tavarish palkovnik

«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.

1040…Текущая скорость полета приборная 790…Заданная скорость полета приборная 5100…Текущая высота полета барометрическая 5400…Заданная высота полета барометрическая Ф-форсаж…in a second would gone Г-горка…would continue

Well not exactly, I rather consider this work of mine not close precise to what should be or what nomograms present. Not surprisingly with so much assumptions. With same principles I tried with R-27R as well. And it is different in way of shooting in PPS. Seams that for R-27R higher available overload margins are given what is reasonable and explainable. In ZPS more or less same principle as in case of ER. Nomograms about maximal distances of the rockets from the fighters after launching are however still big mistery, at least to me. I don’t get those at all what doesn’t mean they are wrong.

...

@Max1mus When I said comments of any kind, I still thought on reasonable comments

And by the way, rocket having such wings near to the center of gravity usually and by purpose doesn’t do high angle of attack compared to others. I doubt is it even 10 in this particular case.

All right, Cy function to get down a bit and to have Cn with 17 deg at time when needed. Fact is that obtaining of horizontal flight is with reasonable angles much under 12 or 17 so increased or reduced Cy will not affect a lot induced Delta Cx and by that velocity in function of time.

...

.....

...

Спасибо Маэстро ! It is true, not precise, not truly correct, but still it should be matter of percentages, percentages in level under 5, not more than that. Pick value is at 1,1 Mach number, it is as it is and we can’t change it a lot or at all. There you have 0,05 which converted to cross section makes Cx 1,08 or i58 1,72 what is huge taking in consideration that R-27R is with all its aerodynamic disadvantages still nicely done. While making step by step calculation, I’m still getting Cx 0,875 at 1,1 M or i58 1,4 and all that at 10km altitude where friction is higher. Coefficient i58 is what I use and although it seems irrelevant, for flights of 60 seconds long especially down under slightly increased Cx makes a lot of changes. In that 0,875 friction of the body makes 18%, nose pressure 21%, bottom pressure 27%, and rest 34% is friction and pressure at wings. What ever try to disadvantage, Cx 1,08 is far a way. Don’t take me wrong, I have no intentions whatsoever to change anything, just expressing my thoughts. In any case this new Cx function is significant improvement compared to previous function which at least as per my humble opinion was horrible

...

....

Fuel block (in my perspective) has крестообразный канал all way long but perimeter is not same. Front side is substaining and highly boost assisting, rear side simple as that boosting only and middle differential is key for everything to have what expected.

...

...

....

...

...