kolga

Hmm, in the real manual it states Auto rich for basically anything other than cruise at altitude. Here is the one i use: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51D-manual-5april44.pdf

Source?

Wow, that is a very interesting and informative post, thank you for sharing your expertise!

As per the manual it should be in auto rich for take off and landing, which i at least consider to be normal operations ;)

Thank you! Very interesting!

Then argue with them, not me. Nothing suggests MANPADS, but my only point about it was its not impossible. The flares were obviously popped after launch, but the burners are a lot less sure. As in detonated? I already know you believe that. The video you posted a picture from, And yes it is inert, you think a 9.36kg warhead blast is that small??? Yeah, it can point you in the right direction, but you can't be sure unless you know altitude, speed ect. Which would also produce tons of invisible heat as well. Are you trying to accuse me of lying? I was just saying if you have two identical (other than one being live and one inert) missiles traveling the same speed hitting the same target will produce very different results. My point is there is no glow in the hellfire videos, therefore it is not a direct comparison for blast size. Why? Show me the rocket failures you keep telling me about, i can't find them. Also, do you believe a flare has 70% of the energy of the afterburners? Because its 70% of the size in the video. I haven't seen them, if they want to argue let them come. So there is never a reason to use afterburners unless there is an incoming missile? The blast happens and then the hot debris and gases continue. By all means show us the evidence then. See attached images, and interpolate missile position. Whats a proxy burst? Yes, it is inert. Some are not for a while and then light them and glow brightly.

Welcome!

What i am saying is since we don't know when it was launched we can't say how far anything has gone. But seriously are you still going to be bringing up MANPADS? No one actually believe it to be the most likely. Yeah, i am not saying that any time a missile hits something it breaks up, just that in this specific incident it looks like it did. Just as in that incident it didn't. I did and i didn't come up with anything other than the video that proves the motor can explode. The way they are traveling at intercept does not always indicate exact launch aspect. Have you ever been in a dark room and there is another person, I don;t know about you but I can't see them. Yes, i agree, as long as all the parameters are identical. ??? I was talking about the blast not bleeding. Ok, so after looking at the video again, It looks like the flash goes from 0 to its biggest in one frame so assuming 24FPS: 644,077,500/24=26,836,562.5 So in the lead wall no sound scenario you have 110% of the energy and then if we assume in real life 0.2 of the KE is converted to heat we get 22% plus the rocket motor burning off which makes a large flash perfectly possible. So is what your trying to say that if there was an explosion of 90% of the energy of afterburners we wouldn't see it at all? To me that is preposterous. Yep, i am not arguing MANPADS. How do you know it was launched before the burners? It seems more likely for him to forget to pull out of burner than lighting them with a heat seeking missile inbound. It shows a blast the same size, not a glowing flash. There is no evidence of a third flare other than the Dutch journalist. Watch it again frame by frame. ????????? My point is a rocket motor can and will explode when it hits an aircraft, something you have vehemently denied. I think its pretty clear, when the glow brightly.

Praying for him and his family. He will be missed.

First i want to say its really hard to tell exactly what your talking about when you don't quote what your responding to. We don't know range. Soo, are you saying that a kinetic strike would produce more damage??? I would appreciate if you could direct me to one or two that your talking about. We don't know the aspect of the launch. You can't see heat in the visible band. okay, i'm not sure exactly what your trying to say here... But I agree that a live missile is much more powerful than an inert one! ummm, i'm talking about a live hellfire detonation. The fatal flaw in your math is that the kinetic energy would be dumped much faster than 1 second. so if we take 0.1 sec as example we have a 64,407,750 for the burner which would make the r-73 more like 45% max. Yeah, me too :megalol: I was talking about the hypothetical almost not possible MANPADS scenario. Exactly, but without knowing exactly when it was launched that means nothing. I was pointing you to that video because it had more hits and different angles and targets. But the Dutch journalist claimed it detonated on a flare, which if wrong would bring the sources credibility into question. Watch the video in .25 and go frame by frame and interpolate the missile position, its literally on the plane. Here is an (apparent) inert missile hit at 1:22: A pretty big flash (in normal video no less), probably the motor, Who would have thought? Here is the FLIR afterburner i promised:

