IASGATG

Drag Force equation. Well aware that the drag co-efficient changes depending on x,y,z. Having looked through the code, the best I can see is the Cx_K0-3 and the Cx_pil. What these do exactly would be most appreciated. Burn time of missiles. They are burning too long/staging is funky. Resulting in incorrect acceleration of missiles. These two things together are pretty much the big things we're looking at currently. Having a missile decelerated from M3 to M2 at an estimated 20-30s, and having it do it in 6 means that there is an error somewhere. Either in us, or you. If it's us, that's fine, we'd just like to figure out your end. Google translate of Russian isn't that helpful and our Russian is took busy reporting to the KGB. There are several others as well of course. At this point we're just compiling as much data as we can get. Any data that you can give us that you know is accurate would of course be appreciated as it'd save us time. We understand the hassle of data mining, that's fine, I'll happily go through a 400pg pdf to find the 1 line of stuff I'm after. :)

You could say the the AIM-120C has light years of maximum distance if shot from the ISS into space. If you don't want to create a sensible definition, that's fine. If you want to say the maximum range is the ballistic range, that's fine. If you want to say it's the range at which it can still pull x g, that's fine. If you want to say it's the range at which it is still travelling at x speed, that's fine. If you want to say it's the range at which it loses the ability to keep track of a non-moving target, that's fine. If you want to say it's the range at which it can hit a maneuvering target pulling x g's, that's fine. If you want to say it's the range at which it can hit a target that only begins to evade at range x at g load y, that's fine. If you want to set the base altitude benchmark at x height, that's fine. If you want to set the base IAS benchmark at x speed, that's fine. If you want to add any more possible variables to this, that's fine. If you want to use a combination of these variables and pick the lowest number, that's fine. If you want to use a combination of these variables and pick the highest number, explaining why, that's fine. At least we then know what you mean.

I have lots of free time.

Okay. You can do it your way. We'll try it our way, see what happens. I assume you'll be open to looking over our results when we publish them, and if you cannot find any faults in the findings, it'll be incorporated. Obviously if you do find faults, we'll make changes accordingly.

Exactly! That's why you have to define it. It's like any definition for anything, ever. You have to set a benchmark of assumptions and say "In order for our word to have any validity, we have to assume x, y, and z." Just because a definition takes more than five words to define, doesn't mean you shouldn't define it. Look at philosophy, words can take paragraphs or even essays to define, and that's FINE. As long as you make it know that that's YOUR definition. I know it's a curve based on a number of variables, but we know through simple physics, as the missile gets slower, what happens to its Cd? What happens to its drag force? And the missile should do what? Exactly, it doesn't. What it does do is slow down WAY too quickly.

I've done some testing on this. The problem isn't so much the Δ v the missiles generate. It's how quickly they slow down. Using simple drag force equations and manipulating the Cd from .5 all the way up to 1.0, the missiles are still decelerating anywhere between 50% and 150% too much. We're in the process of calculating an estimated Cd, but without knowing where to input it, and out of curiosity see what the current one is. We're a bit stuck on that.

Yep, it's awkward to define since there are lots of different definitions for it. Moreover, we can define it as one thing, but when using someone else's data of "Maximum range" which may have a different definition, we'd encounter problems. However, I think it's prudent to define it, even if it's wrong, or inaccurate, or awkward to use. At least that way, EVERYONE knows what YOU mean when you say it.

ED - Is there a way to mess with the drag forces/drag coefficients of the missiles?

Strange, I do not have the "Kneeboard" category.

