tavarish palkovnik

Does anybody have this document in complete form? This motor will make me crazy Total impulse 97000 lb*s or 431477 Ns together with 376 lbs or 170,5kg of fuel (if all this will be taken as fuel weight because some small part should be igniter, ablative isolation etc) makes specific impulse of 258s. It is huge and it doesn't have any sense. From some old patent documents this Flexadyne fuel can be described as composition of 66%AP, 18%PB and 16%Al. These percentages and in this composition give some ideal and theoretical specific impulse of 261s And now somehow Phoenix motor should be close to ideal value if this total of 97000 lb*s is for sea level . Ideal impulse from diagram is for pressure ratio 68, Phoenix if it is with single thrust of 4000 lbs (17793N) have to be with chamber pressure under 68 bar, and for sure with such nozzle, even if chamber pressure is somehow near to 68bar, no way whatsoever that it will expand in optimized way to atmospheric pressure at sea level. Just with that fact specific impulse of 261s will be lower. Then losses from ideal case, and losses are always present in real case. Loss of heat, loss due to friction, loss in nozzle, loss due to condensation phase, loss of unburned fuel etc etc. Just comparation, I believe this Phoenix fuel is same or very similar to what is in AIM-9D and its motor smoky Mk36 Specific impulse 231s ! And that is how it should be because for this Mk36 motor I'm giving some 50bar to chamber pressure, nozzle configuration is such to give near to optimized expanding at sea level. Something is smelling in these numbers given to Phoenix. Either it is not even close to sea level but numbers given for some high altitudes what is not practise in such documenets, either some words like average are missing. Total impulse of 431000 Ns could be possible, but if motor has buster and transition phase when chamber pressure is 1/3 of total time over 100 bar. Motor of R-33 from page before, it is similar in size. It is a bit more heavier, I'm giving it 185kg of fuel and with its way of work (full blood dual thrust) at sea level it gives something like 485000 Ns of total thrust at sea level. That is what my calculation gives and specific in that case is 267s, but at least 5 seconds it is with chamber pressure over 100 bar. Russian composite fuels used in motors of A-to-A missiles are with some 245-250s at ratio 40:1. And it has nice expanding at sea level in these 5 seconds, it expands to ambient pressure. Phoenix motor with single thrust and with such nozzle would be only motor of tactical rockets I was working on, with such awkward design. So if somebody has this document it would be appreciated to see is perhaps something written ''between lines''

As much as I know there is no some official text about what R-33 motor gives except one solid info that active time is 15-24 seconds (it is for +60 to -60 degC), however luckily cross cut view of motor is available and it gives a lot. I think I've already wrote something about this but don't remember where and when It is shematically this form -> Such finocyl grains usually have buster stage then transition part in duration depending of configuration and at last sustaining stage, and more or less after some work thrust f(t) should looks like this at 10 km altitude In game you have very weak booster in 4 seconds then rapid (immediate) drop to continuous sustaining stage taking so long and unnaturally for such configuration. And at the end, velocity M f(t) and distance* nm f(t) *-kinematically overloaded horizontal flight at 35000 ft So, although total travel is similar, distribution in time is significantly different

Diagrams of these Soviet missiles are with lot of issues, inaccuracies and incorrectness, starting from R-33 and backwards

...

Can someone help me please. I’m very sure that somewhere on this forum I saw diagram of drag coefficient of AIM-9 missile, and now I can’t find it. I remember it very well, and guess it is related to 9D. I remember it and also remember that reference area was not stated. So if someone can paste it once again and if in addition to determine ref. area, it would be appreciated. I’ve just found some good stuff about what resistance AIM-9B and R-3S shapes produce and I would like to compare it with AIM-9D and R-13M

Thanks mates ! Both those two variants (numbers) are realistic and achievable. I've tried with my model (the second one with slots) to get something close, with two different burning rates And got one with 21 seconds and other with 26 seconds. In both 170 kg of fuel identical properties except burning rates. Values at sea level 343100 Ns (16338 N) and 323448 Ns (12440 N). There is some slight difference in total impulse but at 15km it is more or less equal 420881 Ns vs 419749 Ns Also I've tried external ballistic with these numbers of thrust Both options launched at 15km at 500 m/s (1,695 M), and then after first second of flight I've turned rockets in kinematic overload all their active time, to get altitude pick at 27km and stopped there. As you can see both variants managed it in 60 seconds and slower burning motor resulted with slightly more speed at the end Dashed lines are overloaded flight (angle of attack 4,6 deg and 4 deg respectively) and at the end of counting (27km, 60 seconds) difference in travel is slightly in benefit of faster burning motor. But these differences in speed and travel are really negligible

