Jump to content

GGTharos

Members
  • Posts

    33366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by GGTharos

  1. I agree with you, just stating some numbers I have read about other similar missiles. For canard controlled missiles you get higher AoA available, and even more for tail-controlled. I doubt that in any case they can exceed 30 (although the R-77 is rumored to be controllable at 150 which is weird)
  2. Just a quick comment @tavarish palkovnik, I'm reasonably certain that you're good up to 17 degrees of AoA for mid-body wing controlled missiles of this era
  3. @KlarSnow and @draconus have given you very good answers. I'll only say this to make it really short: There's no aerodynamic damage model implemented for the F-15. The flight model is good, but there's no DM for g/aero forces.
  4. Using TWS is one reasonable technique if the targets are being at least somewhat cooperative. The AACQ/ACM modes are always there to help you with acquisition as well and should be the primary method, and with the F-16 you also have the helmet to help with this.
  5. We have flyout graphs for the AIM-9. No amount of mentioning 'wobbly movements' or anything else like that makes any sense. Compare to those graphs and see if its different.
  6. It's really not that surprising. The sidewinder's rocket motor is all-boost and at a higher acceleration than even the AIM-7s own boost stage. As a projectile, the AIM-9M has the ability to gain a lot of speed (well over M3) and is limited by available power. At high altitude the AIM-7's sustain stage plays a role, but not quite as large ... think of it this way. 10g for ~ 3.5 sec + 2g for ~ 11 sec vs 14g for ~5sec. The sustain motor won't get you quite to the same peak as a boost motor for the simple reason that it's going to get a bigger acceleration fraction eaten up by air resistance. You would certainly get the lines to cross on a graph at some point, but not with these two missiles at high altitude.
  7. The radio menu, 'attack my target'. Then switch to the other one right away. I'm not even going to discuss 2v10 at 10nm apart or any situation like that, it's utterly silly. Unless you made a typo. The missile literally tells you when you can shoot, and you have a DLZ on the HUD as well. Flares are used for IR missiles. No idea, and not important at such short ranges, your eyes should outside of the pit at all times, not inside.
  8. And how are they going to do this? Magic? ED hasn't dealt with the desync in a robust manner for anything (missiles, tracks) and ED are the only ones who can make this right. Not anyone else.
  9. This tuning has to do with the old FM. The new FM should be able to better match all the ranges, but it's not so easy - the old FM simply cannot though, and IMHO it has a lot to do with the way the drag cure is represented. Old FM is not possible to match anything but one of the ranges, all others will be off. Matching 1km should bring yo close to the 5km but you cannot tune 1km AND 5km (or 10km). You can only tune one of them. It has been requested a long time ago to tune for the low altitude with old FM, ED never did this. They may or may not now, and either way only the new FM can bring a clearer view and resolution to this problem as a whole. You can basically ignore/forget the 150m/s and 2-3g stuff when it comes to this. You cannot simultaneously tune all of this in the old FM - you can try and maybe get close, but it just doesn't contain enough information for this. If you look at the new FM, it's basically simulating 10x the variables just for the FM, along with new systems like the autopilot and actuator controls etc.
  10. You'll find that most answers are 'it depends'. In this case you're head-on, so you're not sneaking. I'm assuming that you're doing all of this with AI, which means you aren't going to get a lot of help from your AI in terms of situational awareness. So, first order order of things, ensure you've told your wingman which of the two aircraft you want him to attack. You'll need an attack plan. I'm not going to go into that here because there's a lot of them and they're complicated. The philosophy is to approcha in such a way that you and your wingman have some sort of advantage, ie. the result is that you employ missiles first either head on or after the merge. As soon as possible, they know you're there so not an issue. Keep an eye on them visually as well. It's 2v2, so why would you do that? Your wingman is shooting the other aircraft. It'll tell you. No. Use your head, your eyes. Part of your initial attack plan is making sure that you can easily keep everything in sight or at least be able to predict where they have gone. You'll need to focus on your target but if you have him doing something predictable, you can glance/cross-check for the other guy. I'm sure there's a bunch of them and you'll learn little to nothing from most If there's a good one out there I'm sure someone will point it out. I don't know. Get a human involved to be your wingman, works so much better.
