kolga

Going off of the fuselage (+ a little) i got 3.75m ie 27.6 Cu meters. Yeah, i was just shooting from the hip about the oxygen. What the heck with the plume? It looks like it lost lock with the fuselage and and re-locked to the exhaust. The stabs block the exhaust from the side. Here is your video: "...The heat of combustion of hydrazine in oxygen (air) is 1.941 x 107 J/kg (8345 BTU/lb)..." In air, not with an oxidizer. The motor exploded, not the whole missile. I know why you think they need one, what i want to know is HOW you know they use them. Let me explain: In the OP video the burners are 5,324 px in area The missile before it hits is 2,552 px in area The flash is 22,743 px in area So, if the motor had 1 second left and were burned in 3 frames it would produce a flash 20,416 px in area + 5324 = 25,740 Sq px IE more than enough. Cut the snark and use real answers. Logic would dictate Different applications = different And why is that relevant? Wow, so enlightening... The missile is too close to the plane to produce a discernible lag between BOOM and WHACK. Maybe the source is the rebels and they don't want to look bad for crappy performance, just as likely.

The AIM-9X flash is not smaller. Looking at it again there is a very possible flash right after the missile exits the fuselage: It appears they are right at the edge before the inset cuts out, indicating the back end of the missile probably whacked it. And you have yet to provide any proof of that, the videos you keep posting just confirm my position. Can you provide a source for your BTU numbers? Also, you don't know weather the leftover glow is burning or not. Yeah, of course it is, the flash doesn't follow the missile. Missile testing experience? If so, why didn't you say so before, i asked. Makes sense about the telemetry not being perfect, but you haven't sold me on the whole tiny testing warhead thing. I have mathematically proven that with just one second left it has far more than enough potential FLIR signature to produce the flash in the OP video. Yep, but different uses and different users. What is not obvious is what your talking about? Source? The car was mostly in the way of the FLIR though, and the mechanic probably asked you what you hit also.

So, you were wrong on the flare and so you switch to the Aim-9x flash, ok, So using the length instead of the wingspan (and being generous) i came up with about 3.75m which would make that 27.6 Cu meters, which is 1.75 times the volume of the burners. And also the blast is a solid white hot flame, not barely visible like the burners in daylight. Watch it at 0.25 speed, there is clearly a hot ball of similar size to the other hit after the plane passes. PLUME??????????????? Yes, it heads straight for the glow which the F-4's downturned horizontal stabs are in the way of. Hundreds with the motor still burning on impact? The missile goes straight through the fuselage so i wouldn't expect to see the flash right when it happened, especially because of the lack of oxygen within the fuselage. Yeah, sorry i thought it was in the other video i posted, here is the link (watch in 0.25 speed): Clear evidence? You're working on an extremely flawed assumption that they don't trust telemetry (weather they should or not). Also don't forget the person who has actual missile testing experience: It is completely irrelevant because the missile in the OP video is still burning. Most likely it has to do with military FLIR for blowing crap up Vs. Law enforcement FLIR for chasing bad dudes. (There is an article that says most likely it was filmed on Flir ULTRA 8500) Source:https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/09/yemens-shiite-houthis-claim-saudi-f-15-kill-with-sam-over-capital-city-of-sanaa/ No i think it proves you are bad at estimating size :lol: (Sorry i couldn't resist, don't take it personally, i try to stay light hearted, no one is going to die.) I think it shows the difference in FLIR configs more than anything, i think an actual detonation on the OP video would be enormous compared to apache FLIR and settings. Something else to think about is that the maintenance procedures might be different for a detonation vs a kinetic strike. Let me fix your analogy: You're driving down the roads of rural Holland and you hit an animal, you take your car to the mechanic, after work that day he tells a buddy that it looks like they hit a deer, but a car enthusiast magazine from UAE claims you hit a bear, some random guy in London goes "obviously it was a bear!". ;)

