nighthawk2174

I don't think this paper is applicable here 1) the aoa sensor is on the wing in this paper its not on the MIG-21, additionally its on the wingtip. As far as I understand it the effects of upwash are reduced away from the wingtip vorticies. 2) the speeds here are far less then in a mig-21 sub 100kts for half the test. 3) the wing is much thicker then the MIG-21's increasing the effects of the discrepancy. 4) The difference was minor up to 9deg aoa, which is very close to stall conditions. Some of the test used here in DCS were at 5deg aoa with the sensor reading 10deg aoa... 5) How do we know that the aoa sensor wasn't calibrated for airframe effects? We know that the sensor being used was only installed much latter and initially only the probe aoa sensor was used. 6)The difference in game is always 50%, in the paper it grows from nothing to 25% max at/near stall. In game if it were a 25% difference that'd be a sensor reading of 33deg for a true aoa of ~25deg. Which is much higher then it is now.

Not to mention that if your whole aoa timeframe is compressed by a factor of two small changes in aoa become much harder. Making the jet harder to fly in general.

I think the OP is right though delta's stall near 30deg that is their typical critical angle of attack. Its one of the features of this wing design. However in game this is not the case, the aoa where you stall out is half of what is typical for delta's which is a major discrepancy. The ingame value listed in F2 is angle of attack and its showing a value half that of the guage. And as said by the devs the AOA being used by the FM is this value. I doubt that the indicator is actually off by 100% irl, this would be extremely weird. Delta's just by their inherent design have higher stall angles then conventional wings. The gauge even shows this with the red stall region being near 30deg. In game our wing is entering the stall regime at the same point as conventional wings. Would there be some small errors sure, but it has an aoa sensor well away from any disturbance. I think you are correct in being suspicious. Aerodynamics for naval aviators is a amazing place to start. It has some of the best-better explanations of aerodynamic concepts i've seen. It is freely available on the internet. I don't think that's the case that the OP is making in the slightest, I think he's right about this. Plus small disturbances near the airframe CANNOT explain a value double the actual AOA value.

This doesn't make sense, yes across the lower surface you will have a point where CP=0 (infact depending on the wing shape multiple points may exist). But I see no way to derive the angle of attack from the position of these points. Yes although the range of this effect is rather quite limited. I have no clue what your talking about. The downwash will just reduce your total effective lift requiring a small increase in aoa to compensate. The effect is a local effect impacting the area near the wingtip, hence the effect drops off with higher aspect ratio wings, or with wings that include a small twist into the wing.

Chaff is not a mirror radar energy will still make it through what you get is the same effect as a noise jammer it just reduces detection range. For modern systems though the amount of chaff needed to achieve usable results against PD radars is immense.

I can't believe this is still an issues. I'd stopped following it years ago...

I have no clue what your blabbering about... ??????? wut Not quite... and this is downwash angle and only matters for the surfaces behind the main wing. No, if the airfoil is non symmetric you get lift even at 0deg AOA: Assuming the wing isn't canted on the aircraft maybe. lol wut No, lets assume here wings camber is in line with the nose angle, that would mean that the flight path vector is 5deg below the horizon which by definition means you cannot be in level flight. By definition the velocity vector is the direction your flying, and is equivalent to the angle of the oncoming flow. I fail to see how this at all relevant here. I suggest you re-read the OP it really seems like you didn't actually read it.

Bump

Maybe, something else to consider would be battery tech would have improved somewhat since the original design in the early to mid 70's. IMHO a small increase in flight time from the B to C is more then likely, i'm not talking 30+ but at least 10-20sec more is extremely probable. I agree with your findings 100% I really need to get a track that works. The one I had was 30min long and after a short time the track diverged from what happened pretty radically.

The C did received a brand new electronics package that was much smaller. I'd be surprised if it wasn't also more power efficient as well.

Agreed @NineLineI'll get a track when I can but from what i've been seeing the missile is still really easy to notch, I tested with a few dozen shots and was pretty easy to notch almost all of them. There were a few that made it through, however the majority didn't. The difference this patch is it seems that if you support the missile it will at least reacquire now, most of the time, sometimes it just doesn't and I have no clue why. Has there been any progress on proximity fuzes? Also can the team re-examine the random aiming errors thing as far as I'm aware one of the many major advantages of monopulse is scintillation is essentially not a factor for it. There is a video which I don't have time to find now of an amraam hitting a tiny target drone at low alt, as in a direct shack while in look down.

What tape are you guys modeling?

Something though that should be mentioned is in the beam the targets RCS will also explode. It's often orders of magnitude higher then frontally. Which would reduce the chaff to target signal ratio. But it would mean more time between the chaff becoming a larger target then the aircraft as it takes time for chaff to bloom.

RCS is static in DCS

What exactly did the changes they made to the amraam entail exactly, if you know? And are we sure they all made it in as intended?

Have they said why? The model is not how the radar works.

@BIGNEWY or @NineLineYou know the dev teams thoughts on this, as per beamscanners post -which I fully agree with- and is accurate per every book on radar i've ever seen the current behavior is not correct and can be set fixed in 5sec by anyone with access to the code.

Will this unit also come with fixes to the dispersion of the CIWS system and or new round types?

As far as i'm aware its a doppler based fuze. So it should largely ignore chaff and ground clutter, there will be edge cases where the chaff is still fast enough to trigger the fuze. However for now there are far bigger fish to fry in terms of fixing things.

Chaff is not a mirror, its far more appropriate to view it like a cloud. And like a cloud sunlight still gets through, the intensity will be reduced but most certainly not reduced to nothing.

As far as I'm aware modern missiles fuzes use the Doppler shift of the target to filter out clutter. The older fuzes on the SA2 I believe were just simple radio proximity fuzes that went off when a return above a certain threshold was detected. This is part of the reason for their inability to hit low flying targets.

depends on the fuze, if the seeker is IR/laser based it shouldn't do anything. Most modern missiles have a doppler based radio fuze which should prevent this if the chaff has already stopped.. Older systems like the SA2 sure.

Yeah i've had tracks get corrupted and be very off even just minutes into a replay.

According to Galinette, when I was discussing this with him iirc, when he was making the new M2K's radar model and testing against chaff just the Doppler gates alone worked 99% of the time, including going into the notch. And its pretty clear from the one example he was able to get of it not filtering out the chaff that even the simplistic countermeasures of radar coasting or RCS edge tracking would have prevented it grabbing onto the chaff momentarily.

Thanks for your work on adding video and tracks to this issue archer. Lets hope this thread succeeds where the various ones i've made or have heavily participated in have failed to get any changes.