Yes, but in the case of Magic-2 the Max load is the minimal load of the missile once it have a medium energy state (IRL)
The dual plane steering is not modelized, making the the missile to be hold back,… (considering Russian R-73 50G ability, Gaijin should correct the Magic-2)
The IRCCM values are currently copy pasted from R-73 ones, despite the Magic-2’s IRCCM being closer to what have the AIM-9M IRL,… (also, if you played each missiles, you should notice how easy it is to flare out Magic-II in comparison to the R-73/AIM-9M)
Don’t agree. Yes, both R-73 and R550-II have exact same IRCCM however magic II accelerates much faster than R-73. Considering IRCCM becomes very effective <1500 meters, there is much less reaction time to avoid R550.
Actually, Magic 2 is quite difficult to flare if you fire it below certain range (optimally below 1.5km, rear aspect) since it doesn’t use inertial navigation coupled with guidance abort, rather it uses shrinking FoV, much like R-73 does
Considering the abysmal aerodynamics of the Magic 2 compared to things like the aim9m are due to the double plane canard wing design, and that gaijing did implement the high high drag but not the dual plan, especially considering the magic 2 isn’t in the top 3 of the best IR missiles (imo), whith the AAM3, AIM9M and r73 being mostly superior, still confuses me
What do you mean “damaging 530d tips of the 2nd missile”? Sounds like dassault engineers were so stupid to draw 2 super 530 in series under the fuselage that they didn’t consider the heat of burning fuel at all like the smart you do. Then besides this ridiculous reason as denied, what’s your real reason that M4K couldn’t carry more than 4 530D? You provided neither documents nor logics.
The early charts showing super 530 carried on centerline pylons were S530F
Lenght of Super 530F: 3.54m
Lenght of Super 530D: 3.80m
So a difference of lenght of : 26 centimeters
Considering pylons could not be moved:
When they switched to the use of Super 530D, they encountered problems of various reasons(damaging S.530D tip of the 2nd missile when firing the 1st one is one of the most probable problem), that’s why they added the abilities of carrying the S.530D on middle wing pylon instead
Funny how the M4K was essentially too late to be desired for SARH missiles and then too early to have MICA and other more modern missiles baked into the design. I suppose a fantastic example of bad timing in history.
Rafale contract was already signed during the development of the Mirage 4000, that’s why Dassault did not even bother trying to sell them the Mirage 4000
Wrong the Mirage 2000 and 4000 programs were built in as a solution in between 3rd gen and 4th late gen.
The Mirage 4000 have been tested and evaluated but the French AdA (ADAE today) qualified the aircraft to be too costly in flight time/cost.
The mirage 4000 have been proposed to several other countries but as with every aircraft France do not used, country that could have been interested in this aircraft were reluctant to be the first user of the aircraft, and feared to get into a phase of correcting issues of earlier aircrafts.
The Rafale program was designed to follow and replace this Mirage Programs, but the true start of studies was not contracted before the prototype of M4K started to fly, due to the problems of Eurofighter programs in which France was part of at the time.
I’d prefer 8 R-73 to 8 Magic 2.
On lonegr ranegs Magic 2 is easily flared while it is not efficient enough on close range.
On very clsoe range I hvae had betetr rsults with R-60M recently.