I am talking about actual flame size, burners are about 1m x 10m cylinders and thus their volume is about 15.7 Cu meters combined, Flares are about 1m x 1m spheres (I am being generous, they are probably smaller) and thus about 0.52 Cu meters, and thus they are much smaller than burners in real life, but in FLIR they are over half the size of burners. Also, i don't know if i should calc FLIR in area or volume, i think that FLIR would sense in 2D (More heat=more area) rather than More heat=more volume, i don't know, it doesn't change the outcome much but more accuracy is better. The video you just linked to at 0:06, it falls over and explodes like heck (most of them in that video do that as well, especially if they hit something). Whats with the "afterburner plume" thing, afterburners don't have plumes and in FLIR they have glows. Look at the photo i posted in my last post, the stabs on the f-4 are pointed down over the exhaust at the rear, after it hits by the time the next frame is taken the plane has moved forward a few meters and since the blast from the motor is static it stays behind. You have watched at least a hundred of the inert hits? In the picture that i posted you can see the blast (i circled it) after the dust settles. You conveniently chose the video that cuts out early, the full video is here at 0:53 (watch at 0.25 speed.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-CeuO1R4WE Here is another one (AIM-9X test): Notice they are no longer burning, IE no motor left, IE irrelevant. In the OP video everything glows far bigger than the actual flame size, in the hellfire videos there is a lot less glow and so you can fairly accurately tell the actual flame blast size, and that is what i have been saying for pages. I tried to measure the hellfire video you posted last and came up with about 28m for the glow at its largest. Read the dang post dude, Neon67 says its strange that there is no shrapnel damage, ZEEOH6 says they will ask, contractor says no detonation hence the lack of shrapnel damage.

In diameter? Yes, that is what i said, but the burners are 10m long so they have far more volume........dude Also, in my previous calc i figured the burners and flares square instead of round so here is the more accurate numbers (normal video and OP FLIR): Burners are 15.7 Cu meters Flare is 0.52 Cu meters Burners in FLIR are 288,695 Cu px Flares on FLIR are 164,636 Cu px So in normal video flare is 3% of burners and in FLIR flare is about 57% of burners. So the flare 19 times bigger (compared to burners) than normal. Like have have said a mega-myriad of times, prove it! (solid fuel) I was talking about normal video, The volume of the AIM-9X flash is about 33 Cu meters and the burners are about 15.7 Cu meters Look at this: Very similar sized flash to other AIM-9X hit. Well thats all fine and dandy but it doesn't change the fact that the missile before it hits has 47% of the FLIR signature of the burners. Bleeding glow of the explosion. It that video there is more glow than normal but there also seems to be more sophisticated glow suppression in the apache than the OP video. This is a good example of not using "maths". For it to be 1% you have to have 100 inert hits and 99 of them have to have no flash. As for the Dutch source, you still have no proof of the third flare, wrong interval, no bulge, no flare. The horizontal stabs of the F-4 are angled down over the exhaust: That would be great if someone could find an inert hit in FLIR, but alas failure. Already addressed that:

Show the mistakes if they exist. Haha, Wow, who would have thought that in low light over exposed video flares are huge? "The video"? Which video? The massive space travel rockets are mostly liquid fuel (R-73 is solid fuel) and they blow up pretty dang fast (look at your second video, rocket #4, it starts on fire and then BOOM. It didn't even hit anything). The flash by my measurements (Based on the wingspan) is about 4 or 5 meters. So a volume of about 33m vs 20m for the burners. I call that bigger. Just what exactly is "The fact"? Nope as demonstrated Nope 'cause no bleeding glow in hellfire videos Yep, but that doesn't mean they have a 100% detonation rate. Other than the dutch journalist I have seen no evidence pointing to detonation.

Crap! What have we done to deserve this? :megalol:

I made a mistake on my previous calculation, it would be 2m x 10m for the burners so that would make it 20 sq m vs 1 sq m And therefore: In normal video the flare is 5% of burners and in FLIR flare is 68% of burners, that is 13.6 times bigger than it "should" be. The big difference is that the flare is a continual burn where the motor exploding is not. And also, just because its not designed to be big on flir doesn't mean its not going to be, for example the missile glow before it hits is about 69% of the area of the flare glow, so if the rest of the motor were burned in an instant it clearly has enough potential FLIR signature for the flash in the video. As shown in the AIM-9X video the motor blast hangs around too. Like i have said many times, there is no glow in the hellfire videos, you are seeing the actual explosion, whereas in the OP video anything hot is glowing like heck and you can't see anything because its blocked by the enormous glow. If i was trolling i wouldn't be mathematically proving my position, as i have been. Your running out of evidence.

Oh, yeah i think i have had that happen once, but the OAT was really cold so i thought it had something to do with that.

Congratulations! Yeah for some reasons i almost always imagine people as looking like their avatars, as in MiG21bisFishbedL being the crew cut mullet dude (even though its in his sig), sorry i can't help it. But anyways thanks for all your community managing throughout the years!

