RuskyV

I must be looking at the wrong data lol :)

I was looking through the files in DCS and came across some performance related figures for the missiles and the 380d is defiantly not fudged with the phoenix data. its closer to the aim7 in size and weight compared to anything else I could see... I don't see the thrust from the missile being the problem either, I defiantly still think drag is to high for anything below 40kft.

If the AIM7m's sustainer is still active after the peak curve then this would explain the extended portion of where i've marked "aero drag" this could well be my misinterpretation of what is happening with this type of missile. This is where it becomes complicated because each missile is different and finding a direct comparison is tricky. I was half afraid of using another missile to show the difference in the fight dynamics over the 530D as the function of each missile is this different. My main question still stands in that i think there might possibly be a fundamental problem with the drag of the 530D missile. Referring back to the acceleration plot for that 530D (the first graph with time as the Y axis) im still not fully convinced that after the boost stage of its acceleration it should it be dropping off as quickly as it does especially not at 15.000ft ?

I suspected that it would be something to do with the drag coefficient (shocked about it being the same as the AIM-54!), The question is why has it been coded that way if the other missiles are more to their real life counterparts. The one missile that is supposed to have half a decent reach and that is supposed to complement the Radar capabilities of the M2000c is effectively porked. I dont think its up to RAZBAM to develop the missiles for their aircraft (i could be wrong) but if it is the case then it's a little unfair considering the hard work that has gone into developing the radar for the M2000c only to have the missiles developed by ED have it somewhat let it down.

@Brisse The second stage of the rocket motor for the 530D can be clearly seen in the upward speed trend showing a small drop in acceleration, i marked this point at the sustained part of the burn up to the peak part of the upward graph ( the top of the hill) is the point of maximum velocity. There is no more acceleration to be made at this point. The issue is not with the acceleration phase of the missiles but the terminal phase where there is no more thrust produced from the motor (the peak downwards) and it is relying on kinetic energy to reach its target. The only thing working for the missile at this point is its aerodynamic properties. The glide portion of the 530Ds flight is where it is not performing compared to the AIM7m. granted it not a 100% comparison as mentioned previously in the post. but it is there to show how the drag effect on each missile is so radically different. I tried to eliminate this by setting temperature and time of day the same and also tried to get the altitudes as close together for each missile launch so that the aerodynamic properties of the simulated air is close to the same. Forget the Boost phase, look at the distance traveled for the kinetic part of the flight (the downwards graphing). A discrepancy this big cannot only be the aerodynamic properties of the missile but something to do with the way the physics of the 530D is programed in DCS. This comparison is to try to show that. hope this helps.

To make things a little easier to understand i've left my wiggly lines and comments off and given you the speed over distance and altitude so you can trace up from the range and intersect with the TAS so that you can see how much further the terminal speed has been carried over a given distance. 530D Aim7m

Thanks for the tip if i decide to go further with the comparisons then i'll look into this option you mentioned. I used altitude as it was a constant that i wanted to get right for both tests (or there abouts) and has a bearing on air density that could sway the results.

Thanks for keeping me honest JoJo you have a keen eye :)

Yes this is where i really want people to look (drag, Terminal phase), i will say however that there does seem to be almost two stages to the 530D compared to the more "linear" burn of the aim7m. I used the point on the graph for the 530D from the point where it was constantly accelerating and not from the point that it dropped from the wing as with the graph from the aim7m.

The burn time is hard a hard one to really get right as im not sure of the real accuracy of the chart (and my squiggly lines) But the terminal phase is really where i want to bring your focus to as there is a huge gap in performance, missile differences taken into account.

Added the ACMI file from tacView, I have also added a bookmark in the event list so you can go stright to the point i fire the missile. Air To Air Missile Testing M2000c.zip

Ive done a test myself and extracted and added foot notes to the telemetry from a shot on a Mig 23 at 6nm with zero aspect and non manouvering Here is a comparison shot from an Aim7m I know this is not a 100% fair test as i know there is bit of a technology gap between the two missiles and you can take into account weight and diameter of the missiles to be different, but the terminal phase of the missile where the motor is no longer providing propulsion (where the missile is effectively gliding) is huge compared to the 530D. Taking into account the diffrences above i think you can see there is an awful lot less resistance than there is for the 530D. I can't tell you whether this is right or wrong as im not a subject expert but with the comparison in terminal phases of each missiles i can only draw one conclusion and that the 530D has much much more drag than the aim7m (all above considered)

Giant spider :)

agree totally.

always thought that Turkish delight and vodka was a bad combination.....

Its nice to be getting to grips with this simulation again after such a long break and there is no better bunch of guys i would have rather wanted to re ignite my interest with. looking forward to the times ahead! :)

3d placement for objects in the map editor.

well done mate! :-)

It's not hostility it sarcasm, but it's definitely not elitism :thumbup:

well that's a great way to kill participation... spawn at base, start up, get bombed (that happens) wait 3hrs. good job you get paid per idea otherwise you would have to crowd fund your squadron.....:doh:

I thought you could add or remove the types of weapons stocked at any given airfield? if this is an option then why stock the nuke?

nice going!

That's all vary well but at the end of the day squadron slots that are taken up and closed off from everyone else is not really promoting teamwork and they may as well be just lone wolfs without their own fixed airbase....

yes it is about having fun together, not passwording themselves behind their channel in TS when we need to be able to contact them for help if needed. why even bother joining a community server like blue flag if your not going to interact with anyone else apart form your own squad!