IASGATG

True fact, the Gulf War was entirely an air war hand had no moving ground forces involved at all.

HOW LONG UNTIL WE GO LIVE?!

SO HOW LONG UNTIL WE GO LIVE?!

If you're flying the F-15 in combat with bags on you're doing it wrong. If you think you get the same performance out of the jet you're either ignorant or delusional.

No such thing as a free lunch? lol.

I take it in these tests were spawning our jets at the max alt and speed the mission editor will allow right? I can believe it if that's the case because you've created an impossible set of starting parameters. Tracks please.

Server down?

I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that the 530D has a short range that the 7E2, or the 7F. Probably has a longer range than the 7M too!

I'd say that 8/8.5nmi is a bit generous. 7.5 is more like it. Moreover does this crazy French HUD show any of the targets information? Aspect/Speed/Alt?

I'd imagine the 530D to have a slightly longer Raero at high alt and a slightly lower one at low alt. Simply put, the 530D has more delta-v than the 7M, but the 530D will be more draggy. Higher you go, less drag impact per delta-v.

Su-27 Pilots Handbook's AIM-7 DLZ estimation chart.

Maybe, but probably not. Not the "standard" that ED will accept.

Well since ED has already said they do not believe in CFD and getting access to classified stuff that's in a foreign language is pretty hard work, I'll be surprised if anything changes. :)

Thanks, and no, not yet, there is currently work being done on the next version of the Mod. On an unrelated point, I keep reading people saying "Yeah it's a shame the missile is too slow but it's okay because it's being worked on". Where has this been said? Has ED/RAZBAM made a comment about how they view the current performance of the 530D or the Magic2? (This is where I get a line about 'Oh it's beta so everything is WIP'). I'm of the opinion that until the powers that be recognize it as a bug, it's currently working as intended.

I disagree with this statement. The code looks like ED took the AIM-7 code, increased it by a tiny amount because "Well it's basically an AIM-7 but bigger" and then increased the area drag until it hits whatever arbitrary "Max Range" meaning. This means that they're both happy with the Super 530 and the AIM-7.

I've shown data from 40kft previously. Here is with my modification at 40kft. It self destructs at 55s after launch (I imagine to simulate battery life or something similar). 40kft M1.3

All missiles perform better at higher altitude and worse at lower altitude. It's the nature of aerodynamics. This missile is hitting about 36km at the moment at 40kft at a Mach 1 launch. It's hitting about 12km at 10kft.

That is what I mean Brisse. I've just done 4 test shots at 10kft at M0.9 with AIM-7M, Super 530D, Super 530D with the AIM-7 characteristic square and then finally the 530D with my missile mod applied to it.

Cross sectional area is greater than aim54. Cd and Cl curves are slightly increased aim7 curves.

10% can easily be made up in reduced avionics package (due to advances in electronics) so more fuel, or a better Al/AP in the HTPB mix.

I'd also like to point out we're comparing this to the in game AIM-7 which imo is performing about half as well as it should be anyway.

I'd say in the 40kft case that the difference is minimal enough to be disregarded perhaps. Here is a 10kft M0.9 launch case. You'll notice the difference in rate is about 20%. You'll notice that the missile is worthless (Slower than Mach 1) after about 21s. This is also about 6nmi of travel. This makes the missile slightly longer ranged than the R-73 which sits at about 5nmi of travel before Mach 1 and makes those 5nmi in only 15s compared to the 530 needing 19 seconds to do it.

You want a Cd curve which wont show the effect of the massively different cross-sectional area, or you want a fly out curve of Magic 2 vs R-73 vs Magic 2 vs R-73 drag cruve?

You wont be able to calculate the drag with a 3D model without CFD. I'm afraid Supersonic isn't that easy. :) xxx

If this is to scale, that's a pretty blunt, and it would make a pretty big difference in performance imo. That being said, with a 2s burn time and almost as much Ns as the 9M it should do a lot better than the 9M in the first few seconds of flight. To put rough numbers to it, I'd imagine within the first 2nmi or so the Magic is better, beyond that I imagine the 9M is better. With the 9M getting maybe a mile range over the Magic. That being said, this is 100% speculation based off of the general shapes of the missiles with the known motors of the missile using educated guesses. CFD would be needed to know for sure.