Certain combinations of RPM and MP will cause seizure, its not random in my experience.

I am actually starting to wonder if your trolling... Well, i didn't have a whole lot of time that night due to a possible power failure so i had to wrap it up and post it before i was completely done, but contemplate the following refuse :lol: Garbage like proving the combining effect exists, the famous rocket failure videos being a nothingburger, the glow not continuing upwards, challenging you for proof of a telemetry warhead, ect. Flares are about 1m x 1m in normal video but 68% of the area of the 1m x 10m burners so its definitely not as simple as "Big in normal = big in FLIR" No, the glow in the video is similar is size to the actual explosion of a hellfire in flir, there is almost no glow in the hellfire videos.

You left out the final frame before the flash The burner glow before they converge is about 5324 px, in the above frame (them together) the burner glow is about 7672 px. That is called combining. Do you know what a plume is? Not covering, combined. look at the exhaust, the leftover glow stays right above it. My first post in this thread was poking fun at the "F-15's never fly below 10,000 ft" thing, my second was clarifying the first, and my third was about the motor exploding. I have never considered MANPADS the most likely. He didn't say there was no debris (or shrapnel for that matter) that would be stupid, just that there was no shrapnel damage. The leftover plume (Smoke and debris). No, not all the evidence, just the evidence you like. BTW why the heck are you still talking at the wall that allegedly still believes its a MANPADS? Haha, thanks for proving my point! Now i see why you stalled for so long, And also the R-73 is a solid rocket motor so its even more irrelevant. Nope. Ok, what are you talking about. Why doesn't the afterburner melt the plane? Show your proof then. Normal video. How big is a flare in normal video? very small. And that doesn't change the fact that i have proven my position mathematically probable. You said earlier the original topic was MANPADS, make up your mind :megalol: KE+Motor. No i mean contractor.

Did you know what throughout meant when you typed that?

It is actually, the burners by themselves are about 5324 px and when the missile is converged with the burners they are about 7672 px, so there is a definite combining effect. All the heat is created in an instant and then lingers for a while after i.e. the smoke from the motor exploding and debris. If its clear why did it take you so long to decide it was a warhead detonation? Nope. The aircraft travels directly away from it, the angle is deceiving. I have never "made up my mind" like you, i have been discussing the evidence to try and find the truth about what happened. And actually my third post on this thread was about the motor exploding so ha! Until you can show me the myriad of videos you keep claiming exist about slow gentle rocket motor failures your point is null. Ya know what? Heat doesn't just disappear after its created. And your forgetting the motor. Yeah pretty similar, but as you would say "But thats not FLIR!" Where, show me. The missile glow is obscuring the entire rear underside of the A/C so there is no way you could see it anyway. Care to share? And last i checked afterburners are not 20m by 30m large. Guess what, you are looking at area measurements, not linear. What you failed to understand is that 5324 px is an extremely large linear dimension for that low of resolution. Oh, so we are talking about plumes now? Who in the heck would expect a plume to last less than 1 second let alone a frame? :megalol: My explanation does not rely on trusting a random Dutch journalist opposed to the contractor doing the repair.

Wow, this is literally the last thing i expected you to say in this thread. Lets take i little stroll down memory lane, shall we? My third post in this thread: You brought up KE, not me. Now for your roller coaster: And then on to your current position. You asked for it. My position has not changed since i started posting in this thread.

Oh, ok thank you!

The reason it matters is because you said you think the flash is not a combination of both the burners and the strike, so i am asking you if you think something has to be over 100% of the burners to be visible. Yes, I know about terminal ballistics, what i meant was the bullet can only dump large amounts of KE when in contact with the target. "or get bigger" what??? The explosion does not continue upwards, the debris does. Yes, roughly the same speed, but i think most of the flash would come from the motor exploding anyway. You are forgetting a very important component, the motor. All i said was an explosion and a kinetic strike both get bigger as they happen, not after, not before, which is true. The end. Not really, its not :megalol: (We could go on like this for a while...) Nope, like, seriously nope. Prove it. I believe GG has actual reason to believe what he said about telemetry missiles, as in not guessing. Its normal video, do the afterburners look bigger than the a/c in normal video? No. Ok, so i have done some measuring: The burners are about 5,324 px The flare is about 3,660 px so that makes it about 68% of the burners. The flash is 22,743 px The burners + the missile in the frame just before the flash are 7,672 px ( interesting how that works out, because if you add them up apart you get about 7,876, so within margin of error) The missile by itself is 2,552 px So if there were 1 second of rocket motor left, and it was burned in 1 frame it would produce a flash roughly 61,248 px big.

