tavarish palkovnik

Circular ellipse is perhaps of mixing ET and ER

I would still like to see output from simulator (this called DLZ) in ZPS at 10km for 27ER (and for 27ET what would be highly appreciated) in two options: Fighter 900km/h / Target 900km/h Fighter 1050km/h / Target 900km/h With noted expected seconds of flight in cases of Drmax Maybe I'm asking too much but like there is a saying, 4 eyes see better then 2

Theoretically speaking yes and no CFD or old fashion mathematic will give you Cx function for angle of attack (alpha) as zero, or eventually for some value of alpha but as continuous number. Horizontal flight is dynamic process and for true calculations we need to have lot of other functions for corrections and/or adjustments how to convert Cx at alpha (and delta-rotation of aerodynamic surfaces) zero to true induced Cx with alpha and delta angels involved.

Chizh, ситуации в ЗПС, стрельба вдогон, которых я не вижу на графиках из этого программа.

Не вижу этого, вижу 900 оба только для 27ЭТ и в ППС.

Chizh, сможешь ли сделать ситуацию в ЗПС на 10км с прогнозируемыми секундами полета в соответствии с Dрmax , в двух вариантах 1) Vи=Vц=900км/ч 2) Vц=900км/ч Vи=1050км/ч

@BlackPixxel Seconds of flight is what we need...in first case 900 vs 900 km/h you see that flight time is 54 seconds. 47150m - 54*250 = 33650m what is travle of the rocket, and at the end rocket will have velocity something over 250m/s...with such margins maybe something between 300 and 350 m/s In other case we don't see seconds, Chizh should input 46,96 km in cell to get specific time for this Drmax1, it will be 40 and something seconds... 46960m - 4...*415 = 2....m -> travel of rocket

@Chizh Какая цель самая большая в этом симуляторе, большая цель Су-27 - это то, что мы видим, можно ли выбрать большую цель, такую как B-52 или Ту-95 или какой Ил?

First one is with 27ET, good sample to show difference between T and R in drag force relation. It is in this case 15%-20% more range in favour of R-27ER. It is absolutely in order that with increasing of target speed in some point max range will start decreasing, it is related with necessity No.1 ... velocity of rocket must not be less then velocity of target - in case of using full kinematic potential of rocket. On other presentation, R-27ER 900 vs 1500 km/h ... t=42s is for input Di-c=50km ... just in case. For 59km as Drmax1 it could be t=49s and due to safety margin velocity of rocket is 455m/s. If standing on the edge...end velocity 415m/s (1500km/h) Drmax1 is going to 64km. With vc=500m/s -> Drmax1=60km ... vc=600m/s -> Drmax1=56km etc etc

Don't see much sense in this new placement of ZVP or ZRP, whatever called, if energy of rocket will be criteria. If kinematic and dynamic profile of rocket's flight should be same in PPS and ZPS (gorka and similar stuffs ignored) then there is significant mismatch of reserve or some other term would be more appropriate, between PPS and ZPS. For example, at 10km and vi=vc=1100km/h, this 60km in PPS is very close to energetic potential, I'm counting time of flight as 54,3 sec and terminal velocity of rocket is 415m/s. Few seconds more and rocket energy in both terms is over. However, in ZPS and presented 22km, I'm counting flight of 32,8 sec, terminal velocity 681m/s what makes high approaching speed of 376m/s. Why there is so much reduction, why such high speed of rocket is necessary. If I try in opposite and increase drag force significantly to have more reasonable approaching speed in ZPS to match 22km, less then this overrated 376m/s...although I don't see R-27ER to have such drag as like said 5V27 or similar, then in PPS same kind of kinematic and dynamic profile result with fact that main criteria and it is that rocket must not have less speed then target, at 60km rocket is well below 305m/s

First time I'm seeing that shooting distance for target in rakurs 4/4 exceeding shooting 0/4 (ZPS) for more then 50% And very surprised that R-27ER could be considered with drag force exceeding drag force of, for example, 5V27 of ZRK Neva

...

...

...

Indeed, the parameters do not match exactly, however 5 of 6 quite close. I think you will agree that something about 15km distance is key for complete understanding. There is reason why it is mentioned in Боевое применение самолета Миг-29, and the fact is that curving in horizontal sections suggest something like that. Simply, over 15km in ZPS they are different. First graph is mine, calculation of trajectory with forced horizontal flight.