  11. The papers aren't a 'feeling', your statements are. You've put zero effort into proving anything at all. You posted links to papers ... great. Thanks! You haven't shown a single thing with respect to DCS doing anything wrong.
  12. Maybe you can figure out a reasonable range from the flat slotted array diameter that will always be pointed at you? That's the minimum RCS. You can do that one yourself. Same place where it says that it tracks airborne targets. The parameters aren't 'missiles', the parameters are 'RCS' and 'Closure' and pretty much nothing else. It's just physics. Man, you're getting really worked up and failing to read. There's no problem with the radar tracking a missile. There's a problem with a missile hitting it, which a function of a bunch of other things. So, you can track and shoot at that missile. Even the missile's own radar will track that missile at some point ... that's all great, but what are the chances it will score a hit? And that's yet another reasons not to shoot at missiles - additional to the others mentioned before.
  13. You don't really need a vortex simulation but ok ... since you're that lazy, we're done
  14. Radar guided missiles will pointing the antenna at you So you're an eagle doing M2 and you want to shoot down a MiG-25 doing M3 ... can you?
  15. What does this tell you? "Methods of either altering the vorticity generation near the leading edge or changing the vorticity convection along the cores can be effective in controlling the lift"
  16. You don't need to imagine any of that. Most pilots will be shooting in STT so they won't even see it. There are no tactics regarding shooting AAMs, because like I said, you can try to shoot at AAMs and leave your bandit free, or you can remove the bandit. This isn't pulled out of nowhere. The radar equation provides a simple answer to the matter of detection; that the missiles hit other missiles consistently is another thing. That the radar can track a mach 3 target reliably isn't a surprise either, since mach 3 targets are on the target list anyway.
  17. No, that's ok - I appreciate it but it isn't necessary - like I said, when you make your comparison you just need the relevant snippets. Focus. Decide what you're going to compare first, don't start by jumping to the end
  18. I don't need you to do any Navier Stokes equations, it isn't what I asked for. You won't need to do any of that. And yes, you posted a link to its summary, you know that no one's going to go buy that, right? That's ok of course as long you post any relevant graph for comparison.
  19. Did you post a paper or a link to its summary?
  20. No, you actually did not. You said: "I'm pretty sure dcs doesn't accurately simulate the lift disadvantage of delta wings. " So, what is 1) The lift disadvantage of delta wings (actually define the problem) 2) What should we see in DCS (ie. what do we see IRL) 3) Where are your graphs from tests in DCS comparing delta wing behavior to real life behavior? Get to work. Any of your comments will be rejected unless you provide #3. Not references to pilots saying things, not wikipedia, youtube, or anything else like that. Provide the comparative work.
  21. Not LOL. Just not their thing, much like will normally not engage the weapons launched by a carrier, but rather the carrier itself. You can try to shoot down a bunch of weapons, or you can get rid of the delivery platform. Your choice. Besides, AAMs aren't a threat tot he SAM or anything near it so ... why would they? And how would you know that they haven't done so by mistake? If your radar can pick up a 5m^2 target at 60nm it can pick up an AAM at around 20nm.
  22. Cool, provide charts and aerodynamic papers proving any of this.
  23. It was engineered for it. You know what else doesn't scale? C-130s pulling 5g and B-1Bs pulling 6g. Yet they do.
  24. Hi Maestro, looking at these charts I have a question to ask: Is this R-27ER operating on the old, polynomial-based FM, or has it moved to the new Cx/Cy table FM? If on the old one, I would suggest - actually request - please tweak it to match LOW altitude performance, and don't worry about slight over-performance at higher altitude. It's going to be slight. If new FM, I would suggest lower low/mid-mach Cx, then increase high mach Cx a little - but from looking at the chart I suspect you're on the old FM.
×
×
  • Create New...