yes, the F-14 is wayyyy to high
i meant the manual
not even those are the same. DA7 has ALDERUs on the inner pylons, Italian Trainer has AHDERUs
What height is this at?
This is supposedly from an Indian MRCA
I found it in another forum so i dont know the real source.
1 Like
Except that’s exactly what you’ve been doing, and continue to do… typical lmao.
Sure can! But your comparison is a bit disingenuous in the first place seeing as it omits some rather key information (since as I previously stated, wing loading is not the only factor regarding sustained turn rate) such as lifting bodies, swept wings, TWR, etc…
Mirage IIIC/Mirage 2K: tailless delta with highly swept wing and one of the worst aspect ratios to date! Efficiency of lift generation at low speeds (sub ~M0.6) drops, leading to more AoA required, and more induced drag. TWR not enough to account for this.
F-14A: Lifting body design with variable swept wings allowing it to optimize lift generation for low speed flight. Actual effective wing loading considering its lifting body at 30min fuel like in your test would be in the ballpark of 234.95kg/m^2, not the 493kg/m^2 you claim, making it the lowest wing loading aircraft of your list, barring maybe the MiG-29, whose effective wing loading due to its lifting body, I’m unsure of.
MiG-23MLD: variable swept wing allows it to optimize wing lift for low speeds. Its also a bit of a weird aircraft as its wing loading varies depending on sweep.
Tornado F.3: Variable swept wing, as before, can optimize wing geometry for maximal lift. Your quoted wing loading is wrong as 742kg/m^2 is the wing loading at max fuel. Wing loading at 30min is 652.33kg/m^2, which is still very high. Its peak sustained turn rate seems questionable though as its a substantial increase over its 333kn STR.
All you’ve done is pit low aspect ratio, conventional deltas (ie: designs known for poor sustained turn performance) against high aspect ratio, and in some cases, higher TWR aircrafts in an incredible display of cherry picking.
The funniest part is, you omitted a very good comparison that could be made in the F-4E vs Mirage IIIC (likely for reason that its not so rosy of a comparison for your argument).
Leading edge sweep: 60°
Aspect ratio: 1.94
F-4E
Wing loading: 408kg/m^2
Sustained turn rate: 12.47°/s (13.73°/s)
Leading edge sweep: 45°
Aspect ratio: 2.77
Despite the F-4E’s similar TWR at 30min fuel, and 42.7% increase in aspect ratio, both the Mirage IIIC and F-4E have EXTREMELY similar STR’s. The mirage 2000, with its mildly better aspect ratio of 2.0 and higher TWR at 30min fuel actually surpasses the F-4E in STR.
Quick heads up, as someone pointed out in that forum discussion, the F-16 and Eurofighter are basically matched below 10000ft:
I’m not debating whether the Eurofighter outperforms the early 1970s design or not. I’m pointing out issues with your statement… You made it seem as though the concept of canards themselves to provide lift instead of downforce such as conventional elevators gave the Eurofighter an edge over the F-16… I simply stated that the static instability allows both to do the same thing… create more lift.
My explanation simply showed the eurocanards are not at some sort of advantage over conventional tailed designs simply due to the canard. Static stability aids both in allowing the control surfaces to produce lift rather than just augment airflow to maintain nose attitude.
I did not bring up dogfighting performance. I simply said the Eurofighters flight performance exceeds that of the F-35, which, need I remind you, was a valid answer to the question
But is it Germanys best fighter jet?
You asked for information regarding the Eurofighters comparative advantage over the F-16, which I provided in the form of a discussion by Eurofighter pilots regarding the comparative advantages of the plane against other common aircrafts, one of which was the F-16.
Is there an F-16 pilot who is willing to say something similar? If not, it will be no different than taking a T-72 crewmans opinion of his tank against modern western tanks such as Leopard 2 or Abrams.
I also will reiterate that the reason I said you bringing atealth into the argument of flight performance was a strawman was that STEALTH HAS NO EFFECT ON FLIGHT PERFORMANCE. It is a tactical advantage of the aircraft, and although valid in debating which aircraft would have what advantage in a given scenario, has no bearing on an argument regarding raw flight performance.
