Thats not a canard it’s called a strake.
It performs a similar function, although primarily providing airflow over the wings to the rudder which also has strakes. This prevents low speed and high AoA yaw instability.
Again, the Mirage 2000 should have half the minimum airspeed of the F-16 and in-game this is inverse. The MiG-29 likewise suffers.
It’s not a canard. If it did the same exact thing it would be called a canard. Canards can generate lift. A strake does not. It just destabilizes airflow.
Yes, the Mig29 suffers agreed, as it retains the best of both worlds just like the F-16.
If the Mirage is underperforming at low-speed cool lets get fixed. But it should never be on par with the Mig29 or F16 at low speed. It’s a Delta design without controllable canards and will always be a Delta without controllable canards at the end of the day.
Dassault retired the thing because its inferior to the Rafale.
The Mirage shines in maneuverability at high Mach numbers. As it does in game. The Most maneuverable aircraft at top tier above Mach is the F-14 A model and B model wings swept and the M2k S5 & 5F.
The mirage does not have the ability to unsweep like the Tomcat and suffers in WWII dogfight regimes and landing.
Mirage is fine, maintains control of the aircraft down to 50 knots as it says per the manual. The F-16 falls out of the sky below 110 knots. In-game the F-16 maintains high (35+ degrees) AoA and can fly down to 50 knots as well (not maintaining altitude).
It’s due to this overperformance of solely the F-16 that it is dominating the game right now. It is why people think the MiG-29 has to be sub-par or underperforming.
2 Likes
Many things fall out of the sky but don’t in game mig.
Report it, source correctly. It’s really easy. Reports don’t take much effort when you have a primary source.
1 Like
I do not want to because I understand this is a video game and so does Gaijin Entertainment
Regardless, you went into the rant about wing design when in reality the F-16 is worse than the Mirage 2000 in low speed performance / handling. You want to say the MiG-29 is underperforming but it doesn’t have any discrepancies (at least none we can show in a worthwhile report currently).
So why should the F-16? Gaijin has acknowledged and given us a reason; instructor limitations. Might still be worth reporting specifically the low speed AoA limit but I’ll carry that on to the correct thread.
Now, its a rant because you demonstrated you still have no knowledge about aircraft? GG.
My guy, I provided a link to NASA to help you understand the negative effects of the delta in subsonic flight compared to other swept designs. Of course, you failed to visit the site.
You have a Napolean complex and its becoming quite the inconvenience.
It’s irrelevant. I pointed out the Mirage 2000s performance is better at low speed than the F-16. I referenced the primary materials for the F-16 to show this. A general paper stating something that doesn’t apply to either aircraft (they have relaxed stability and all sorts of modern advancements). You’ve gone on a rant about these before.
This is why it’s important to actually understand what you’re saying and reference a good source. If you just copy / paste some wall of text with no understanding of how it’s being applied you’re gonna end up in this situation that you’re in.
3 Likes
I have, and you know what GJ ended up doing?
They increased the aerodynamics and high Mach performance of the Mirage 2000 with zero addition to engine thrust at the time.
Because I know wtf I am talking about and you cannot differentiate what a canard and strake are.
Describe the two and how they differ from Kfir to M2K
People bug reported it to match newer available information, it’s performing as it should. The F-16 is not. Gaijin has stated why that is and said they’ll fix it. That doesn’t preclude the fact that the F-16 is overperforming and the M2K / MiG-29 are not.
Canards can generate lift, strakes do not.
Strakes only destabilize airflow in high angles of attack and do not provide additional lift themselves.
next question.
Can you show me how much lift the Kfirs canards generate in level flight?
Yeah in the appropriate thread go ahead and ping me there.
The reason I ask is because the primary purpose for them on the Kfir is the same as what leading edge flaps do for the M2K. If you wish to dispute that you can do so with a source on either M2K or Kfir.
Close coupled Canard provides the airflow and vortices, M2K has the leading edge flaps and the “strakes” to create vortices.
The difference is that one of them has no trim drag at low speed because the nose naturally wants to pitch up. It has improved low quality handling over conventional tailed designs contrary to your rant.
To tie this in to the MiG-29 thread, the MiG-29 doesn’t get lift from the elevators since they are constantly trimming to keep nose attitude. The F-16 at maneuvering speeds has additional lift generated from the elevators to assist in energy maneuverability and allows them to get away with a smaller wing. The benefits are reduced drag, smaller fighter, and unlike pure deltas have better deep stall recovery with a separate elevator. Despite all this, the F-16s stability margin proves too unstable for such low speed flight and was limited irl to avoid AoA overshoots and departure. Such conditions would cause deep stalls and spins. In-game there is no such thing for the F-16.
MiG-29s neutral stability between 14-26° AoA allowed for rapid pitch-up moments and overshoots to ~60° AoA. It is precisely these areas of total airflow separation (50-60°) that it is able to dynamically decelerate and then nose down again for a recovery without worry of instability. The regions before this (35-45°) there is still turbulent airflow over the wings and around the nose that cause wing rock, adverse roll or yaw conditions.
This is why the MiG-29’s only capable of briefly doing 60° AoA and sustaining only 26-28° in level flight.
@MiG_23M trying to break in and derail the Mig29 thread with “F-18 is superior, F-16C is overperforming & now M2k/Kfir.”
I am going to start calling you the T-1000, bro.
1 Like
The reason you ask is because you have a Napolean complex and just cannot take an L on anything.
Everything just stated about the Kfir and leading edges was made up and all of your interpretations are rooted in fantasy and end up being proven as such. You are not qualified to discuss the Mig29 if you can barely comprehend 3rd Generation aircraft and basic wing designs.
IAI Kfir (Lion Cub) (militaryfactory.com)
Do you know why do they say “main wings”? because canards are called “forewings.” Do you know what wings do? GENERATE LIFT.
Where the canard surface contributes lift, the weight of the aircraft is shared between the wing and the canard. It has been described as an extreme conventional configuration but with a small highly loaded wing and an enormous lifting tail which enables the centre of mass to be very far aft relative to the front surface.
A lifting canard generates an upload, in contrast to a conventional aft-tail which sometimes generates negative lift that must be counteracted by extra lift on the main wing. As the canard lift adds to the overall lift capability of the aircraft, this may appear to favor the canard layout. In particular, at takeoff the wing is most heavily loaded and where a conventional tail exerts a downforce worsening the load, a canard exerts an upward force relieving the load. This allows a smaller main wing.
Theres a source, stick to tractors.
Gave you nearly an entire day to respond with something worthwhile and you didn’t.
Here is something to read on close-coupled canards, but as you said… let’s get back to the topic at hand.
Lol entire day? I got bored so now Iam dunking on you sound definitions of what a canard is.
Find us a source that states canards are some bootleg substitutes for leading edge flaps.
Find it. in this entire naval study please.
Do not throw entire books out there. Be a big boy and find it for me.