tavarish palkovnik

Hmm, much more documents talk about velocity above 4M. Luckily professor Tsiolkovsky left us theorem which still holds undisputed -> v=Isp*ln(m0/m1) One documented sample, rocket R-40 (MiG-25) of similar exterior and drag respectively. It says maximal velocity missile itself generates depending on altitude and launch speed is 540 to 720m/s. Of course lower level of stratosphere (above tropopause) should be considered as altitude for maximal, and there speed of sound is 295m/s what will be needed to convert it to Mach number. R-40 is with starting weight of 470kg, propellant weight is 118kg…ln(470/352)*Isp=720 … Isp=2490 Ns/kg This is specific impulse up there after real one is degraded by drag loses. Motor of R-40 works on much higher pressure then one of AIM-54, pressure increases specific impulse, but motor of AIM-54 has high expansion ratio of nozzle which also increases impulse on altitude and turn it and twist it all around…that could be like deuce in tennis. Why not to consider same specific impulse for AIM-54 … -> ln(447/279)*2490=1174m/s … -> 1174/295=3,98 M … maximal self generated velocity of missile. Information on internet often can be quite vague

...

...

Wrong in video and ILS presentation how this fight was going on, or wrong in description of mine? It was long time ago when I was interested in this so I forgot, does KOLS can be merged with radar?

...

...

It would have much more sense that scale is in km but scan said in m. Perhaps it was by translating bad copy, like said meters would be insignificant, kilometers would make something but still in comparison with X axis Z is not significant for what I’m interested

You are welcome! That should be third axis of Cartesian coordinate system, slight declining from ideal and straight line of sight. Most likely, because they took this matter seriously, due to like they wrote, errors caused by wind, initial aiming errors, off-center thrust, inclined rudders etc. Don’t claiming, just assume it is about although declining value is really insignificant, but presenting of trajectory in horizontal plane should be for sure.

...

...

No, dog-bone should not be in sustainer, these two radial cross sections are more ''booster grain on sustainer side'' and ''booster grain on nozzle side'' as it looks like in longitudinal cut. Otherwise motor would explode becuase roughly calculated pressure would go in range of 300 bar. This could be normal motor after all

...

...

No…it is now about AIM-7F and it’s motor Mk58 only I don’t know where to write about it … sorry, I know this is not place for it.

It says nozzle exit diameter is 3,78 inches (96mm) Also that throat area is 1,81 sq.inches so throat diameter is 1,518” (38,56mm) 96^2/38,56^2=6,2 what is nozzle expansion ratio Today I was doing lot of “mental gymnastics” about all these numbers, not sure but perhaps I managed to make some basis for Mk58 relatively to presented numbers. In coming days I will show it, perhaps even tomorrow if everything fits.

Motor or motors because there are plenty of those. Mk38 Mod.0,1,2 Mk38 Mod.3,4 Mk52 Mod.1,2 Mk65 Mk58 First three groups are with similar (nearly same) output and different and/or nearly same concept. Last two motors are with similar/same output but completely different concept. These last two are interesting because numbers circulating behind it on the Internet are just like in case of Phoenix very tricky

Finding answers how Phoenix’s motor actually looked and worked was with lot of fun. Is there some other motor of US or Russian origin which might be interesting, or which is with questionable current numbers, to strip it down in free time reserved for nerve relaxation

...

Semyorka and Soyuz are conceptually same, technics of 50’s, and fun fact, today’s astronauts Russians, Americans and others still lifting their “assets” in space using technology from 50’s because it is reliable, safe and without marketing exaggerations

...

This one was tough but after several attempts I manged to get it flies that way It was all about when, how and how much to overload missile This is how Cx and Cy change with time Motor of course is not Spoonge Bob form but more as it should be This is change of dynamic pressure with time And at the end how trajectory looks like Of course this has nothing related with original Phoenix, NASA planned to use it for other purposes.

Thanks @draconus for time and efforts. If you manage to find some extra time, try to make this exact shot and I’m pretty sure there should not be some significant or any loft. I know in game lot of things are simplified, when I make some specific trajectory I put “in machine” program which makes integrating of mostly all mutually linked factors…and missile simply doesn’t like to go in loft.

We didn't understand each other well, these shots of mine are not shots with elevation (airplane pitch) but shots from horizontal fly and red parts of trajectory are parts where missile is overloaded, missile performs loft alone by its energy as it should be. Also this sample you made is not case we have. Launch range is 50nm (92,6km) , distance between fighter and target in moment of launch. Shot range in that case is something about 25 nm (46km) measured from starting point and that for me is point of launch. It is fligth time for missile of only 55 seconds or something like that

I will try to explain, with my poor English, this last scenario. This is loft, actually attempt to loft over such quick approaching target (in 55 seconds target travels 45,5 km). This starting 5g overload up there could be boundary condition for AIM-54, like said it is starting 25 degrees angle of attack for missile. Theoretically with overload >5g missile could in this scenario go over target altitude, with significant velocity shock performing such maneuver. And that is not all, to avoid situation that target slips under, missile should perform one more overloaded maneuver, now with negative angle of attack which will take additional velocity potential. Two such maneuvers will result with terminal velocity for sure less than managed 2,8M as presented. Eventually, if airplane will be in moment of launch with some elevation angle relatively to horizon, and by that missile in start will not need to handle with initial pushing nose from downward to upward, having starting elevation angle in opposite direction to what loft is looking for. And honestly, I’m not sure airplanes like F-14 made real launches of missiles like AIM-54 at such altitudes flying overloaded, flying with height gain, flying with axis elevated relatively to horizon. If this scenario would be with target flying a bit lower than these 22km and slower than these insane 2,8M, missile would go with this 5g in visually full blooded loft. However, these two sample shots are everything but not standard shots.

Another case, launch against super fast high altitude flying target In two options, overload with 5g and 3g, and all is to be better with higher/shorter overload. It is nearly (almost) same time untill contact but terminal velocity is higher with 5g becuase missile would take a bit less dense atmosphere