Ragnarok

Without such AIM120 F15 is good enough to be a beast. It is undisputed. This is about the fact that the is beast and Su27 @otto The ER obsolete, will be used to Su35S? For Su35 has invested a lot of money and use outdated ER? But one important thing! ER had to be upgrade with every upgrade radar. It is not out of date. The problem is that ED is trying to simulate from manual for Su27SK and R-27ER1 that export versions. Range for R-27ER1 is 65,5km. R-27ER 70km and enhanced seekers. (range for russian criterion is 10km altitude, head on, reciprocal velocity 1 mach true speed or 0.9 graund mach). Range for ET1 is 52,5km, R-27R1 42.5km, R-27T1 33km. American criterion is 30 000ft altitude 650mph speed, head on, AIM120C5 55-65km, AIM120B 50-55km, AIM-7M 45-50km! RVV-AE base line is export version, and russian is not used. But use RVV-SD (range is 70-80km). Su27S/SK not use ARH!

This is too complicated for me to explain in English. I will send Tehnetinium PM entire article about this, but the Serbian language. Tehnetinium understand some Serbian and he some still continue in English, explaining how he understood it. Ok?

Seeker in the ER is sensitive to the chaff, no Radar! Why ARH is less susceptible to chaff? Because the angle of the central signal lines smaller than the SARH-Radar relation. Of the ARH, the transmitter is flush with the receiver. Of the SARH is not! Chaff is therefore detrimental effect on the seeker with SARH!

And another fact! I do not know if I wrote about it earlier, but ARH sensor cannot react when the target is moving at more than 30 degrees per second in sight! So it should be...

Not true. I do not know why, perhaps because the Doppler effect in AIM120 because of to large reductions distances because of high speed missiles (I know, this is not modeled), but if AIM120C slow its lock is interrupted when a defensive turn, when we turn at the time of transition 90 degrees. When AIM120C fast, missile not loses lock!!!

This makes me happy! But I never understood why chaff elicits better when SARH climbing and less when lowered in target (in Head on, no beaming situation)?!

Much has been done on Smokeless engines AIM120. But the high altitude marching engine always leaves a visible mark. When the Serbian pilot in 1999. RWR canceled, the pilot was visually observed traces AIM-120C and take anti-missile maneuver! Height was over 8 000m, the distance over 30km, and time is 12:30PM (27.3.1999.) Russian missiles are very much visible and also AIM7.

You think of a trail of smoke or fire missiles?

Look at file for warheads and you will be astonished and more. Simple warhead may be fit for R-24, R-40, but not for R27. R-27 has directional fragment warhead in real but in lock on it is equated with the old missiles R-24, R-40. AMRAAM has no remote activation warheads on 15m, but simple flight model allows the AMRAAM easily avoided with barrel roll. That's why it's better leave 15m, although it is not realistic because of flight model is not a realistic . warheads["P_40T"] = simple_warhead(38.0); warheads["P_40R"] = simple_warhead(38.0); warheads["P_24R"] = simple_warhead(25.0); warheads["P_24T"] = simple_warhead(25.0); warheads["P_60"] = simple_warhead(3.5); warheads["P_33E"] = simple_warhead(47.0); warheads["P_27AE"] = simple_warhead(39.0); warheads["P_27P"] = simple_warhead(39.0); this is problem warheads["P_27PE"] = simple_warhead(39.0); this is problem warheads["P_27T"] = simple_warhead(39.0); this is problem warheads["P_27TE"] = simple_warhead(39.0); this is problem warheads["P_27EM"] = simple_warhead(39.0); this is problem warheads["P_73"] = enhanced_a2a_warhead(8.0); this is problem warheads["P_77"] = directional_a2a_warhead(22.0); warheads["P_37"] = simple_warhead(60.0); warheads["AIM_7"] = enhanced_a2a_warhead(39.0); this is problem warheads["AIM_9"] = enhanced_a2a_warhead(10.0); maybe is problem warheads["AIM_9P"] = enhanced_a2a_warhead(11.0); warheads["AIM_9X"] = directional_a2a_warhead(10.0); warheads["AIM_54"] = simple_warhead(60.75); warheads["AIM_120"] = directional_a2a_warhead(22.0); warheads["AIM_120C"] = directional_a2a_warhead(22.0); kill distance for R-27 series at 11m is not problem, they have low G!

