FYI
Thrust to weight ratio is calculated at combat weight which is 50% internal fuel and 2 aim9 plus fun amount with 16000 empty weight plus 50% fuel f16 and mirage combat weight ratio is above 1 I see lots of folks taking empty weight and adding full internal fuel and gun plus 2 am and then using engine full af power to calculate thrust to weight ratio I guess assumption is when combat happens the mission is at 50% fuel as one has to fly to get to combat area or target areA
Bismilah ir Rahman ar Raheem
Thank you for the explanation.
My charts above are quite old. With the advent of fighters such as the Su-35, F-22, F-35 that have large internal fuel fractions, this method is being changed now.
Older-generation fighters are now being evaluated with drop tanks jettisoned, 80% internal fuel, and a representative missile load (six missiles for the F-16 and Mirage 2000 above) VS. 50% internal fuel and missiles (eight for the Su-35, six for the F-22, four for the F-35).
Regards
Hifz u kum Allah
Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem
From an interview of a British exchange fighter flying the Mirage 2000 with the French Air Force. (Please read full interview at hushkit):
What were your first impressions of the cockpit?
“Slightly disappointing at first – I’d come from the Tornado F3 which was painted grey – then blacked out for NVG work – and was very spacious and well laid out. The Mirage 2000 is more like a fighter from the 70s with a lot of analogue displays. The rear view was not as good as an
F-16 and it was pretty cramped. On the plus side it was not overly complex.”
Is it easy to fly?
“Yes and no- It’s easy to fly once you get the hang of it but the delta wing takes a unique approach to flying – it’s not like a conventional wing. It generates huge amounts of lift but also an enormous amount of drag – great for a ‘Bat Turn’ but you always end low on energy afterwards. Landing is pretty straightforward. The view is good. Air-to-air refuelling is easy. It has very well balanced controls and gives you great seat of the pants type senses – I’d almost say it was the perfect blend of old and new – great feedback to the pilot using its early fly-by-wire controls without feeling like a computer game.”
What is the hardest thing about flying the Mirage 2000- any quirks?
“As mentioned, the delta wing could catch you out, it would give you 9G+ performance but at a penalty; flying in the circuit could be a challenge, turning finals required quite a lot of pulling on the stick -which loaded the wing up as the drag built. Once you rolled wings level it was imperative to take the power off or you would accelerate quickly.”
How does the acceleration and climb compare to a Lightning?
“The Lightning had two massive Rolls Royce Avon engines – The Mirage 2000 had one – but it was still pretty potent.”
Did you fly dissimilar air combat training (DACT) flights on the Mirage 2000? If so, against which types and what did you learn from each type?
“An interesting question – I must have flown against the
F-14,
F-15, F-16,
F-18, Tornado F3, F-8 Crusader and the F-104 Starfighter in combat. The older generation didn’t stand a chance, but the F-16 block 50 was very good. One of the drawbacks of the Mirage 2000 being unique was that as we did a lot of 1vs 1 and 2vs 2 Mirage vs Mirage combat – you developed tactics and handling skills to fight Mirage vs Mirage. This actually was counter productive as these tactics -and the way you handled the aircraft – didn’t cross over to fighting other types. I got beaten by an F-16 by fighting him like a Mirage and learnt a painful lesson.”
“DACT was interesting in the M2000 – if your opponent was new to fighting a delta it could make his eyes water! At the merge the initial 9G+ turn was eye-watering, despite having a single engine it could still reach heights other fighters like the F-16 couldn’t. It also possessed, in my opinion, a far more sophisticated fly-by-wire system – it was in effect limitless. I managed to put a Mirage 2000 into the vertical whilst being chased and held the manoeuvre a few seconds too long – when I looked into my HUD I was in the pure vertical at 60 knots and decelerating ! As we hit Zero the aircraft began to slide backwards and the ‘burner blew out. My heart-rate increased. As the aircraft went beyond its design envelope, the nose simply flopped over pointing earthwards – with a few small turns the airspeed picked up. As I hit 200 knots I simply flew the aircraft back to straight and level. I admit that my opponent did shoot me down, but he did say it looked spectacular. This sort of carefree handling gave pilots huge confidence in the aircraft”
What was the most challenging fighter you faced while flying the Mirage?
“Probably the F-15C as AMRAAM was just coming into service which totally outclassed us – They had amazing SA and the way they operated was impressive.”
How would you rate the M2000 in the following:
Instantaneous turn rates (at low/medium and high altitudes)
“Stunning – at all altitudes – with its big wing even at 50,000 feet using the leading edge slats it could still turn well.”
Sustained turn rates (at low/medium and high altitudes)
“Sustained turn was still good, especially at low level where you had sufficient energy to maintain speed.”
High Alpha
“The Mirage 2000 was legendary at its low speed high Alpha Passes -120 knots was pretty easy to fly.”
Weapon system
“As a weapons system the Mirage 2000 is a great ‘package’ with a good radar , onboard electronic countermeasures and radar warning receiver. It also packs a good array of weapons – with air-to-air refuelling its a formidable fighter. “
Hifz u kum Allah
