Actually, no… the Mirage 2000 still has better wing loading and T/W at static conditions than the Gripen. The maneuvering T/W of the Mirage 2000 is higher… the reason the Gripen out-rates the Mirage 2000 has solely to do with a higher aspect ratio wing design which @Necronomica had shown me is a lower sweep angle than the answer we found on google of around 50 degrees… it’s actually closer to 40-41 degrees or so. Yeah, but go ahead and try to slander my name like I’m not right about this. Perhaps it is better for you to stop insulting people and instead provide something to counter the argument they are making (if it isn’t already valid).
Mirage 2000
JAS 39A
Of course, this is the F-18 thread so we should compare the even higher aspect ratio wing and superb performance numbers of that aircraft again… shall we…
Let’s use wiki, if any numbers are wrong please inform me so we can gather a more accurate analysis… this is just the brief assessment since I am limited on time today.
The empty weight of the F-18C is around 10,433kg with a fuel capacity (internal) of 4,930kg… total loaded weight approximately 15,363kg but we will round up to 15,500kg for other factors such as ammo and pilot.
The wing area (again, according to wiki) is 38m²
15,500 / 38 = 407 kg/m²… this is approximately equal wing loading to the F-16ADF in-game in the same conditions… but the F-18 carries a lot more fuel as we know.
Now, there is the discussion about thrust to weight of these aircraft… I’ll leave it alone but the numbers are actually quite close to the F-16ADF static… just not at optimal speeds. That is where the discrepancy comes from. The F-18 will perform better than the Gripen at low and medium subsonic speeds (What will matter when ditching a dogfight)…
Again, if anyone thinks I’m wrong here or wants to assert a different opinion please do so with discussion-worthy information and not some emotionally charged response / insults.
I didn’t use the WT wiki - was looking at advertised data from Dassault and Saab, but I must have used the wrong number for the combat weight of the Mirage 2000. The number I used was probably for full fuel.
Mirage 2000 is probably underperforming in game if the wing loading and TWR are that good, even without canards/fully relaxed stability.
I don’t know why you keep looking at optimal speed thrust. The Mirage 2000 wing rip speed is also 1,512 km/h so that figure is not really representative of the flight envelope. Meanwhile the Gripen achieves optimal thrust well below mach, similar to the F-16.
The F-22 was undefeated in the Al Dhafra exercise when facing the Rafale, the Rafale also flew without any kind of ordinance, maximizing its flight performance…F-22 pilots also very rarely use the plane’s full capabilities in these exercises, like thrust vectoring, if at all.
The numbers used by wiki for wing loading are for full fuel.
It is performing according to all known data charts, including that from the Tornado manual for comparison… it is performing accurately. There is more reliable information for the Mirage 2000’s FM than there is for the Gripen.
The peak thrust for both is at above mach speeds, but for more context I did some testing. The Mirage 2000 does seem to have approximately 5-2% worse thrust to weight ratio at 20 minutes fuel loading from speeds of 400 & 450 knots.
Mirage 2000 @ 400 knots = 9,605 kgf thrust (100m alt, test flight)
Mirage 2000 @ 450 knots = 9,990 kgf thrust (same conditions)
That is a thrust to weight at 20 minutes fuel of 1:1 and 1.05:1 respectively.
Gripen @ 400 knots = 8,747 kgf thrust (same conditions)
Gripen @ 450 knots = 8,870 kgf thrust (same conditions)
That is a thrust to weight at 20 minutes fuel of 1.05:1 and 1.07:1 respectively.
Of course this is quite off-topic, I’m sure we can move to either the Mirage 2000 or Gripen topics if you’d like to discuss further the intricacies of the designs and why the Mirage 2000 has significantly lower performance in sustained turns and specific excess power to the Gripen. (or other gen4s). The dynamic numbers on the wikipedia don’t account for the thrust drop at low to moderate speeds in flight and only the peak thrust when the aircraft is stationary on the ground.
I do not know since they do not sell fuel by the minutes, only weight.
We would have to know how many pounds of fuel first, calculate its gross weight, burn rate based on throttle setting and only then we can attempt to get a fix how much time the jet has in the air. Altitude is even factor in drag and engine burn rate since these are airbreathing engines.
I knew he was making stuff up again the moment he said 30-minute clean F-16, that he was comparing the F-18 E/F sources to the F-16 in game in which he oddly still thinks is a UFO anyway…
He just made-up numbers as usual. Straight up. like he is doing still above ^^
This guy is using WTRTI to conduct his test flights and argues his results on the forum. which is not permitted in bug reports and developers told him direct that anyone can easily manipulate values to achieve any desired outcome. He pretends like the developers never told him and does not know why its not permitted.
There is no “I guess” because developers told him directly here:
No, its not because it’s a third-party software. Once again, he intentionally obscures the truth and twist the words of the developers to fit his narrative.
So now he still uses inappropriate testing tools exclusively to argue his points on the forum and peddle misinformation. He is now using some dude’s “WT Turn Chart Sheet” as his primary table to calculate and come to his conclusions. Hoping to get him to invertedly cosign & agree as well as others.
He intentionally will refer to other people’s research and official sources to get them to cosign and agree with his position while cherry picking random numbers out of it and smashing it all together with his flawed testing in hopes none of you evaluate it but quietly just agree.