Few more thoughts about Mk47 and/or Mk60. So AIM-54 is with start weight of 978 lbs (443 kg) and final of 602 lbs (273 kg). Means 170 kg of fuel. Total impulse is they said 97000 lbs (431477 N) and thrust (of some kind, I will take it as average) 4000 lbs (17793 N). Two of several options what crosscut could present -> First will give dual-thrust, second single thrust (or near to continuous thrust) Such total impulse, with nozzle like it is, for me is not possible at sea-level, but only for high altitudes. Of course it is always nice to see big numbers (Americans simply like to do that), but it is also fair to explain such numbers. What DCS gives for these motors as thrust at sea level? Not intention of anything, just to see are we near in thinking.

Self-quoting is not academic but I did it anyway. Single dual-thrust rocket motor ! Source: ''The history of solid rocket propulsion and aerojet - Philip D.Umholtz, Consultant, Porola Valley, CA''

That is good and constructive communication, highly appreciated. Fracturing risk is good point and good thinking, however just with example that perhaps it isn’t that much problem as appears to be. Beside many other rockets and their motors let’s just take Grad 122mm rocket for example. Cylindrical tubular grains in length of 895mm, free burning and at the end indeed theoretically in form of very thin cylinders. And it works, under acceleration much higher then what was case with Phoenix, it is in range of max 50G, and plus to that with rotation of 1800rpm, 30 rotations per second, while Phoenix is rolling stabilized. End burning grain and this motor can not be considered as an option in any case. There can be seen igniter on front side, and of course that eliminates everything else but the fact of existence of inner channel . Beside that, end burning of grain in case of this length and estimated time and thrust would need burning rate of over 30mm/s. It is of course achievable but on pressure rates much higher than what for this motor is considered as real. In any case, until somehow we manage to get clear and close view on this crosscut, based on which many things can be done, what ever some skeptics thinks about it, let’s say that all is open…at least to me. @IronMike Thank you for support and civilized approach, much obliged. I will try same, however some I will not tolerate any more because some took steps over the line

Sorry @GGTharos if I bother too much but you didn’t fully convince me just with this statement. I would need more Simply I don’t see this motor as single thrusted, even this only one available crosscut photograph, although blurred, doesn’t implicate single thrust…as per my opinion Momentarily 80% dual thrust and 20% on some ultimate single thrust

....

You didn't help much but thanks... what is IRL F-14 weapons manual? By the way, I'm also very interested in history as well and would like to have some answers how ones took from others and opposite. This motor is just one beside others where I can see so much similarity

Until I see geometry of grain which will allow continuous thrust of 15000+ N in time of 20+ seconds, for me all options are on table Which source is the most reliable that firmly state singularity of thrust?

After some time to write again something about AIM-54 This is only available crosscut view of motor, AIM-54A or AIM-54C I don't know, but actually and later about it, based on my opinion it is not so important. Although picture is very blurred it seems like fuel block (fuel grain) is with cylindrical inner hole and outer backside surface in 1/3 of length is exposed while outer front side is inhibited. This is how it could be where with red lines is marked initial burning surface Some years ago, I was reading some old soviet document (which unfortunately I can't find anymore) with description of NATO weapons systems, and for AIM-54 it was stated that motor is dual thrust ! This configuration if it is like that, indeed gives two thrust sequences, simply burning surfaces are such Here I made some calculation based on this geometry and with estimated characteristics for let's say Mk47 pk AIM-54.pdf First half slightly progressive buster stage, second half slightly degressive sustain stage with total working time of 24 seconds. By the way, volume and geometry allow some 170 kg of fuel what is in line with some documents. And for sure, either Mk47 or Mk60, I'm giving to both nearly same weight of fuel. When about those two, with keeping same geometry and weight and just with changing fuel, keeping same energetic (chemical) properties but just with different burning law, more or less same function form will be in both cases, with slow burning fuel and with a bit faster burning fuel. Total impulse is slightly greater with faster burning fuel, 5% difference I am not claiming anything, just giving my opinion, for me and I believe that, motors of AIM-54 are with dual thrust concept

...

