Mirage F1 project update

[Loudfox]

Also, any mirage F1/anyC  pilot should look pretty much like this once airborne :

 

 

[Arikaj]

5 hours ago, Loudfox said:

Also, any mirage F1/anyC  pilot should look pretty much like this once airborne :

 

 

It's a shame they removed the laughing emoji

[potatoman530]

Does the Mirage F1 have a lead indicator/radar gun sight? The F-5 has one so considering this is more advanced I would assume it has one?

[Grift-06]

In the preview video of Aerges, we can see the landing gear swing going too fast, will it be slower for the release? (when it goes slow, it's sooo sexy)

[jaguara5]

And here is the real thing 

See 34:51 - 34:53   ,  35:03  - 35:05

The radar cover is a very characteristic item of the F1 cockpit

Edited May 10, 2021 by jaguara5

[TLTeo]

7 hours ago, potatoman530 said:

Does the Mirage F1 have a lead indicator/radar gun sight? The F-5 has one so considering this is more advanced I would assume it has one?

Yes, and it has a rudimentary HUD as well

[Loudfox]

12 hours ago, Arikaj said:

It's a shame they removed the laughing emoji

 

Haha, it was so late when I made this. I was not even sure to post it as it represented the F1 pilots as hunchbacks ! When I have great respect for them

 

 

10 hours ago, Grift-06 said:

In the preview video of Aerges, we can see the landing gear swing going too fast, will it be slower for the release? (when it goes slow, it's sooo sexy)

 

I think it is the purpose, otherwise it would be censored !

 

 

Yes the animation is indeed a little too fast.

Here for exemple :

 

 

 

[kontiuka]

30 minutes ago, Loudfox said:

Here for exemple :

 

 

I'm surprised how little thrust the F-1 has.  Only around 15,000 lbs with afterburner?  That's only half that of the F-16.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, kontiuka said:

I'm surprised how little thrust the F-1 has.  Only around 15,000 lbs with afterburner?  That's only half that of the F-16.

 

Yeah, I mean it was basically an evolved design from WW2 that was made in the late 50's. I'm frankly surprised how fast the F1 is given that. 

[Loudfox]

1 hour ago, kontiuka said:

I'm surprised how little thrust the F-1 has.  Only around 15,000 lbs with afterburner?  That's only half that of the F-16.

 

Yeah the F1 is not known for its powerful thrust. It has an improved engine from the atar 9c designed in 1961 (mirage IIIE/R). The F100-PW-100 arrived 10 years later.  The planes have not been developed at the same time and were not designed with the same criteria in mind.

 

[Harlikwin]

33 minutes ago, Loudfox said:

 

Yeah the F1 is not known for its powerful thrust. It has an improved engine from the atar 9c designed in 1961 (mirage IIIE/R). The F100-PW-100 arrived 10 years later.  The planes have not been developed at the same time and were not designed with the same criteria in mind.

 

Precisely. Actually I'm impressed that the Atar was able to be pushed that far from the basic Jumo design. 

[Rick50]

 

The other thing is that the Eagle and Vipers were considered truly amazing when first introduced, in large part due to the very high thrust they offered. Sure there was other factors, ease of flying, high outward visibility, high maneuverability, an awesome fire control computer and advanced HUD and so on. But the high thrust to it's weights were a significant reason why the world suddenly REALLY wanted to buy Eagles and Vipers when they were first shown back in the day. Obviously not everyone could afford Eagles, so when the first "Fighting Falcons" first appeared (F-16A) the rest of the airforces could now buy a similarly awesome mini-Eagle that was "right-sized" for either their budgets or national terrain size (most nations with tiny areas don't look at Eagles... ignore Israel who bought lots of both!). When they started with such power, it became easier to really develop it into a multi-role, in part because you could in fact carry lots of tanks and ordnance and safely lift off before the end of the runway thanks to high thrust giving higher acceleration to V2 speeds despite higher payload weight.  

