wish the Derby got that, i find the Derby to go to chaff like early IR missile to a flare
Its not slightly narrower, its less than half the beamwidth of the other fox 3’s, 7° for the MICA vs 15° for all the other (top tier) fox 3’s. Its narrower than the current seeker implementation for the 120C-5 (7.5°).
It also has a marginally higher sidelobe sensitivity (-29 vs -30 on the other missiles), tho I’m not sure exactly what impact that would have.
1 Like
It’s very crazy, the weapon has no effect.
moreover, the fuel tanks are subsonic
1 Like
i dont want to start anything back up, but i think the argument about it being able to go mach 2 is silly. in what circumstance are you going mach 2 in toptier especially in a Rafale rofl. only time i have ever hit mach 2 in an actual match is in the F-111F while running from people rofl.
1 Like
The fact is that the FM setup is disgusting. The aircraft is capable of reaching Mach 2 with full armament and subsonic fuel tanks, when in reality you will not even overcome 0.9
2 Likes
what its the IRL wet thrust per engine of the Rafale in game?
The thrust values are modelled after a chart from the prototype M88’s bench tests minus a few % to account for intake losses, so it’s as accurate as can be. Basically 75 kN/engine of static thrust, minus a few kgf.
What’s arguably badly modelled is high supersonic drag, as well as underwing loadout drag.
7 Likes
At least 1000 kgf must be subtracted from these values.
These aren’t the charts I’m referencing. We got actual testing bench charts, that the devs also have. And fyi thrust is on par and even higher at sea level on the benchtest chart.
What kind of nonsense are you writing? Thrust in an airplane cannot be higher than bench thrust
No I mean the values on the bench chart are higher than the ones from the theoretical model charts you just posted.
Those ones come from a french PhD paper, and are “just” very advanced mathematical models.
1 Like
Dassault offical cite
You’re writing nonsense.
Lmao, ever heard about the difference between static thrust and dynamic thrust?
Both curves indeed display a 75 kN static thrust, but the increase with speed is steeper on the prototype bench chart.
I know about static and dynamic traction. But the static thrust in an airplane at H = 0, M = 0, will be much lower.about 58 kN
1 Like
Typical inake loss in game is rarely higher than 10%, often closer to 5%. That would mean worst case scenario 68.5 kN per engine for the Rafale.
Except intake design on the Rafale is much more modern and efficient as most 4th gen fighters, and it’s optimised for subsonic and overall low speed performance. Hence an intake loss closer to 5% or even lower.
So idk where that 58 kN came from, but you’ll need to rethink your expectations.
doubt that you cant even see the compressor blades of the rafale.
meanwhile the su-27 has an efficency loss of around 10% in game (not sure about IRL),
i dont think that it is physically possible for the rafale to have a lower loss than the su-27 or even f-14 for that matter
1 Like
Intake efficiency depends on more parameters than whether or not you can see the blades though.
Both Su27 and F14 were optimised for M2+ flight, around 60s and 70s knowledge.
Rafale was explicitely optimised for subsonic flight and benefitted from the 80’s breakthrough in aerodynamics knowledge and CFD.
So I don’t see why it wouldn’t be more efficient than both F14 and Su27 at subsonic speeds. The contrary would be surprising even.
but from what i know it plays a big role, right?
there is only so much you can do when you have to route the air throug an S-duct
These are pressure losses, not thrust losses. The correct way is to make a complete calculation, taking into account pressure losses
It’s just ridiculous.
That’s the truth.
1 Like
Su-27 has more thrust than needed on AB