S77th-GOYA

LOMAC's A2A missiles reach top speed very quickly during burn. It might be a little different for a lofted shot but I doubt it. Launch speed is negligible. You might get a little difference in range between a very slow and very fast launch speed.

What exactly did you buy? Lock On Gold?

The Ka-50 is the original flyable of DCS.

Normal meaning look around at different sites and it shows the A and B model at M4.3 and the C model at M5.0. Like the AIM-120's normal spec is Mach 4.

Mach 5 is normal spec for the AIM-54C.

Do away with loft at 80,000. Welcome SK. :thumbup:

Yes, but missile launch at M1.4 gives 40% while release at M1.5 gives 50%. Those are the figures to which I was referring.

No, it's rocket science. :smilewink: You make the assumption that the missile has reached equilibrium at mach 4 rather than the possibility that the motor quits while the missile is still accelerating and under optimal conditions, the speed at motor burnout is Mach 4. I have considered that even if you are correct there will still be an increase in range because the missile reaches top speed earlier in its flight. But I don't think that would substantiate the amount of increase in range that Rhen has provided. 10% range increase for 0.1 mach increase.

Thanks Rhen. Can you tell me this: When you say a percentage of range increase, what are the baseline launch parameters? Meaning if M1.5 gives a 50% increase, what speed is a 0% increase? The M 0.9 you started your acceleration from?

Bad link address

PKM, I'm done with you. You are either trolling or have a very poor grasp of these types of things. Rhen, it's good to hear from you again. Can I take from that that a launch speed of greater than M1.3 is negligible as to added range? Or maybe that is reaching into classified data?

Interesting. Can you take it up to 80,000 feet? Any indications of drag and/or thrust?

It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I know you are wrong. Look here: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980211a.html

:no: And like it says, it is an incomplete list.

A lightyear is not a measure of speed. Or time. And it is not relevant to whether a missiles top speed is truly cumulative.

Mach is the speed of sound. What is the speed of sound in a vacuum?

One thing to keep in mind is that when a figure like range or speed is given for a missile, it is usually the figure for optimal conditions. If a missile is called a Mach 4 missile, it doesn't necessarily mean it can acheive Mach 4 at 1000 feet. That is basic aerodynamics. Just like a 400 MPH WWII fighter can't acheive 400 MPH on the deck. The basic question in this thread is not an either/or choice of the two opinions stated in the first post. Theoretically, a missile might reach equilibrium (drag=thrust) at a lower speed than Mach 7 but still be well above Mach 4.

Drag is a force. Air density is not a force. And no, if a missile has the thrust to propel itself to M4 at 4000, it should be able to acheive a higher speed at 80,000. That's not really the question.

That is accurate. However air density is not as important a factor in determining drag as velocity. Notice that velocity is squared in the drag equation. The only thing I can see that might give any real insight to an answer is that if pilots are trained to increase speed before a launch to increase range. GG, I assume minizap takes drag into account. How were the drag coefficients for different missiles determined?

I recently read a debate on whether or not a real life missile's speed can simply be added to the launching aircraft's speed to give the actual top speed of the missile. An example of a theoretical launch of an AMRAAM from an SR-71 at Mach 3.3 and an altitude of angels 80 was given. One side argued that yes, you simply add the velocities and the 120 has a speed of ~Mach 7 at engine termination. THe other side said that no, the 120 would reach a terminal velocity where thrust equals drag at Mach 4, saying that is a design limit. To me, without knowing the thrust of the missile's engine and the drag coefficient, one cannot confidently choose either side of the argument. Obviously the thrust is quite large compared to the mass but at speeds around Mach 7, even a missile with very small drag coefficient would be experiencing strong drag forces. But without better data, I can't say. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

Speak of the devil: http://blogs.msdn.com/sebby1234/archive/2007/10/08/fsx-dx10-self-shadowing-vcs.aspx

It very well might, depending on the data and its source. And a lot of us would appreciate it.

The CPU and then the RAM. I have the same CPU and overclock it to nearly 2.6 Ghz on air in a hot room. Now that cooler temperatures are arriving here, I can bump up the OC to over 2.6. Overclocking is free.

So, correct me if I'm wrong here: The things listed above will NOT be included in 1.2 but will likely be part of a unconfirmed patch.

Thank you for your work, Skypat. The community owes you.