Can you say anything about the engine start dynamics yet? That is something i am really interested in!

What the heck? I said if there were hypothetically an explosion at the afterburners with 90% of the energy of the burners, do you think it would be invisible? What i was saying is that if it was a kinetic strike all the energy that was dump would have to be dumped at that one frame. Just like when a bullet goes though something it can only dump energy as its traveling through the object, even if it continues after. Did a quick calc and found 170 deg f with an ambient temp of 95 deg f and a speed of 650 MPH TAS So, i was off by 50 deg and my point still stands. Actually a kinetic impact does also. Yeah, it could indicate either way. Yeah maybe, when i have some time i will try and see if i can get an exact measurement. I have been looking for a BTU/lb and haven't been able to find anything yet... ????? It was pleased to see what? (!) Can you provide some sort of evidence for the bulge? I think it has been established that there is no warhead on telemetry missiles. Guess i will have to ask again, can you please provide something to back up your claim regarding rocket failures, i have not been able to find anything.

I WILL ASK AGAIN: Alright, so first a want to clarify, do you believe that hypothetically if there was an explosion with 90% of the energy of the burners it would not be visible because something has to have 170% of the energy to make the glow 70% bigger? (that would be wrong by the way) Umm, no, the KE is not dumped over 1 sec. So like 120 deg compared to like 3200 deg? Wow, thats serious preheating going on!!! An explosion gets bigger as it happens, not smaller. Also, looking at it again i noticed the blast (probably the rocket motor exploding) stays in roughly the same spot whereas it looks like the missile and debris continue, indicating an inert hit. Umm, no, the flare glow is about 50 pixels tall and the burners are about 65 (granted they are longer) i don't know about you but that does not look like 1/3. Also, there is no slight bulge and no evidence of a third flare. I don't think so, can't find anything to suggest that. Something to think about is that the missile glow before is hits is about 45 pixels high, meaning that the rocket motor is putting out a fair bit of heat per second when controlled, meaning the amount of heat produced by an explosion of the motor would be pretty impressive.

Just semi-sarcastically challenging him for a source. Also, i am trying to stay semi-light-hearted, its not like whoever happens to be wrong in this gets burned at the stake or something.

I will ask again: Alright, so first a want to clarify, do you believe that hypothetically if there was an explosion with 90% of the energy of the burners it would not be visible because something has to have 170% of the energy to make the glow 70% bigger? This is a very important question to answer for my to be able to understand your position!!! Yeah its quicker, but it doesn't always seem to work out i.e: 12th paragraph on my post: "By all means show us the evidence then. See attached images, and interpolate missile position." 12th paragraph on your post: "That's still the blast happening in roughly the same spot but the aircraft continues away from that spot at ~600-700mph." that doesn't really make sense unless i am misunderstanding something. Yeah but that same air is also leaving at 600MPH, so its not really much of a factor. And as i have proven, all the KE that the missile dumps happens in one frame because the glow is past the stab in the next frame, therefore having nothing to dump KE with. (by the way, to go frame by frame just put it on 0.25 speed and click play pause quickly) Afterburners are chemical energy also so its a perfect comparison according to what you keep saying: "...temperature itself is a measure of average molecule KE (so it does indeed all boil down to energy)" Look at the frame just before the hit, the missile is clearly on course to hit one of the stabs, and by the time the next frame was taken the blast had drifted due to the speed on the F-4.

Due to your response being hard to decipher (since you don't quote what exactly what your replying to) and your Stuck-on-MANPADS-ness i am going to start with a fresh post to avoid any confusion. Alright, so first a want to clarify, do you believe that hypothetically if there was an explosion with 90% of the energy of the burners it would not be visible because something has to have 170% of the energy to make the glow 70% bigger? Also, do you believe a 2x1x8 Inch flare canister can put out 75% of the energy per sec as the afterburners? As for the Aim-9X video, its inert, there is no question, a 9.36Kg warhead does not do what happened in the video. (I have to leave now, i'll try and post the rest tomorrow)

Looks pretty good, here is the Airplane flying handbook section on landing: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/10_afh_ch8.pdf I has some good stuff on crosswind. EDIT: It has some good stuff on crosswind.