would if wasn't this artificially superior.

 

http://www.russiadefence.net/t4374-fighters-comparison-thrust-to-weight-ratios-of-all-fighter-planes

 

I ask my self when will I finally experience in DCS vertical acceleration in Flanker of Mig21 or any other fighter with T/W ratio over 1 on conditions like no externals, low fuel and right altitude. This happens never and it should, especially in merged dogfight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is RAZBAM, not RASBAM.

 

And it´s not a policy, it calls WIP, and Bug Fixing.

 

Cpt. Smiley is doing a great job fixing almost in a weekly rate all bugs and inconsistences of the M-2000C.

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.

 

You should fly the mirage before stating such (mostly) false things. And please remember it's a BETA so stuff is subject to change.

 

Above all ED does not give artificial advantages to the 2000, that is very unfair for you to say that as RAZBAM is putting a lot of good work into the mirage at the moment.

 

Bastard mode on

 

Maybe you are mad to be shot down by an "inferior" plane.

 

Bastard mode off

 

BTW it is not RAZBAM's concern if your SU-27 is under-powered.

 

Edit : the only stuff you said that is true is the turn rate at slow speed is a bit too high and the DM might be too resistant. The mirage does not supercruise, does have a worse radar than the SU-27/F-15.

Edited by myHelljumper

Helljumper - M2000C Guru

 

Helljumper's Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK3rTjezLUxPbWHvJJ3W2fA

Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake, typo, RAZBAM. Mirage is a great plane no doubt and I respect that but it is really overpowered. Seriously man, I'm regularly shut down by F15s and Mirages most of the time and I'm not pissed of at all just saying it has "features" that are not real at all and are arcading it. Check the T/W ratios first then give me some real arguments as topic starter did. It HAS supercruise ability, CAN sustain Multiple hits, radar CAN see you true the hill and HAS unreal low speed turn rate. That makes it ARTIFICIALLY SUPERIOR. What is false on this? No yelling at all.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you got a whole list of complaints about how the plane flies and what it does and doesn't. But you haven't actually bought or flown it...

 

Yea, Ferrari, That new car of you SUCKS. Waaaay to twitchy steeringwheel and way to sturdy cup holders. It even does 200km/h in 4th gear!. I will never buy or drive it if you leave it like this... :doh:

 

The mirage lost supercruise 2 updates ago. You would have known, if you actually bothered to fly the plane your complaining about.

Edited by CrashO
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this is a valuable source about M2000 performance.

http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm.

Also, according to a mirage 2000 presentation book (in greek), that states '' sponsored from dassault'', the m2000 has the following performance, compared to the f-16 :

Mirage 2000EG flying with 2 Magic missiles , 50 % internal fuel (1990 lt) at

15.000 feet with Mach 0.7, has an instantaneous turning rate of 22 deg. per second, while the F-16 C has 18 deg. per second.

Under the same conditions, but flying with Mach 0.9 the

M2000EG has an sustained turn rate of 11 deg. per second, while the

F-16 C 13 deg. /sec.

 

 

The flight model has changed several times from the beginning.

There was a release, where you could feel the speed depletion provided

by the delta wing, but people complained about that in the bug section and it was changed then.

As the Op stated, the (well known here) reports from real pilots have confirmed that the M2000 has a good first shoot capability, then the situation is difficult due to the high energy loss. https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2000-pilot-interview-cutting-it-in-the-electric-cakeslice/

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2621437&postcount=100

Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't make him wrong - y'all need to stop being jerks. CptSmiley has acknowledged the FM issue. It's highly unlikely that you'd be able to keep up with a turning flanker in Mirage - you've got too much induced drag due to the delta, and inferior TWR. The flanker doesn't lack any devices for increasing it's slow speed performance, and it has quite powerful motors.

The complaint is spot on.

On the other hand, since CptSmiley has acknowledged the issue, the complaint should not have been made at this point.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...