Mica underperforms just like any other fox 3 currently in game.
This nerfs are made as a balancing decision.
You wouldn’t like to play against a 50G thrust vectoring fox 3 with 80km of range, would you.
Im just stating the facts thats all.
Does it underperform? Yes.
Does it need its historical performance? Not now.
1 Like
That’s what i was trying to say in my previous post
Just because it’s underperforming doesn’t mean it needs to be changed right now
Never said it should, you said you can only remember one aspect that Rafale underperforms and i just reminded you thats not the case.
1 Like
The bug report about MICAs “missing energy” was thrown out a month ago cuz all the sources were trash and most of the bug report was just made based on assumptions made by DirectSupport.
To no ones surprise, another french bug report had been passed with dubious sources and has since been rectified after it was looked into.
7 Likes
Probably what I said then. it does not bring improvements to the thrust tho
I think there’s enough primary sources directly stating 75kN that piiot cherry picking can be disproven
The TM closing this report clearly didn’t have a good look at the rest of the report before closing it after removing the incorrect sources. The missile still can’t reach the minimum 80km requirement in game. There’s still primary sources on that. Also about the MICA VL 20km range (30G above 12km). Those are all primary sourced, and the MICA is not capable of doing it currently.
What was removed were mentions of the Magic 2 and mistral comparaison, which I do agree with their removal, because it’s quite obvious that those are different classes of missiles. However these were secondary to the report.
@DirectSupport can attest that I told him I did not agree on that specific point
This source seems to contradict known information with its comparison to the Atar:
Atar’s weight is 1590kg, thrust is 7200kgf, TWR is 4.52, an increase of 88% puts the M88-2 at a TWR of ~8.5:1
M88-2 has a known weight of 897kg, therefore it must generate 7624.5kgf (16,800lb) however the document doesn’t reflect this.
If you use the 45% lighter figure, the expected thrust drops to 7430kg
A TWR increase to a clean 90% would be 7703kgf/75kN, but they deliberately used a different percentage.
And ofc what’s your rationale to handwave the Safran/Dassault websites?
1 Like
That’s correct? 75kN is ≈16,860lbf
It’s 74.77kN, and still 200lb shy of the 17,000lb figure used in the source
If the goal was to clear up the discussion, this document only adds more grey to the area lol
17,000lb is most definitely a rounding issue, given it clearly states that 75kN was the value tested in trials.
Crazy that you keep mentioning rounding stuff and still find issue with a rounding error of less that 0.5%
Sure then, if we assume that only the 17,000lb number is rounded for this presentation, why does every modern source state 16,500lb or less? Were the test bench thrust values de-rated to preserve engine life for the production versions? Jane’s also has the M88-2 at 16,400lb
Bro wanna make a pinpoint sim out of WT but doesn’t bother with german Typhoon having brimstones or all Typhoons using the dual rack only spain uses actively.
Jane is unreliable as hell.
6 Likes
You’ve been alleging that people have been using shoddy sources but you cite Jane’s? You really shot yourself in the foot with that one.
8 Likes
Ah yes, jane, the most authoritative source there is. You made a point, I now believe you 150%
6 Likes
Does a percent difference of roughly 2% really matter
I am using the most generous possible values in this comparison. If we take the document at face value, the M88 being 45% lighter than the Atar makes it 874kg, and a TWR of 8.5 would then make it produce 7429kgf, or 16,378lbf…
ur asking the people who are making a report to raise it by 1.5%
1 Like