Iteration is with following attempted logic: If the target is at distance less then 15km, fighter to be with extra speed of 50km/h. If the target is at distance over 15km, fighter to be with extra speed of 250km/h. In terminal points rocket is to be with extra velocity over target for 225m/s. First diagram is velocity over time, dashed lines are for 1100km/h plus extra as per attempted logic, others for 900km/h with extra as well. The one in middle is actually two profiles, since at 5km when target is with 900km/h then extra for fighter is 250km/h and when target is with 1100km/h extra for fighter is 50km/h what is 1150km/h in both cases. It is only up to 475 or 530m/s when counting stops. i58 in passive where 1,6 at 10km ; 1,52 at 5km and 1,45 at 1km. Second diagram is travel of rocket and target simultaneously, dashed lines again in cases of 1100km/h for target and fighter with extra speed provisions in launching for figher.

This is second time that text were not uploaded with pictures Is it only me or others have/had same problems

...

«При атаке на попутно-пересекающихся курсах для обнаружения цели необходимо выдерживать скорость сближения истребителя с целью не менее 50 км/ч на дальности менее 15 км и не менее 150 км/ч на дальности более 15 км» This is from «Боевое применение самолета Миг-29» I’ve done several kinematic models for R-27ER, increased nominal Cx, reduced nominal Cx, several functions for Cy, several functions for converting angle of attack into delta Cx or induced Cx…etc and etc. And always shooting in ZPS at 5km makes results significantly different to diagram. While at 10km and 1km in both PPS and ZPS and 5km in PPS results can be considered as fairly matched, only ZPS at 5km gives head scratching. With this sentence from beginning, is it fair to consider that for R-27ER distance of 15km in ZPS also can be with some unique recommendations. I think so. You may see that curving in ZPS diagram of R-27R is kind of uniformed. All distances under 15km. In diagram of ZPS of R-27ER curving is kind of uniformed for group under 15km and also uniformed over 15km but in different form. For me is not a problem to accept that there are many other inputs to understand diagrams correctly. We don’t have those additional notes…what if beyond this diagram also there are notes, in case distance in over 15km make extra speed 200 or 250 or 300 km/h to match… Diagrams if they are from official military manuals have to be considered as valid, eventually with slight incorrectness but not crucially wrong. It is about us which don’t understand it fully.

Function v-t in passive stage should be in logarithmic function form, simply by the physical rules. Same on east and on west. Should be in case of ballistic trajectory and as per my opinion in case of forced horizontal flight for such missiles as well. Here we see quite hard brakes of the speed between 8 and 12 seconds for 5 and 10km, also quite acceleration between 10 and 20 seconds at 20km !!! Only trajectory at 15km is something close to true logarithmic function. What is a reason…I’m still very sure that R-27ER in case of inertial radio-command sequence fly with gorka, it is for me indisputable, 100%. But still and also I’m not finding that gorka maneuvers would make such curving of logarithmic function v-t. Just as a thought, is it maybe that those v-t are for different altitudes fighter-target!? Two (5 and 10km) for target up and over, one from 20km for target down under and eventually 15km head to head. Is it really that nobody of you doesn’t have someone close to Bauman to ask Denis as colleague to colleague or student (ex student) to professor…hey what hell this diagram presents.

...

However I consider all these velocity values on ILS or HUD as IAS-indicated airspeed, current and required IAS, текущая приборная скорость и заданная приборная скорость. From required IAS in this case 790km/h can be assumed that speed of target is around 640km/h=790-150. If algorithm of missile trajectory is done in missile's absolute coordinate system, it means with missile vs target true speed, then you can not use speed values indicated on ILS and such algorithm. PS...and maybe I'm totally wrong and values while RLPK is active are indeed TAS

I truly belive that speed values on this ILS are not true speed but indicated speed. Velocity 1040km/h or 290m/s should be 355m/s of true speed and if 790km/h or 220m/s is aimed that could mean that velocity of target is around 640km/h (180m/s). This is again not true speed of target which at 5400m should be 230m/s. With those two values, 355m/s against 230m/s, and with checking trajectory, I'm getting that in second 36th missile will have it's true speed of 390m/s and it will travel for 27900 m. 27900 - 36*230 = 19620m In case 1040km/h is true speed and accordingly 640km/h is true speed of target....after 40 second missile will have speed of 355m/s, will travel 28400m -> 28400 - 40*180 = 21200m

@Max1mus

And don’t forget that instrumental speed or indicated speed (приборная скорость) ,doesn’t correspond to the true speed (истинная скорость) which is important in absolute system of the rocket.