Donau Hans

I guess I need correct my word R-530IR and Magic 1 don't use "normal glasses window", but Lead Germanate Lead Germanate is worse than Magnesium fluoride（used on Sidewinders, Falcons, late Magic1 and Magic 2） and Single crystal alumina/sapphire on Israeli Python 3 but fine, Lead Germanate can do side-aspect attack both R-530IR and Magic 1 use coooled InSb seeker not cooled PbS however Matra introduced a single-cell Detector on Magic 1, to improve resolution(but reduce useable aspect), so Magic 1 become an rear-aspect InSb missile Part of the reason why the R550 missile performed poorly in air combat was also due to the primitive InSb seeker InSb cannot handle infrared waves below 2 microns The infrared wavelength near the afterburner is often around 1.5 microns The seeker cannot bring the missile closer to the enemy aircraft The French also do not have a continuous rod warhead that time missile will explode too early

Fully understand. So what should I do? pin ED staff?

Pic 1 and 2: showing Magic I seeker window with ordinary glasses Pic 4: showing Magic I with magenesium fluoride window Pic 3: showing why early Magic I seeker has similar performance like AIM-9B

What we have in DCS is Magic I with magnesium fluoride seeker window. However, missile performs as same as early Magic I with glass window. If you have magnesium fluoride window, you should get about 90 degrees aspect. If not, 60 degrees. However, in DCS, Magic I had 60 degrees aspect with magnesium fluoride window. This is completely not right. Currently Magic I should be modeled with pure glass. and we probably need a new magnesium fluoride version.

In DCS, the data for the Magic 1 missile comes from a variant before early-to-mid 1980s, whose seeker head used ordinary glass that hardly transmitted infrared light above 3 μm. Even with a liquid-nitrogen-cooled seeker, the end result would still be similar to the AIM-9B. However, the modeling uses a seeker head with magnesium fluoride, which is opaque. It should have similar performance like AIM-9D/R-13M

the rear-aspect sidewinders we have are: AIM-9B, 9J, 9P, 9P-3. Although we will get 9E soooon, there is still a lack of Navy Sidewinders. AIM-9D/G/H can be carried on DCS F-14, F-4(even FMS F-4E), also future F-8J. Navy sidewinders behave quite diffrently, for example their engines can burn 5 secs and they can do SEAM. we cant pretend 9J/P as 9D/G/H(also, if we simply change lua, we cant pass green shield.)

i see, thx Zabuzard

in DCS, the weight of ammo is almost 500lb. but acoording to 1979 manual, ammo's weight only 373lb. similar situation happens on AIM-7E/E-2 too.(known issue) AIM-7E is 455lb and E-2 435lb, in game nearly 500lb.

i did some fuel tests today, and i found Mig-21 has no difference in fuel consumption between 5 mins AB and EMAB.