Jump to content

BlackPixxel

Members
  • Posts

    911
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlackPixxel

  1. Why does the Aim-54A, a missile developed in 1960's - 1970's, have a CCM value much better than that of 1980's Aim-7M and Aim-7MH? Aim-54A is an old missile with an analog seeker, but in DCS it was given a CCM value better than much newer Aim-7 variants with digital seekers. This is inconsistent with the rest of the missiles in DCS. Aim-54A: 0.3 Aim-7E: 3.0 Aim-7F: 3.0 Aim-7M: 1.0 Aim-7MH: 0.5
  2. Su-27/MiG-29 don't stop the datalink, it is just that the missile stops using it once the condition of transition to SARH is met (LOS vector of seeker points at the target and the missile is within the defined seeker range).
  3. Why not? What prevents it from guiding like an IR missile, so purely based on angular rate and angle of the seeker head? Who says that the pure pursuit is the correct form of guidance?
  4. Will it also affect the variable PN? Not having a range information should also mean no variable PN as long as there i no burnthrough.
  5. "In addition to the new drag coefficients, the R-27ER/ET received an updated thrust profile. According to our research, the missile should have a boost-sustain ratio of 5/3 instead of 5/1, whilst retaining motor total impulse. Thrust dependence on altitude was also corrected for all R-27 missiles" That research is the chart from the university? Interesting that a third party chart is trusted more than official charts and values from the manual...
  6. @tavarish palkovnik On the point you chose the DLZ simulation and the chart are pretty close. Maybe you could do one for somewhere between 60° to 70° aspect angle, as there is the biggest difference at 10 km altitude. Would be interesting to see if DLZ or chart will match best with your result!
  7. Why do most of the radar missiles have it too? Isn't it also the chaff resistance?
  8. Both have no value in the config, which makes me think they both have the default of 1.
  9. But does it make sense that R-27 and R-77 have the same CCM, when R-77 is newer?
  10. How comes that the Aim-54A variants have a CCM value of 0.3 in DCS? When the much newer R-27 and even R-77 have a default CCM of 1? That seems out of proportion.
  11. But the curve from the sim is not just ellipse shaped, it is pretty much a perfect circle. That seems a bit off.
  12. Is this not another indicator of the DLZ having a safety margin on energy, and the charts 0° and 180° showing actual kinematic ranges?
  13. "manual mentions EOS use only in rear hemisphere - in DCS we can easily pick up targets from the front also" lol, head on range of KOLS against non-afterburning fighters is 5 km in DCS.
  14. And how does it compare to the DLZ of the SUV-27 sim?
  15. Thank you! So this proves quite well that the DLZ does not show the true kinematic potential of the missile. Here we have the same situation. 10 km altitude, fighter at 900 km/h. But in the first case the target is flying 900 km/h, in the second one alot faster, 1500 km/h. But the range in the second case is slightly less. How would that be possible if the DLZ would show the kinematic capabilities? It does not make sense. It does make sense however if we consider some energy reserve.
  16. Sorry, I forgot to mention, the screenshot that I copied was with the R-27ET, so this cannot be used for comparision. Could you make one for the ET under same situation (900 km/h fighter, 1500 km/h target, 10 km altitude)? Also another one with the R-27ER for the fighter at 900 km/h and the target at 1150 km/h at 10 km? Those two would be very helpfull! Thank you!
  17. @Chizh What is happening here (bottom left graph): When the target speed increases above 1100 km/h or so, the DLZ range reduces again. I would see this as good evidence for the DLZ not showing the true kinematic capabilities for the missile. Could you show us a screenshot from identical situation in the sim, but with target speed of 1500 km/h (Fighter speed same 900 km/h)?
  18. It is both target and fighter speed. Higher fighter speed during launch translates to a higher missile speed. I believe that the missile performance was recorded with straight line shots, which applies for 0° and 180°. That does not make the other angles wrong, as the chart does not show the maximum kinematic capabilities anyway. Very cute indeed!
  19. The missile launched from 1100 km/h will have a higher average speed. Maybe enough to overcome the increased lead it has to do to hit the slightly faster side aspect target. But we should focus on the 0° and 180° parts of the charts, every other aspect is propably just a interpolated by hand.
  20. No, it shows that both the nomogram and the DLZ don't show the full kinematic capabilities, but have safety margins. Nomogram has bigger safety margins for angles towards 0/4, DLZ has bigger safety margins for 4/4 angles.
  21. Yes, DLZ does not show the full kinematic potential, it has a safety margin as pointed out here:
  22. Found another chart (R-60MK) to debunk the myth that the launch range chart has to be shaped like an easteregg:
  23. Didn't they only ran CFD for R-27R?
×
×
  • Create New...