Would be really good indeed to have access to those fuel pods, they don’t even block the use of all fox3 possible to take
For Sim it can be interesting, but I think it won’t be necessary for ARB as the Snecma is not super thirsty on m2k. But would still be cool to have the option as it is so iconic silhouette !
Adding more internal fuel and negatively impacting performance is not a good thing for the Mirage 2000.
Only 1300l drop tank just isn’t enough.
The Mirage 5F will have the 5BAs drop tanks too yes.
17 Likes
Thx
There is a Mirage 2000 wing drop tank in the in-game data, are there any plans to add it?
1 Like
That’s the one i hope the most for (i mean all Mirage 2000s)
Additional fuel tanks are being added periodically over time. Some may not be fully configured yet. The current priority is to give as many different aircraft at least 1 fuel tank option as possible. Others may then be introduced later for aircraft that already have external tanks.
14 Likes
ok thank you
Will Mirage2000 recieve uptaded pilot models? Devblog only mentions about Usa and Russian planes.
3 Likes
This doesn’t seem right, I described the function earlier
1 Like
Because it’s not a true movable canard. It’s a fixed canard that has the possibility to be feathered/disabled to cancel its effect on the airflow, mainly in case of malfunction in the FBW system.
Explained here, around 1:14:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu4V9zn0wZ4&t=4376s
Also we got this, allegedly from the M4K flight manual
1 Like
Ofc it’s an extremely crude comparison and very far from physical reality, and maybe doesn’t apply to Gripen specifically.
I’m basing this take from what I understood of a former Dassault aerodynamicist that worked on the Rafale, and makes a huge distinction between the Eurofgihter and Rafale canards philosophy.
He explicitely says that they are NOT a control surface on the Rafale, and functionnaly closer to flaps as a lift enhancing device.
He also explicitely says that on the Eurofighter they are used for their lever arm as a means to improve post stall manoeuverability, in extenso as control surfaces of some sort.
1 Like
Halal
They act like an elevator, whether he meant it isn’t a ‘trim’ device necessarily… They are still the device that manages pitch. The canard produces either positive or negative lift and can be feathered to reduce lift and increase stability margin. This is the premise of all modern delta canards.
1 Like
I mean, call it what you want. My point remains : the purpose of a close-coupled canard (like on the Rafale) is to increase the lift of the main wing through vortexes creation (hence my comparison to flaps). It’s the reason why there exist fixed close-couple canards aircrafts such as the Viggen, the Kfir or the M4K. The Rafale’s controlable canards are the next logical step.
On the Eurofighter it is not the case, the canard is aerodynamically independent from the wings and performs closer to how an elevator does.
Ofc in both cases the canards create their own lift as well and contribute to moving the COL forward but there is more to it than that.
Also fun fact, the Rafale’s elevons cover 14% of the main wing area while it’s only 10% on the Typhoon, which shows that the Typhoon relies more on its canards for its pitch control
1 Like
Again, no
Statically stable designs such as the viggen gain positive lift from the canard, it also provides stable airflow over the wing to higher angles of attack allowing for higher approach angle and lower speeds. Short takeoff and landing is made easier.
Designs that are neutrally stable with canards up front like Gripen will need to trim canards down or the entire trailing edge flaps down to keep nose from pitching. This is causing negative lift / trim. This is actually bad for energy maneuverability but allows great agility. The aircraft can suddenly become fully unstable and naturally provide positive lift through fast turn rates but the aircraft is unable to sustain such maneuvers. When the canard is feathered or in neutral state, it provides the aircraft with relaxed neutral stability and energy maneuverability above that of a stable delta.
The difference between a design like M2K and Gripen is that the Gripen can safely decrease the stability margin due to the canard. Any departure for a pure delta of negative stability would be practically unrecoverable.
With the Rafale, the aircraft is not neutrally stable but rather unstable in neutral state. The aircrafts slats, trailing edge flaps, and canard are used in unison to keep pitch rates under control. The canard needs to produce negative lift to keep nose from pitching and the vortices generated benefit stability at high angles of attack. Without a neutral position from which it can feather to increase stability - the Rafale requires a more precise and reliable fly-by-wire.
This is why tail designs are superior for energy maneuverability. The tail (elevator) contributes to overall positive lift and reduces energy loss. The downside is that negative stability margin cannot be as high without compromising the size of the aircraft with increased wing area or you run the risk of being incapable of recovering after departure.
Mate I don’t know why you bring up stability again, I’m only speaking about the influence the canards has or hasn’t on the wing, depending on the configuration.
On that point, every close-coupled canard uses the same principle to generate upwards or downards lift, depending on whether it’s fixed or not, as well as its angle. This is compeletly independant from the aircraft being unstable or not.
Also you’re not adressing my initial point which is the difference between the canards philosophy of the Rafale and Typhoon.
1 Like
What the canard does depends on the basic layout. Stable, not stable, close coupled, not. The primary difference in function between the two is that any airflow provided over the wings for typhoon from the canards will be turbulent due to the greater distance. This is detrimental to sustained turn performance. If the canard provides positive lift to produce the required instability similar to the F-16’s tails, it is possible that it can be somewhat beneficial to sustained turns.
The Rafale close coupled canards provide smoother airflow over the wing to larger angles of attack, reducing drag at marginal AoA where flow separation usually begins without the energized additional airflow. The Rafale will bleed less speed during instantaneous turns, but the peak instantaneous turn rate may be less than the Typhoon. The sustained turns may be similar because of the design differences. The Typhoon is better suited to higher subsonic sustained turns and the Rafale better for low speed.
The Rafale should dominate the typhoon in dogfights in war thunder imo.
This is BARE MINIMUM Gaijin.
Now give more Magic 2 buffs
MICA EM buffs
Radar buffs
Model the internal jammer
Give MICA IR
23 Likes