The main problem is that ED does not know how to determine the climbing rocket after launch. This important fact to manipulate perhaps the most important thing and that is timing missiles, and terminal velocity at maximum range. This is a radical change from those that are guided by data link and semi active, and IR... so with that a certain energy in level sea has a completely different proportions because the path is different. Defining the maximum range is not a problem. The difference is only in the eastern and western reviewing.

http://www.mediafire.com/?c6t94lwvbxf3m3d This is the stat. data from my mod, and tacview recording also.

At first I thought that you give the name of the engine for the R-27R. lol I realize later of which you're talking about missile.

It's a good engine. Different purposes, but the range is excellent for such a small rocket. Chart is worth a look. AIM-9 Weight at Launch 125 Lbs Weight at Burnout 50 Lbs Thrust 690 Lbs Time of Motor Burn 8.0 seconds Maximum Acceleration 30 G’s Range 2.5 Miles (do not know if this is taken as an example for the calculation and the data are valid with "The Analysis of a Generic Air-to-Air Missile Simulation Model")

ASRAAM not suitable for high altitudes and long distances when its speed down. I will not answer to everyone. Bothered me immensely this topic. It is hard to translate.

Formulas are not a problem. Language is a problem. but I'll try: G max is always calculated from the change in velocity, linear acceleration and turning radius of curvature. Turning is determined by weight, resistance (frontal resistance for a given amount of resistance + surface control for changes, speed..., all written by manuel). But this is known. f = mv2 / r. The biggest problem is to find out the maximum point at which they are received after the first booster. The precise time duration of the first booster is not so important in the calculation of the total range, it is more important to find the speed at half distance to the point where the projectile with his (calculated mathematically) speed can not turn around and pull out 4-6g. But, if we assume that the official information published by the army just the distance at which a given projectile velocity to reach that G, and based on facts known to the 60000ft for example, R-27ER reaches a maximum speed of 4.5 Mach, we know the loss rate per unit of time at a certain height from the time of termination of the first booster, until reaching a minimum in the extreme range. It is this loss of our guidelines for the mean half-distance for the role of the third booster (if it exists, or is this just another booster, depending on the type of missile).The mean value gives us strength on the basis of comparing the total mass of fuel that is slowly consumed per unit of time, and distance traveled for each time period or weight change. This compound is a small thing if you want accuracy. Since the calculation is the third such that combustion is independent of the shift flares, and that is the entire length of time, and it is nothing like the ramjet technology, obviously this will continue to be the biggest secret the biggest problem for FC3. Information about this will not be for sure, but my free assessment is that there can be three times longer than the time duration of the first booster. which in turn complicates the matter further. The duration of the first booster is very important for the fight at short distances. And it's very important to accurately determine the most and it. Either way, we should bear in mind another fact. large flares, especially at high altitudes, have different value descent due to mass. Light missiles can travel a lot more, but they are not functional. And in both groups do not need this kind of mileage in range counted. Calculate the deviation angle, los angle, elevation los, los azimuth further build on these calculations. I know I wrote confusing, but it would be easier to speak English. Talk simplified. Translator does not understand complex sentences. P.C. I have some information on the R-27R, and on that basis it can be done proportions. Improvements in the percentage admit in public. Roughly correspond to the information in the manual for the Su-27SK. For AIM-9 but do not have precise information, but and the R-73 has quantum image processing also,and the bigger Ek and TVC. AIM-9x it is necessary in FC3 very very much.