 

I remember reading back in the day, how when the Viper first flew at the Paris Airshow... it's takeoff ALONE got sales!  Buyers all saw that the previous star, the Mirage, while looking like a good performer as in previous years, looked "slow and lethargic compared to the F-16 that roared for a few seconds, LEPT off the runway and proceeded to climb like a rocket"... and suddenly everyone wanted it! (I'm paraphrasing and doing so from fuzzy old memory, but that was the spirit of what was said)

 

 

[TLTeo]

Yeah, the comparison with the Viper says more about what a massive step forward that aircraft was, than anything about the F1.

[Get_Lo]

31 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Yeah, the comparison with the Viper says more about what a massive step forward that aircraft was, than anything about the F1.

Keep in mind the Mirage F1 M-53 was competing very closely with the YF-16, it almost won but the YF-16 was better. it did beat the YF-17 though
(This is called The Deal of The Century)

[Bremspropeller]

12 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Precisely. Actually I'm impressed that the Atar was able to be pushed that far from the basic Jumo design. 

 

That's certainly amazing.

It was based on the BMW 003, not the Jumo 004, though. The Atar always kind of was the weak spot for the Mirages.

 

 

One needs to think about the F1 more as an "ultimate 60s interceptor" rather than a 70s air superiority fighter or clear air mass dogfighter, which came out of lessons learned in SEA.

The F1 was supposed to be an evolutionary step up from the Mirage III, rather than a revolutionary design. And it was a budget solution, as France didn't have the cash going for all kinds of other, more expensive Dassault designs (like the swing-wing G8 or the initially preferred F2). And it did a pretty good job at fixing some drawbacks of the Mirage IIIC, like runway-performance, range and maneuverability, while also providing a step-up in capability in terms of weapons carried/ loadout configuration/ mission flexibility.

 

11 hours ago, Rick50 said:

I remember reading back in the day, how when the Viper first flew at the Paris Airshow... it's takeoff ALONE got sales!  Buyers all saw that the previous star, the Mirage, while looking like a good performer as in previous years, looked "slow and lethargic compared to the F-16 that roared for a few seconds, LEPT off the runway and proceeded to climb like a rocket"... and suddenly everyone wanted it! (I'm paraphrasing and doing so from fuzzy old memory, but that was the spirit of what was said)

 

The poor Mirage had a very tough adversary to beat there in the sales department.

While the Viper was the better performer at the airshow, it didn't have BVR capability back then, though. The F1 had it's niche - particularily with nations that weren't popular for weapons exports in the US (e.g. Iraq, Libya, South Africa). And it did perform well enough.

 

 

[henshao]

15 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

The other thing is that the Eagle and Vipers were considered truly amazing when first introduced, in large part due to the very high thrust they offered. Sure there was other factors, ease of flying, high outward visibility, high maneuverability, an awesome fire control computer and advanced HUD and so on. But the high thrust to it's weights were a significant reason why the world suddenly REALLY wanted to buy Eagles and Vipers when they were first shown back in the day. Obviously not everyone could afford Eagles, so when the first "Fighting Falcons" first appeared (F-16A) the rest of the airforces could now buy a similarly awesome mini-Eagle that was "right-sized" for either their budgets or national terrain size (most nations with tiny areas don't look at Eagles... ignore Israel who bought lots of both!). When they started with such power, it became easier to really develop it into a multi-role, in part because you could in fact carry lots of tanks and ordnance and safely lift off before the end of the runway thanks to high thrust giving higher acceleration to V2 speeds despite higher payload weight.  

 

I remember reading back in the day, how when the Viper first flew at the Paris Airshow... it's takeoff ALONE got sales!  Buyers all saw that the previous star, the Mirage, while looking like a good performer as in previous years, looked "slow and lethargic compared to the F-16 that roared for a few seconds, LEPT off the runway and proceeded to climb like a rocket"... and suddenly everyone wanted it! (I'm paraphrasing and doing so from fuzzy old memory, but that was the spirit of what was said)

 

 

 

for a similar reason Iran took the Tomcat over the Eagle...sort of a "win on sunday sell on monday" situation

[Loudfox]

18 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Precisely. Actually I'm impressed that the Atar was able to be pushed that far from the basic Jumo design. 

 

Indeed ^^

 

5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

That's certainly amazing.

It was based on the BMW 003, not the Jumo 004, though. The Atar always kind of was the weak spot for the Mirages.