1.2.4 A2A Missile Discussion/Details I'm going to attempt to talk entirely in numbers rather than speculation and hearsay. I'm also not going to talk about what real world missiles actually do. Speed Test All missiles shot at 16,000' at 400kts AIM-120C 2060KTS AIM-120B 1920KTS AIM-7 1310KTS AIM-9M 1630KTS R-77 1930KTS R-27ER 2350KTS R-27ET 2050KTS R-73 1600KTS Defensive Tests Tests were done 3 times for fairness. Scenario: F-15 Aggressor shoots AIM-120C at Defender F-15, maintaining lock throughout. Defender (Full payload/Fuel) Split-S defense as soon as the last missile is shot. At first missiles were shot at 15nmi, then 1 mile until kill was 100%. Two missiles were shot, one at 15nmi and then x (X reducing in range by 1nmi after each test) until 100% kill. Results: Missiles were all defeated until 10nmi, at which point kill rate was 100%, even shots at 15nmi and 11nmi were defeated. Scenario: MiG-29 Aggressor shoots at at Defender F-15. Since the R-77 is slower than the C, it seemed pointless to test this. Instead we decided to test a 15nmi ER shot followed by a decreasing range R-77 shot. Results: The R-77 is defeated at ranges down to around 8nmi, however this wasn't conclusively tested. Testing was cut shot when we realised that the ER stops tracking as soon as the F-15 begins the split-S. Results.rar

I do not. I merely spent a few hours testing what the missiles do when you fire them, and what they do when you fire them at something.

Because the missile can be defeated easily at any point before 8nmi. At 6nmi it's much harder to defeat it and within 5nmi it cannot be defeated. (Unless you were already defending when the missile was fired)

120C's shouldn't be shot before 8nmi.

Should be in the track I uploaded one page back. (The second track) I have a third track of testing, but that was mostly R77's.

I didn't expect it to go faster, more if it could maintain the speed whilst it's undergoing G + pressure increase.

Guidance. Don't quote me on the 6nmi shot. I'd have to check my data (Which I can do later) but definitely 7nmi shot. There were missiles that I knew I was dead to, and I just watched to fly over the top of my cockpit. I could have reached out and touched it, and nothing, just screamed past at Mach 3.

Be curious to see how fast it goes in a downward angle onto targets. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the guidance stuff is easy. Just curious. I split S'd from 15, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6. (I believe, was a few days ago I did the test) I then did the test again where he'd shoot at 15, then 10, then 8. I'd then defend at the 8nmi shot. (Which the 15 would kill me.) However, if I defended just before the 15nmi shot hit me, I would defeat all of them.

Just a quick question on this. The R-27 does seem to behave best, I agree and props to that. The question I have is they seem very, very easy to defeat. In about 2 hours of testing ER's being shot at my F-15. The ER loses look as soon as I begin a split S. I have ER's shooting over the top of my aircraft at Mach 3 within 50feet to no effect. If I don't properly defend, then yes, they home all the way to me. I'm just curious to why why the Su would lose lock from a split S, as I'm not notching the radar.. if anything I'm making myself a lot larger by showing my belly. server-20130305-015614.trk

Fine, to prove a point I'll upload a track. Edit: It seems I am somewhat mistaken, I apologize for spreading misinformation. These are the updated results. 19,000 ASL. Mach 0.9. Missile hits Mach 2.6 36,000 ASL. Mach 0.9. Missile hits Mach Mach 3.2 36,000 ASL. Mach 2.4 Missile hits Mach 4.1 I'm sorry. In order to make your Mach 4 missile go Mach 4, you have to be at Mach 2+ at high altitude. server-20130308-153002.trk

Yes, but having tested firing the Charlie at different altitudes and different speeds, this way makes the missile travel fastest. Even at 36'000 feet at Mach 2.4, the missile doesn't go as fast as shooting it straight down at Mach 2.

It is true. I fired an AIM-120C, whilst nose down at Mach 2. The missile slowly accelerated up to about Mach 3, before slowing down to Mach 2 before splashing into the ocean.

Incorrectly shows which pylons the fuel bags are on.

Anyone else getting this problem? Trying to save a mission with any name, even trying to overwrite an old mission file, throws up the "Invalid File name" error.

Any idea why the mission is no longer found? Did you take it down? Edit: I found it on the User Files, but the links in the thread are dead.

We were pretty close over it. I'll check the track to make sure one of my flight members didn't herp derp into the enemy. Sorry, my fault, a Wingman broke formation and herp derp flew over the river...