You said it in public because there is no other way. Calculations conducted with me by leaving out an update for FC3. What we know for sure is that you do not have confidential data. Everything that you use, and I use it too. Or maybe you want me to send you and all that you have a copy of ...? :) I'll wait for FC3 update and see if I need to care after your mathematical gift, or bias.

Do your the "gut feeling" says about them: Joseph A. Kaplan Department of Computer Science Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia Alan R. Chappell Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Corporation Hampton, Virginia John W. McManus Analysis and Simulation Branch Analysis and Computation Division NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia. my "nothing" have worked in their concept.

Encyclopedia of FC2, which is ignored is all you can ED to provide evidence for his claims. But I did not take the data from that encyclopedia. Missile_data file is one big encyclopedia which shows inconsistency and non-compliance with the laws of physics. Many strangeness and contradictions that are detectable. If I fix something to you, you are looking for mathematical calculations and sources of information that I do! But Ed has made a complete FC2 and FC3 that is not at least explain his educational project. Neither chart, no physical law, any parameter, or another source. I can give you all this, and in the end I will probably deliver. But not before I see you to have a desire to be transparent. Go to provide ED charts and sources of information that you educate the ignorant. For now this is not published. My "gut feeling" is not saying that you found the information that may justify your missiles physics. Rather, they're selectively adopting. If you want me to prove the precise explanation at me, you first publish your precise evidence. You have a greater obligation. If I see that I was wrong, the hard disk will delete all the documents that I have collected for years. Do not forget that the only problem is to find out the strength of engine thrust. That's the only thing we can not argue, but because I did not touch it booster in of missile_data , although I know, is not quite like this of combustion. If we want to know what happens after the combustion kinetics, it is not a problem. Information about the structure of rocket, known throughout. mathematical calculation also. I compared the results with the official data. They're a very little less value, but a lot less than the value created in FC2. But the explanation of what is wrong in FC2 I gave in earlier posts. One post that was translated whiteG.

description of the file in the Serbian lang.

I also believe the same. But they is also biased.

Total speed is less than R27ER. Max speed also. The starting acceleration is better in AMRAAM. what is the problem? This time difference is a compromise, because the AMRAAM hyper manoeuvrable at high altitudes and low speeds, with their tiny fins. This is what is abnormal about this missile. If you reference value " The F-15C is the king of BVR", then you will soon have to make a F-22. The Pentagon was smart and did not underestimate Russia's outdated technology. You can not invest hundreds of billions of dollars in F22, but you can push your "king" for peanuts. Do not ask me for expert knowledge, because I and all people in ED, we're still in the learning process. My mod is a compromise of your bad missiles.

My answer is yes. For those that I have announced that I am. The only thing that did not come is how much to the ER loses kg rocket fuel combustion. I took on the basis of a simple calculation, that is good. I took the EM ratio based on the Internet, since neither you nor I have no information about her. No wonder they' been kicked out of FC3. Listen buddy, if I'm torture with English, torture you and the Serbian lang. This is a request to respond to my squadron 4c, to the details of this mod. This is only part. http://www.mediafire.com/?abmqtkd8c5sf2hz Mod is not my request to accept ED. This is only my business. Other people to love it my mod. I would very much love to all of your graphs, tables and calculations along with your post for Manuel FC3. Pozzzz

irrelevant. mod is for FC2 where it does not play a role. This is the main advantage of FC3.

Data are ok. My mod is in line with what you stated. Only the R-27ER is little stronger range the only 5km. Novelty is AIM-120 achieves a maximum range of 101 seconds, and R-27ER of 90sekund. That is a big change. The reason is simple. P.C. Everyone deserves to know as much as you know how to ask. Maverik ask me?

Exellent. In my mod, AIM120C hitting a target in the 65km in the same conditions. In FC2 is 87km. The only difference in my mod is 62km is not that the same as 38nm. :thumbup: Try mode and then talk!