As I have said there is probably a less than 3% chance of it being MANPADS. I definitely agree that it’s extremely unlikely, but I also don’t think it’s possible to rule it out (and some of the reasoning you were giving was sorta weak so I wanted to address that). If you want to refute the no detonation theory please use the R-73 as example. Do you have some type of source to confirm that? It wouldn’t bother me at all if you were 99% sure, it’s just that you seem to believe there is no possible way you can be wrong. Actually it’s called assuming different bands of light react the the same all the time. But like I have said many times, there is no bleeding in the hellfire videos. The afterburner in normal camera is probably about 9m x 1m at the most, but is bigger than the f-15 in FLIR, and since the flash from the missile hit is basically the same look as the afterburner we can’t tell what the actual blast size is (if any). How is it ruled out? If you have something hot in FLIR and suddenly add more heat, the glow will be bigger no? And as far as afterburner in FLIR, I found a video that had a typhoon, f-16, and f-22 and the typhoon and f-16 had significantly less glow (relative to their size) than the f-15, but the f-22 had a very similar look to our video. I’ll find and post the video when I get a chance. Sure I don’t know, or maybe the remove before flight safety pins weren’t delt with correctly. Maybe the f-15 was going fast enough that when the missile got there it was slightly behind the plane. Soo, you know exactly when (and at what aspect) the missile was launched? If you watch the hellfire videos you can clearly see the whole FLIR go dark during the blast. Also, you haven’t explained how the missile can detonate on a flare when it is at the airplane and not cause more damage since the dispensers are on the bottom of the aircraft. And that there is no proof of a third flare.

Ok, I don't know if i can say this any more clear. My position is (and has been) R-73 (ground or air launched) no detonation. (!!!!!!) I am just prodding your logic because you can't be 100% sure it wasn't a MANPADS. And you post a normal video of an inert brimstone hit and claim its relevant? Double standard. I would recommend you watch the other video i posted, it has quite a few FLIR hellfire hits from different zooms and targets. Maybe, or it could just add to the afterburner effect. (I am not making the case for MANPADS, just not outruling it) Oops, got mixed up going from memory :doh: Watch it again on .25 speed. I used a stopwatch and i came up with 3.4 sec between the flares and than 6.3 sec before missile hit (.25 speed). Look at the bottom of my post, where attachments go. Wow dude, bate and switch much?! You told me to look at normal video of afterburner at night and then complain it isn't FLIR? Hmm, okay, maybe a dud then. (its actually possible) I am trying to show that you can launch a missile before the aircraft is directly above you. Blinding effect and flash are not the same thing. And again, there is no bleed in the hellfire videos.

Peoples eyes glow in NVGs because the NVGs emit IR light and it reflects off of the eyes. As i pointed out when i originally posted that, its not a direct comparison, just showing that a puny 3kg warhead will put out a pretty good flash in NVGs. But it did not have a similar blinding effect, which is what a was pointing out. The original video is obviously at a much higher sensitivity setting because the afterburner bleeds like heck to a size bigger than that of the f-15 whereas in the hellfire videos there is practically no bleed. The repair people claimed it was an R-73. (What do you mean by "missile strike"?) Nope, watch it again, 2 flares then longer than before interval and then missile flashes at the center of the horizontal stab, no third flare. I hereby present to you what i humbly call "The Hiragana Te Interception (て)": (Attached picture) Yeah, at night, when camera has to be set on a higher exposure and sensitivity!!! But actually they look barely bigger (2:12): Yeah sure, i doubt they are real picky about where they get their stuff. Just a possible explanation. Yes, you are assuming! (refer to the て diagram) Sorry, its working on my side. Try going to this one and than clicking on the other one from there (in related videos, "45 insane combat videos") P.S. I like the format we are posting in, it makes it easy to reply to each topic effectively!

Yeah, i was thinking more along the lines of mechanical issues. Yeah, i wonder what the maximum spring tension with extension is vs the t50...

UPDATE: Point is null, there are quite a few hellfire shots in this video on non fuel carrying targets, most almost completely blinding the FLIR: http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/45-combat-videos/697503921001

This looks like an inert hit, although i'm not sure: http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/must-see-missile-hits-insurgent-car/1080538583001 looks kind of strange in back hot.

Probably 300 knots, but i'm not sure. I think its the callsign for one of the tomcats, but i don't know much about the terminology.

Oh, ok thank you Yep, just pointing out that a puny testing stinger can produce a pretty good flash in NVG's under the right conditions (which is not FLIR, as both of us know) :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: I have been making the case for R-73 no detonation, not MANPADS!!!!! You brought up the brimstone video as proof, which it is not, i would love to find video of an inert missile hit in FLIR, but i haven't found one yet. It's not my assertion that people who have direct knowledge of the incident (like the contractor) are wrong cause i know better, i would say if you have experience with missile tests (like Mfezi) and have video of them to look at (like Mfezi) that you can't show, great, i would trust you. Silly things like "hey guys we are supposed to fix this stab, looks like it was an R-73. man, i can't tell if it went off??? Its obviously an R-73, but how do we tell if the warhead detonated???" I have a question for ya: If it exploded on a flare, why did the flash happen right as the missile converged with the rear of the f 15? I didn't say they were dumb, just that you can't seem to prove they never fly low. You call that a huge flash? As mentioned earlier, the FLIR seemed to be on a very sensitive setting eg the afterburner, The blinding effect is not directly proportional to the visible blast size. Yeah, i was just throwing that out there as a possible solution, but don't rebels usually get kit from the black market and such? I wouldn't know, just seems to make sense that they wouldn't get all there stuff from conquest. Is that going by your speed numbers? By the way if the missile is approaching from the side it has to travel less than a tail chase. But yeah, like i've said, there is a very very low chance of it being MANPADS, like a 3% chance or lower.