I think stealth has a negative impact on flight performance, so perhaps that could have been a better point of discussion rather than claiming it was some sort of strawman… it wasn’t.
I’ll ALSO point out, once again since you seem to struggle with reading comprehension, that I had never stated the Eurofighter was a better aircraft than the F-35, and had already indicated that the F-35’s stealth and avionics likely gave it a sizeable edge in BVR performance against the EF2000. I had simply stated that the Eurofighter has it beat in flight performance, which you seem to have taken offence to for some reason.🙄
I’m not offended, and have not been offended by anything you’ve ever said (albeit you’ve said some stuff that could most certainly be seen as offensive to others). Please take that down in notes.
Also, there is no need to insult people. Once again you’re degrading yourself to that level of discussion and it’s just not good etiquette. I’ve done it in the past I admit, but we don’t need to devolve this line of discussion in that way.
You certainly implied the Eurofighter was better than the F-35 at least in flight performance. I’ve seen data to suggest the F-35 exceeds the performance of the F-16, I would like to discuss honestly how the F-16 performs against the Eurofighter and preferably with real information and not anecdotal stuff from pilots. “Subject matter expert feedback” is the reason DCS’ Mirage 2000 has the highest sustained turn rate of anything in the game, including the F-16C. That alone is not good enough imo especially when it comes to the intricacies of modern fighter jets performances. Guesswork on missiles is a simpler matter, I think.
1 Like
Regarding the ability to carry Missles on Pylons 4 and 5 if u have the AER(EP).1F-EF2000(T)-1 PDF
on page 1-618. (Nato restricted so no pictures)
AHDERU are not able to use AMRAAM or SRAAM but the station 6 ALDERU can handle a TMC with 2 MFRL so its poossible to use 2 Meteor or IRIS-T on pylon 6
another thing i have seen rendered pictures of the EF ECR brochure where it carrys the 1000l SFT on the Pylon 4 and E-War equipment on pylon 5
Edit:
My thoughts are however that there should be no problem to put ALDERU where the AHDERU are
as everything is controlled by the same DU and has the same wireing to each pylon.
This is further supported by the EF Beastmode render where each Pylon is an ALDERU with double MFRL.
2 Likes
i dont see anything on that page saying that MFRL can only be installed in ALDERUs. As I explained before, ALDERU has the same wiring as AHDERU. AHDERU however has additional 30" spaced lugs and is rated for higher weight classes(2000lbs).
you’re probably right about the interchangeability of ALDERU and AHDERU though.
The beast mode render had stations 4 and 5 with double rails, 6 has only a single missile which is weird because station 6 is the one specifically mentioned on 1-618 to carry a double rail(we’ve seen a picture of that with a Spanish eurofighter and 2 iris-ts)
All of this is technically possible, it is just not done for cost reasons
where does it say this? (page no.)
seems sraam management is only supported for missiles fitted on the ITSPL’s and the Wing outboard MFRL.
I will add just from a moderation point of view, due this document having unclear origins I will ask you do not post any pages from it or directly quote it.
I’m not saying anyone was about to, just making sure that is clear.
Thanks everyone.
3 Likes
and amraam might even not be supported on the TMC.
on page 1-618
it dosnt specifically say it that it cant though i think it would have mentioned as it is in the sentence after that
Beast mode is a purely fictional loadout
The MRFL is only ever mentioned on the outboard pylons, either singularly for the amraam, or either singularly or with the TMC for the sraam.
I see no problem at all with TMC and 2 MRFL to fire AMRAAMs as target designation and what missle is used would be pretty much thee samee to an ASRAAM the only thing that comes to mind is if they would physically interfere with each other wich i also dont see as a problem as there is enough place when u looook at the picture with TMC and 2 MRFL
hey we are in a good streak at least, last time it was freaking minecraft xD
well tbf you can find all 3 online and also i have my doubts about the authenticity of these documents as they have a bunch of typos in them…