This is with locking on with TWS or PD HDN Mode.
I rarely used the ACM on the tornado except the vertical ACM to get high aspect launches when truning in.
The track is still “PD TRACK”
1 Like
Are you getting kills with the Skyflash further than 10km? That is actually impressive I only use them for dogfighting since they burn out very quickly and drastically lose energy.
I only use them for close range head ons. Very deadly.
Nah, all enagements are more than 2km, but less than 6km typically.
Problem is that any launch under 4km the missile doesnt start its guidance untill its too late and then the missile massively undershoots its target.
Any launch more than 4km the missle goes stupid even in optimal conditions.
So far I have only managed to get kills against planes that have stalled out.
With the supertemps I can launch up to 20km and still get kills semi reliably or even as low as 2km and they find their mark almost always.
No it does not, it cant reach speeds at sea level it was able to pre nerf, let alone new rip speed. Its pretty far from old max speed limit too. If it stayed same, nothing would change as you cant reach it in level flight.
hmmm sounds like its “valid” to compare these two engines… jesus christ… Gripen vs Mirage 2000 all over again.
Doing some testing of the SKyflash on the Phantom/Tornado and the skyflash on the Gripen…
The skyflash on the gripen seems to be copy pasted from the AIM-7E (Not even the AIM-7E2)
Edit:
It must be in my head.
In the test scenario the missiles perform the same… but in live battles they stuggle to hit anything lol.
That comparison is the closest we have, and it isn’t even a bad one at that. The Gripen and Mirage 2000 should act very similarly with the Mirage 2000 having a higher T/W and lower wing loading… but otherwise higher wing sweep angle of 58 vs 52 degrees for the Gripen.
Seriously? Even Gaijin wouldn’t say “should act very similarly with.”
What basis do you have to make such a statement?
2 Likes
Unstable designs need to pitch the nose down, solve the delta issue of trim drag. What further similarities do you need to understand how these aircraft are similar? Are we going to ignore the fact that they suggested the Mirage 2000 is a gen3 delta?
The Gripen has negative static stability provided by the canards, when they deflect they make it positively stable or neutrally stable. This is because when they lose lift, the CoL moves rearword… rather simple thing to understand. Also, due to having a Canard to provide airflow over the wing at high angles of attack the leading edge flaps are not necessary on the inboard side of the wing. The dog tooth works to act like a simplified double leading edge flap, even having two specific actuators to help push the flap out but otherwise being a simplified system to save on weight and complexity… relying more heavily on the canard.
The Mirage 2000, also negatively stable is unable to recover from pitch-out departures as easily because it has no method of becoming suddenly neutrally stable as the Gripen does. Otherwise, the leading edge flap system is a little more complex and likely a little better off than the Gripen for transonic and supersonic flight thanks to the more complex leading edge flap system. They can be differentially deflected when needed to develop the same vortices and control as the dogtooth.
Overall the two designs are extremely similar, function in practically the same exact way… but the Gripen has forward trim surfaces as well as rear trim surfaces… and has a method of becoming neutrally stable. What is most interesting is that the Gripen compromised in certain areas in an attempt to improve subsonic maneuvering performance whereas the Mirage 2000 focused solely on supersonic energy maneuverability. Both are 4th gen designs, both incorporate all of the same advancements but to put it simply…
The Gripen chose canards, the Mirage 2000 chose a more complex leading edge flap system. The two are totally comparable in all other regards.
He has quite the imagination huh? lol.
WRONG.
Gripen only has one droop flap per wing. The Gripens leading edges are DRASTICALLY different. The droops flap does not cover the entire wing like the M2k. Neither does the M2k have a leading-edge dog tooth extension.
Flaperons of the M2k do not tapers and blends into the fuselage like that of the Gripen
WRONG.
the M2K is a purely a delta wing the Gripen is not. Nor does the M2k have massive controllable foreword wings called canards.
IRRELEVANT
Single vertical tail? You mean a vertical stabilizer? Like an F-16 and almost literally all single engine fighters?
ok.
IRRELEVANT.
Like the F-16C?
IRRELEVANT.
Like the F-16C?
1 Like
Dude stays making things up.
Thats why the Mirage is OBSOLETE AND RETIRED? The Gripen is not.
1 Like
SAAB design a unstable aircarft but with close coupling canard and leading edge flap
Big Briain
How can compare when the Mirage 2000 doesn’t have movable canard ?
4 Likes
It does not have canards period. He think they do the same thing even though he has studies on it saying it. Its really weird how he interprets these things when his own sources say otherwise.
1 Like
If you don’t understand how the Gripen’s canard works you will not understand why they are similar.
To put it simply, the canard cannot deflect at low subsonic maneuvering speeds or the aircraft loses the instability. The canards generally stay neutral… providing additional lift. The Mirage 2000 doesn’t need this because it has negative static stability in its’ normal configuration to begin with.
The advantage of the Canard on the Gripen is the ability to deflect the canard at high angles of attack to make the aircraft neutrally stable again - this allows for ease of recovery from post-departure or post-stall conditions. Otherwise it is acting like the leading edge flap / strake on the Mirage 2000 at the same time.
You do not know what you are talking about and the dev literally told you to stop spam reporting on the canards. You are wrong.
It’s a wrap my boy. Keep looking for more ways to nerf the jet.
1 Like
looks like F-16 or M2K with canard, so FM is very similar. it’s unstable design
trust me bro
5 Likes
m2k isn’t retired though
and it’s gen 4, not 3 like some said in this thread…
2 Likes
I knew someone would come through with that.
I am sorry. Let me correct that and be really detailed about it.
The Mirage 2000 is being phased out because they are obsolete. It’s over with. Mirage 2000 is finished. Gone, Bye Bye. Rafale is superior. The Gripen and Rafale are here to stay. Because they are the superior design more modern design.
The Mirage 2000 is OBSOLETE and Dassault refuses to update and modernize nations who have them without being paid insane amounts of money.
I’ve entertained them long enough, I think just here to heckle and let out their grief that the FM is being… buffed? They aren’t even reading the reports.
1 Like
and yes, btw those individuals are wrong. The M2k is purely a 4th gen fighter.
But it does not change the fact that they have stopped being produced YEARS ago (over a decade) and is an obsolete platform. They are being phased out of service as we speak.
Everyone is getting rid of them, and Dassault has zero interest in modernization.
The Gripen and Rafale are the superior modern designs, and more units are being manufactured now this minute.