It could be 47800 kgs at sea level what is significantly different to what you are giving for R-33. Although these two motors are from two different design bureaus, older one is quite enough known, in geometrical form of fuel block and burning time, there shouldn’t be some drastic difference between those two. Last summer one patent is published, and as one of authors signed is personally V.A.Sorokin, general director of MKB Iskra, and Iskra designed and manufacture this motor. Description and model sketch for me is nothing but this motor. Eventually it could be some redesign of motor of H-58 (originally also their) but even if it is this, still to me all these R-33, R-37 and H-58 motors (380mm) are more or less very familiar. Familiar in geometry and fuel mass.

…

…

...

...

On few available graphs where relation between thrust forces at SL and altitude is given, it can be seen that differential is not constant. Of course I understand this 7% is unification but just to be mentioned. Increase is more rapid between 0 and 10km because function p f(H) is such as well, on higher altitudes atmosphere pressure values are more equalized. And this 7% is fine but it is important to place each individual motor on it's place in this graph. As we can see, there are motors with expansion under 1 bar and also over one 1 bar This is one more nice motor in 380mm, well known Kh-29 Just from curiosity, what could be pressure at nozzle exit on this motor. This equatation is very useful, with chamber pressure and ratio of areas (Exit vs throat) ''pe'' will show it's value. To get ''pk'' and ''A'' there should be some work but without work nothing can be done...(F tot 23300 kg, t=4,5s, mg=110kg, probably VIK-2, Isp 225s (40:1), Ief=207 T=2820K, k=1,2, dk=80mm, de=210mm, pk=6,5MPa, A=7 ... etc ... etc ... -> pe=0,13 Mpa So it can be said, this motor, this rocket, is with thrust of 50800 N at SL and at 5km it could be 53430 N or +5%, at 10km 54380 N or +7% etc

Don't mind to discuss it at all. Drag force ''Fd'' = Drag coefficient ''Cx'' * dynamic pressure ''q'' * Referent area ''Sref'' As you can see, I always try to specify together with Cx what is referent area for calculated drag coefficients, and mostly it is body cross section area instead of fixed values like square meter or something else. 0,8 for Sref 0,05307m2 is roughly 0,0424 for Sref 1m2. Roughly because it doesn't go that way exactly

Some mathematics about this... So based on this, I'm getting that this motor is optimized for altitude of 10km with pressure at nozzle exit of 26 kPa. With same principles motor of Neva 5V27 is with pe=80 kPa or optimized at altitude of 2km

More or less but mostly everything can be calculated with just simple involving elementary study of rocket motors. Luckily there are plenty of motors sharing same diameter 380mm or 15’’ and having similar composite fuels so even visible differences forcing directions. All these three are in 380mm 5V27 of S-125 Neva (SA-3), R-33 and Kh-58…all in same diameter as AIM-54 5V27 is primarily for low and near to intermediate altitudes and nozzle is sized respectively Kh-58 is more for low intermediate and near to low altitudes This motor’s cross section is my creation but I stand for it very firmly And this is Mk47 Mod 0 with nozzle bell sized, obviously not optimized for sea level or intermediate altitudes but for up there altitudes just as R-33

For start one fun fact…commercial jets which usually (from clear technical reasons) fly at 11km at 0,8M where temperature is roughly -60degC don’t have artificial heating of wings where fuel tanks are located because air friction energy do that job instead. On burning rate of solid rocket fuels, primarily pressure in rocket motor’s chamber influence. Temperature of fuel grain also. But pressure primarily. Different temperatures and accordingly variable pressure will make one differential, different pressures and accordingly variable temperature other differential. This other is significantly bigger. Examples…this is 9M330 motor of TOR, but from time when 9M330 of that time was in form as it was. Later 9M330 and it’s characteristics is changed but what I want to show is not changed. As you can see, total impulse (суммарный импульс as written, for those who struggle with Russian language) is quite close at +50 ; +15 and -50degC Another one, 5V55 of S-300 тяга двигателя -> motor thrust and this is in k(1000) of kilos. Same story. And third sample is archaic R-3… All right, temperature made influence. Total impulses should be roughly in line but altitudes influence also. Not on burning rate actually but like altitude does, with pressure. And by the way, this motor, this nozzle has very poor expansion compared to some other “church bells”