He has already demonstrated a lack of integrity in regard to how his test procedures are done and twisting the word of the developers and conveniently leaving out their direct statements in regard to inappropriate testing tools.
He will never give you the exact step by step formula how he comes up with his grand conclusions. All his personal testing should be disregarded as nothing more than intentionally overcomplicated chaff to obscure truth and push a personal desire on how any given model should or should not perform.
My apologies, weak thrust compared to air superiority fighters of the 4th Generation.
It has amazing thrust by the 3rd generation standard absolutely though!
Sadly, the F-18C is still not as fast as an F8E crusader even if it flew higher, definitely not as fast as the F4E and FGR.
Ziggy’s not a troll, and my F-5E to Mig-21F-13 comparison was to counter their F-18 to F-8E comparison.
Pretty much me defending that F-18 out-accelerates F-8E handily.
My country had MiG 23 in BN, MF, ML versions. I love these MiGs.
Angle of attack limitations.
The MiG-23ML (and the MiG-23UB) has an angle of attack
limiter coupled with a dumping system (the SOUA). When
AoA reaches values close to the limit, it does push the stick
forward to prevent overshoot.
The angle of attack (AoA) is displayed to the pilot by an AoA
indicator giving a value that is not the true AoA (angle in
degrees between the velocity vector and the aircraft X
axis), but an indicated AoA (noted as 𝛼 𝑀 as opposed to the
true AoA noted as 𝛼 𝜑 )
The relation between the two values is given as
𝛼 𝑀 = 2. 𝛼 𝜑 − 5.5𝑜𝑟𝛼 𝜑 = 1
2 𝛼 𝑀 + 2.75
The following are the limits enforced by the SOUA device
(система ограничения угла атаки - СОУА):
Wing sweep angle / indicated AoA / true AoA
16 deg sweep / 28 indicated AoA / 16.75 deg true AoA
45 or 72 deg sweep / 20 indicated AoA / 12.75 deg true AoA
I do not know much about the F-13, but it makes sense!
Well aerodynamics plays a critical part in how much speed is retained, right?
So, if the F-18C @ 0.96 thrust to weight cannot push it faster than the F8E crusader @ 0.62 even if it is flown at a higher altitude in thinner atmosphere … Then there must be is a serious design issue in the F-18C’s “high-speed power retention” right?
It can either be limited in how long it can sustain in AB due to poor engine design and poor aerodynamics. Or it actually can be both. Or it can also be the increased weight the Navy placed on the YF-17 for it to become carrier capable without upgrading the engines and called it the F/A-18.
The reinforced airframe, tailhook, landing gear etc…
But the point is the F-18C is not going to magically out accelerate the notoriously insane acceleration of the F16 and F15 & Mig29. I think we sufficiently proven that right?
It’s not beating anything in top speed either and gets chased down by Mig23s, F4 phantoms and is no faster than a Crusader. It’s definitely not going to out accelerate the Harriers and Yak141 either. The F-18 is not going to be the best at anything except landing and taking off from a boat.
Angle of attack? The Flanker can go over 90 degrees and still fly in a straight line up to 700km. The hornet cannot do it with its weak engines and poor lift and lack of vortex generators compared to it.
Again, Imo the greatest offensive strength for the F-18 is going to be its sensor suite and upgraded Aim-120 datalink. It should have a higher-than-average proficiency to other fighters.
But time will tell I suppose.
Also, the high mounted nose cannon will be pretty cool, should be very accurate and have a huge lead while turning and perform some nice snap shots.
Makes sense, I shouldn’t just assume things. He is known for purposeful derailment of threads and has been reprimanded often for it.
The aircraft can handle more than this, likewise the MiG-29 can handle more than 26 degrees… the flight control limitations are not hard capped of course. The last time I tested these were accurate, and when I reported the MLD lacking AoA they referred to the same formula.
On the flipside, the F-18 can handle nearly 40 degrees+ true AoA. Quite insane.
About the angles of attack according to GOST and the opinion of the pilots-not everything is as clear as you think…also in the message you got something mixed up …
The local angle of attack is determined by the test results and it is different for each aircraft…you give the formula for the MiG-23ML-it will not correspond, for example, to the values for the MiG-23M…
“…SOS-3 is installed on 23ML (A, D), 29, 31 and only on ML they forgot to write the conversion from the local angle to the true one. How to use the value measured in “parrots”. And why this gymoroy with vortex generators and pulling with F-16,15, with which there is nothing to do with an angle of 17 degrees. At least one pilot who flew on 23 can confirm this fact about the local and true angle. My sources don’t know about the local corner. And the fact that what is written even in a typographic way differs from the hardware itself is easy. (And it was dictated by the teacher at the training center and printed by the secretary).”
In detail-2 pages of the forum… Угол атаки и его индикация (airforce.ru)
Spoiler
2.SOUA-Was installed on the MiG-23M/MiG-23ML since 1977… starting in June 1979, previously produced aircraft were redesigned…On the MiG-23ML(A) / MiG-23MLD, SOS-3 was installed…
Spoiler
3.For comparison, the instruments of attack angles in the cabins are MiG-23M without SOUA / MiG-23ML(23-12) with SOUA / MiG-23MLD(23-18) with SOS-3…