 

 

One needs to think about the F1 more as an "ultimate 60s interceptor" rather than a 70s air superiority fighter or clear air mass dogfighter, which came out of lessons learned in SEA.

The F1 was supposed to be an evolutionary step up from the Mirage III, rather than a revolutionary design. And it was a budget solution, as France didn't have the cash going for all kinds of other, more expensive Dassault designs (like the swing-wing G8 or the initially preferred F2). And it did a pretty good job at fixing some drawbacks of the Mirage IIIC, like runway-performance, range and maneuverability, while also providing a step-up in capability in terms of weapons carried/ loadout configuration/ mission flexibility.

 

 

The poor Mirage had a very tough adversary to beat there in the sales department.

While the Viper was the better performer at the airshow, it didn't have BVR capability back then, though. The F1 had it's niche - particularily with nations that weren't popular for weapons exports in the US (e.g. Iraq, Libya, South Africa). And it did perform well enough.

 

 

 

Well explained.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

20 hours ago, Loudfox said:

Yeah the F1 is not known for its powerful thrust. It has an improved engine from the atar 9c designed in 1961 (mirage IIIE/R). The F100-PW-100 arrived 10 years later.  The planes have not been developed at the same time and were not designed with the same criteria in mind.

And still I remember a conference by a former Spanish Phantom pilot (F-4C, it should still be on YT, Spanish though) and he told this problem they had every time they did dissimilar combat with F1s, they arrived at their best altitude don't pay attention to the exact numbers, I don't remember, but something like 30.000ft and the Phantoms did so at 15.000ft, so they had this problem with F1 pilots of, "for me to go down there and you get a kill on me, better you come up here so I get a kill on you". My point being, even if at a certain envelope, the F1 stood a chance against something as powerful as a Phantom (C model, right), that's not a so underpowered aircraft for it's time. They will be underpowered compared to any more modern fighter we can see in DCS for sure, but at least in dogfight apparently they weren't so useless as one might think at first glance against contemporary examples. I don't know to what extent it'll stand up in the present day battlefield but back then apparently it could be a dangerous rival. I have the hunch that in cold war servers F1 will make it's way for sure, and in present day ones, well, there is the MiG-21 in a somewhat similar situation and still it can do some things only up to the pilot's strategy.

Anyway, even if for a cold war scenario only, I believe F1 is a must have.

 

S!

[Kerosene]

Hello AEGES I am very excited to see a Mirage F1 on DCS.

I noticed a few details of the landing gear that look strange.

First, it appears that the loaded aircraft, landed on the ground, is not pressing on the main landing gear jacks.

 

 

 

Secondly, the 3D modeling of the nose gear and the main gear does not seem complete unlike the other DCS modules.

 

 

 

I know F1 is in WIP but can you confirm that?

 

Once again, AERGES is doing a great job on this module and I will undoubtedly be a buyer as soon as it is released in EA.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by Kerosene

[Vibora]

56 minutes ago, Kerosene said:

I know F1 is in WIP but can you confirm that?

Sure.

[Get_Lo]

@Vibora
As the Early Access is relatively close, do you think you can tell us what types of weapons/fuel tanks/pods we can expect to see on the CE for its debut? Im sure you have lots of fun stuff planned down the road but I (as im sure most people are) am interested in what we can expect to be included when we load in for the first time

Edited May 12, 2021 by Get_Lo

[1MajorKoenig]

Looks like an insta-buy to me

 

Looking forward!

[trindade]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Looks like an insta-buy to me

 

Looking forward!

 

+1

[Lampshade]

@Vibora will we be getting both Radar and IR guided versions of the Matra 530?

[jaguara5]

On 5/9/2021 at 1:48 PM, jaguara5 said:

 2 questions for   the devs. 

And about the slow speed BFM performance. Are the rudder's used on high AoA to roll the aircraft ? And how are the slow speed characteristics of the aircraft, is it more stable to fly (like the F-5) or  AoA sensitive (like the F-14) where you get out of control if the stick is pulled to much aft?

 

 

 

So i got the answer to my own  question from a former F1CG pilot and passionate dcs player. The aircraft flies pretty well in slow speed without wing rocking and the rudders are used to roll it at high AoA.

Edited May 14, 2021 by jaguara5