Hey you know what? Step back a little,…
Precising things is bad for no one,… if you took it personnal, then i’m sorry you didn’t make right in first place,…
I’m not going to make you another Ziggy,… and if this still keeps you in mild anger, then go for PM.
It’s useful when you use it in a useful application.
Oh god, anything but that. Every day I wake up and give myself a 5 minute monologue about how I’ll never be like Ziggy :P
It cannot really work like that as changing lateral pull would be false they are right when they say the missile has 35G lateral pull. Thing is missile rotates it’s tail to pull lateral and vertical 35G resulting in 50G overall but changing lateral pull is just wrong(I may be wrong in the full reasoning as i don’t know much about duaal plane but can affirm changing lateral pull is wrong).
You’re false, the Magic 1 has a fixed tail. Which is why it can only pull 35G. Magic 2 changes in physical aspect that led to better performances is cuts in wingtail + free rotating tail section; no changes to the front of the missile
Besides Magic 2 and AAM-3 are there any other missiles currently in game that would benefit from duel plane/BTT? Maybe thats why they haven’t added them yet
NOPE,… not even close true,… the Tails is free of rotation,… no engine activate anything about the tail,… the Tail is freely rotating over the axis to follow the flow, and stable the steering in order to avoid spinning the entire missile.
The Dual plane is only about the frontal moving parts of the Missiles, unlike previous missiles in the game, the dual planes is seperating the moves of both control surfaces pairs in order to use both pairs to pull a lateral 35G of their own,…
Then both forces are cumulated, in such:
Squareroot(35^2+35^2) = squareroot(2450) = 49.49G of total lateral pull
This only is working when the missile have an high state of energy (basically 1st pull of the missile), then it goes back to the current 35G, and 3rd pull makes it about 20G max.
Technically AAM3 is 40G under dual plane so they deliberately coded it wrong so that it’s atractive but anyway only missile that would benefit from dual plane currently are Magic 2s as AAM3 would lose lateral pull.
“The Magic has four fixed fins, four movable fins directly behind the fixed fins, and four notched fins on the tail, which is mounted on a bearing and is free to rotate independently of the missile.”
About Magic-1, and not Magic-2
Here a Magic-1
Here a Magic-2
And if you can’t see the bearing joint on both Missile, then i’ll have to use Paint and show you,…
Thank you, random fan that follows me around.
Maybe this isn’t the thread for this question, but with the Mirage 2000C-S4/5 still ‘under review’ and possibly going up in the next br changes, and it passed for consideration in December, would would the Mirage IIING or IIIEX be a good candidate to fill the gap between the 2000s and the F1?
The Mirage IIING is the French plane I want most. It would be a great candidate to bridge that gap
Yes, because GJ would need to fill out the BRs if those two aircraft go up.
That is an excellent idea.
I however, do not see GJ increasing their BR. I believe they are going to fill those 12.0-12.3 with lower performing active radar missile capable aircraft.
The J8F, JH-7A, MLU, ADFs, Harrier II, Sea Harrier, F1 Tornado, F4F ICE, MiG-21-98-2, MiG-23-98 etc. These lower performing Active radar missile aircraft will sit there.
The S5 & S4 will be severely out gunned in the BVR arena if it goes up.
Unless they unlock the Magic II performance to offset…
Hint, hint…
The Mirage III NG and EX would be mostly a sidegrade to the Mirage F1, they share the same engine, the same weaponry ( not sure if they would get the Magic 2 however ) and the same radar, but in a Mirage III airframe.
What would be a good filler between the Mirage 2000C-S5 and the Mirage F1 would be the Mirage 2000C-S3, fitted with a M53-5 engine (worse than the M53-P2 of the S4/S5 but better than the Atar 9K-50 of the F1) and if it is added in its late iteration, can get the RDI radar and Super 530D instead of the RDM and Super 530F
Thats cool, but I am kind of burnt out of the copy paste 2000s though.
S3 is just going to be another copy paste only thing different is less performance. That would just piss me off personally. All just to easily & lazily fill a gap? Probably have the same exact color scheme too.
We have more capable unique Mirages like what Chad suggested IIING or IIIEX as well as very interesting export ones with better engines etc.
I guess time will tell.
If anything, the S3 should have been the one for the event… place it at lower BR than the S5. They degraded how special the S5 is with bringing in the S4 imo.
I do not even like to fly it anymore since its literally a copy paste to the event.
What else could fill the capability gap? The only other thing I was able to find would be the Mirage G8-02 which was passed on the old forums. It looks like it would have an identical weapons suite to the F1, with better (?) flight performance.
Im down for the G8. We do have this aircraft like the Yak-141 too. Nothing is impossible
There are very interesting exports. That do not quite need to be in French service. We have lots. Then again. I have not looked to much into weapons.
Iduno. Im disappointed in them bringing the S4.
Should have been the S3…
They would have made a killing in sales if they had a lower BR 2000. With less performance and older super 5s.
Instead, they just made the S5 less special and now have two jets with a BR issue.
Anyway you guys bring up some good points.
The Magic 2 has 4 moving control surfaces, the tail rotates freely around the body to avoid roll interference. The AAM-3 is coded correctly, the single plane pull is 40G’s. The missile does bank-to-turn steering IRL which is not properly modeled in-game, which would further enhance the maneuverability of the missile if it could be proven that it should pull in combined plane… which would be ~56G.
Not the same thing, bank to turn can be done in single or dual plane. Bank to turn means the missiles’ roll is stabilized, though… so if it maneuvers in “X” configuration it must do so at all times with a certain point always being up in relation to target vector rather than the methods used by the magic 2… where any intersection between the canards can be used as the pitch point towards target vector. Think Meteor, it can only pitch “up” from the top of the missile otherwise the intakes are not oriented properly and instability causes oscillations which can lead to a near-miss if not managed properly.
No, both have free rotating tail sections. The magic 2 incorporates new sensors in the guidance head for maintaining 45 degrees between control surfaces towards target vector (combined plane). This simply modification allowed an enhancement in maneuverability without seriously modifying the missile control scheme.
The Phoenix, Magic 2, AAM-3 would all benefit from dual plane and have been proven to operate with such a control scheme as far as I am concerned. Gaijin needs more convincing.
The Bank-To-Turn method is employed by the AAM-3 according to some sources, but is negligible as to how much it matters in-game as long as the overload is correct. Missiles such as the Meteor require this to maintain the position of the intakes in relation to the maneuvering vector of the target as to avoid instabilities that cause oscillations, loss of control, and whatnot.