Why don't you recommend extensions? Just curious :)

I'm sorry, i don't know what captive means. Exactly, you don't see any glare on the afterburner? And how hot is flight friction compared to impact friction? comparing those is, as you say "preposterous". yeah, in a normal camera, show me an inert hit in FLIR. And your knowledge of the circumstances around the incident are beyond deity. (sorry, couldn't resist) Pull out the Saudi air force operating handbook and show us they absolutely never fly low. Not exploding, breaking up. You know where they got it????? Again, i am NOT making the case for MANPADS, just saying you can't out rule it.

Interesting, Thank you! Very intriguing, thank you for chiming in! Uhhh, I'm talking about training missiles like what ZEEOH6 mentioned. I know, but they are both IR so there should be similarities, and the FLASH was about 20m in diameter, not the explosion, is the afterburner as big as the video when seen in normal camera? No. Not sure what your trying to say here, didn't see any IR video of hits in there. I don't know, doesn't matter, that wasn't the point. And you know this, how? Not sure what this means. I know i said i was 50/50 on detonation now, but due to new posts i am back to more like 90% no detonation.

I've always wanted to tease him by saying it that way but never got around to it!

Or maybe training missile, i doubt they can read Russian, or the explosive compound deteriorating to the point of no longer being explosive. I think you have convinced me a little here, not 100%, but more like 50/50. As far as the car having gas and stuff, the car also didn't have an afterburner, which complicates the comparison even more. But what i was trying to point out is the blinding effect it had, which would be somewhat independent of blast size i would think (I could be 100% wrong here). Here is a video of a stinger through night vision (skip to 1:22): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr3Z98YT2cU The flashes are huge and the camera isn't even zoomed in that much. (Again, i am not saying its a MANPADS, just using it as an example) Well, i'd say we can only be about 90% sure due to lack of official info. And the F-15 possibly could have been low as i have pointed out earlier (still not sure if the f-15 in the video is saudi though):

The second part does look like a game, the way the vehicles stop and go and the explosions look gamey.

Why? The AA-2 was designed from an AIM-9 that got stuck in a Chinese MiG-17 and planes tended to be made of harder steel back then rather than fancy composites. And like I said, I rocket motor won't combust that quick. Go watch videos of rockets motors catching fire and you'll see what I mean. It doesn't happen that quickly. The flaming rocket continues for some time. That was an incorrect statement made before I watched it in slow motion. They probably have a source aside from someone on the internet. That only means they know what part broke not how it happened. They are not incident investigators. There is no way a rocket motor explodes that quickly from a kinetic impact if the warhead (which has a dual redundant trigger mechanism) fails. And the idea that a MANPADS not only had sufficient fuel to be burning on impact but also enough spare to explode like that is preposterous. Also preposterous is the idea that both a proximity fuse and impact fuse failed but the rocket motor exploded so willingly and fast and yet this sudden explosion also failed to trigger the warhead. That's just a comical assertion. Every part of the missile exploded immediately apart from the part that was supposed to? The contractor needs to rethink that one. I guess this warhead is now just sitting in the sand somewhere having a Hamlet cigar??? Soo, how many times do i have to say don't think it was a MANPADS? I doubt the Houthis have access to perfectly maintained and stored missiles. Remember, this is a highly anecdotal incident, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but to completely out rule something because its very unlikely doesn't work in this circumstance, it is definitely still relevant though. Is it possible the missile did not actually contain a warhead? yes, very improbable, but still possible. Take a look at this 16 sec in: http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/ah-64-apache-in-iraq-compilation-5/1571586734001 Hellfire has a 9Kg warhead and the flir is blinded R-73 has 7.4Kg warhead and there is barely a flash??? Granted different cameras, lighting, distance, ect. Maybe there was hardly any fuel left and so it didn't take much to finish it off. Maybe the missile yawed when it hit so the motor was facing the camera briefly. Really all we can do is maybe until the truth beyond a shadow of a doubt comes out.