Well, M2000 has 35% more wing and 35% less static thrust for starters, so I’d love to see that M2000’s flight envelope chart.
Just found out about the Flogger nerfs and it’s about time, it will definitely give the F.3 a little breathing room. Right now If an MLD wants you dead there is literally nothing you can do and there are so many of them around the F.3s BR. It’s FM has been blatantly busted for a while anyway.
Justice!
Edit: this post has a lot of copium infused in it.
2 Likes
Yeah, that’ll be nice. I wonder if they’ll ever buff the F3s FM up to IRL levels. But yeah, fighting Mig-23MLDs always sucks.
This is for a clean Tornado F.2 with MK.103’s so pretty analogous to a GR.1 with MK.103’s and SEP is 0ft/s around mach 1.16~ and our GR.1 in game only has MK.101’s which is a smidge less thrust than the MK.103 in reheat.
Yeah, I figured it’s too slow ingame, just didn’t know how much.
M2000 otoh, as I said, would love to see that flight envelope.
This chart has positive SEP all the way to the mach limit @ SL. Likely would hit its IAS limitations well before that but should comfortably out accelerate any Tornado.
Yeah, but I’m talking about top speed, not acceleration…
Right but if its maintaining more than 200ft/s in SEP from mach 1.15 to 1.6 @ SL its top speed will be higher especially as the above chart has weapons attached as well. I don’t have the IAS limitations to hand. But Tornado will run out of power well before the M2000, Tornado does have a high IAS limitation at sea level, it just lacks the power to reach it while heavy.
It’s not about SEP. It’s about net thrust, which relates to intake and engine design.
Further, your graph is for half fuel, just two missiles, etc. and Ps is given over turn rate, not altitude, which assumes significantly different Di input and at medium altitude, where M2000’s low bypass M53 and low aspect delta wing do better (the higher the better).
Tornado isn’t a slouch either…from your graph, it still does ~M1.15 at 15kft while pushing Ps 200, but at gross weight, not half the fuel, and from the graph it’s obvious that Tornado’s airframe and engines are designed for low level (fast in, fast out) ops.
All this and more is why I’d like to see M2000’s sustained (1g) flight envelope.
SEP is excess power it literally defines maximum speeds. If you hit 0ft/s SEP you’re out of power you’re not accelerating, you’ve hit your max speed.
The Graph has SEP measured over G, so at 1.1G the Mirage is still outperforming the Tornado at 1G. You can talk of the various design elements but that means nothing over a SEP chart. If Tornado hits 0ft/s at mach 1.15 and the M2000 hits 0ft/s around mach 1.6~ the M2000 will have a higher top speed.
Nah, Blue vixen has a worse notch sector.
Dude top speed, climb and energy are all STRICTLY defined by SEP.
1 Like
I’d expect a 0.05M drop due to the difference in nose, the under nose pod and different LERX.
That graph is for 15,000 ft, not Sea Level. The vertical axis is turn rate, not altitude.
Ahh yes good catch, still doubt the Tornado has an edge on the M2000 at all in SEP.
Because it did irl, it was incredibly capable once brought up to scratch. The other radars have accurate notch filters as far as I’m aware.
Ok, maybe you missed the point were I said “on the deck”, which means 50m ASL.
And second, the SEP isn’t the same at alpha 3° and alpha 13° and the weight also plays the role.
If M2000’s chart was given at gross weight, it’d be different.
In short, SEP is a product of Di+Dp+weight vs thrust, while net thrust is a product of Dp vs thrust, which is more appropriate in this case due the level flight where Di is negligible, particularly in supersonic flight.
Yeah, but not SEP as such, but the net thrust component of SEP (Dp vs thrust).
You’re trying to find relation in things you can’t find relations in.
The version of the radar in the current Tornado F.3 ingame, when did it come into service?
Foxhunter Stage 2G came about in the early / mid 90s
1 Like
You can see here just slightly above Mach 1.2 at 50% fuel and 2 Magics
1 Like