cauldron Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Not sure of the author accuracy but here goes: A Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware (Routledge Revivals) By Christopher Chan. Page 538: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cauldron Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 hum, yes, 250kg is for the 530F... so, lets go again for a comparison chart ! AIM-7: L: 366 cm D: 20 cm W: 230 kg S-530D: L: 380 cm D: 26 cm W: 270 kg Some stupids calculs (yes, stupids because its too simple to be accurate in any manner, but its funny anyway): AIM-7: Volume: 366*20 = 7320 (forgets the cylinder formula, square formula is sufficient for demonstration) Density: 230 / 7320 = 0.031 S-530D: Volume: 380*26 = 9880 Density: 270 / 9880 = 0.027 S-530D is the winner... hmm... Yeah !! houra !! (that mean absolutly nothing, but... OSEF :D the main idea is: The S-530D si not "heavier" than the AIM-7 proportionally ) I believe that a denser object loses inertia in ballistics slower than a less dense object, your analysis shows under non-powered flight the 530 would lose speed faster than the AIM7 given you are taking fuel expended weights into consideration. Assuming similar aero properties of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedenion Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Well we, have 60 km range now... however it's not necessarily illogical since another source speak about 35 km interception range for a 50 km max range (but not sure what that mean), but the same source specify that the S-530D seeker's range is max 50 km... So we can imagine (all the people...) that the S-530D have a ~60Km max range given by propellent, however, is limited to 50Km range due to its seeker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 That would be true only if the drag coefficients are identical. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cauldron Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 i added the assumption of same aero properties... GG THaros would you happen to know if the missile MOD is compatible with the M2000c module? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedenion Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I believe that a denser object loses inertia in ballistics slower than a less dense object, your analysis shows under non-powered flight the 530 would lose speed faster than the AIM7 given you are taking fuel expended weights into consideration. Assuming similar aero properties of course. We do not know the fuel weight vs seeker weight vs body weight... we just know that the S-530D have less TNT than the AIM-7 (32 kg vs 40kg)... the AIM-7 and S-530D have nearly similar size / weight ratio is all what we can tell at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 You can pretty safely assume missile weight * 0.3 = fuel mass. It might turn out to be wrong, but generally this is a safe bet. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cauldron Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Well we, have 60 km range now... however it's not necessarily illogical since another source speak about 35 km interception range for a 50 km max range (but not sure what that mean), but the same source specify that the S-530D seeker's range is max 50 km... So we can imagine (all the people...) that the S-530D have a ~60Km max range given by propellent, however, is limited to 50Km range due to its seeker. I liked the part where it states - that considerably important that the missile can deal with fast and low targets... something the missile can do at less than 2NM in DCS at the moment... greater than ~1NM it can't catch a MIG21 that's running from it... so much for BVR. <--- last statement not scientific but observational only.... but its in the ballpark - the Missile is not worthy of its weight on the pylon at the moment in DCS...imo. The only kills i've made PvP are using CQC modes on the radar looking down from above {approx 45deg dive} on my target and launching. Or a head on in TWS until the last second and switch from PID to PIC and fire... missile in my exp in game vs PvP is that it can't hit anything beyond its engine burn time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IASGATG Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 IASGATG... Is your MOD currently viable for the M2000c module? Thanks, and no, not yet, there is currently work being done on the next version of the Mod. On an unrelated point, I keep reading people saying "Yeah it's a shame the missile is too slow but it's okay because it's being worked on". Where has this been said? Has ED/RAZBAM made a comment about how they view the current performance of the 530D or the Magic2? (This is where I get a line about 'Oh it's beta so everything is WIP'). I'm of the opinion that until the powers that be recognize it as a bug, it's currently working as intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cauldron Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) Thanks, and no, not yet, there is currently work being done on the next version of the Mod. On an unrelated point, I keep reading people saying "Yeah it's a shame the missile is too slow but it's okay because it's being worked on". Where has this been said? Has ED/RAZBAM made a comment about how they view the current performance of the 530D or the Magic2? (This is where I get a line about 'Oh it's beta so everything is WIP'). I'm of the opinion that until the powers that be recognize it as a bug, it's currently working as intended. Actually RAZBAM[Zeus] has stated their "in house tester" is incredibly upset with the state of the missile, and that they need to demonstrate hard numbers to get ED to change its state it currently is in. Maybe this would be a good opportunity to help them ... come up with the right numbers so the Matra missiles are more than aerodynamic wiffle balls. Edited January 5, 2016 by cauldron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IASGATG Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Actually RAZBAM[Zeus] has stated their "in house tester" is incredibly upset with the state of the missile, and that they need to demonstrate hard numbers to get ED to change its state it currently is in. Maybe this would be a good opportunity to help them ... come up with the right numbers so the Matra missiles are more than aerodynamic wiffle balls. Well since ED has already said they do not believe in CFD and getting access to classified stuff that's in a foreign language is pretty hard work, I'll be surprised if anything changes. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cauldron Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Well, i am suspect that the current numbers are based of wikipedia... we can do better right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IASGATG Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Well, i am suspect that the current numbers are based of wikipedia... we can do better right? Maybe, but probably not. Not the "standard" that ED will accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyforDCS Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 ED has already said they do not believe in CFD This. Unfortunately I don't believe that anything will really change with regards to either the Magic II or the Super530D. I mean even the Aim7 is performing close to half of its real world performance envelope (at least with regards to range kinematics) and has been for years, yet ED has done nothing at all to change this. A lot of GG's and IASGATS's work was completely sidelined because of ED's insistence that the CFD data was not good enough. There is very little hope, in fact it would be more accurate to say that there is no hope at all for any change in these matters. :cry: All we can hope for is a good update to IASGATG's mod, and some friendly server admins that will run it. Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahlbeck Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I wonder how hard the data currently used is...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrinik Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 It does in RL. No, it doesn´t...the target is closing towards the missle at 1.4 Mach... You can launch from 100km away because the target will literally fly into your missle in that hypothetical scenario. Hot-aspect, high closure rate missle ranges are always much higher then cold-aspect shots, range wise. I thought people knew that. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] GCI: "Control to SEAD: Enemy SAM site 190 for 30, cleared to engage" Striker: "Copy, say Altitude?" GCI: "....Deck....it´s a SAM site..." Striker: "Oh...." Fighter: "Yeah, those pesky russian build, baloon based SAMs." -Red-Lyfe Best way to troll DCS community, make an F-16A, see how dedicated the fans really are :thumbup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 The scenario presented was quite specifically the high aspect non-maneuvering shot at those particular parameters. No, it doesn´t...the target is closing towards the missle at 1.4 Mach... You can launch from 100km away because the target will literally fly into your missle in that hypothetical scenario. Hot-aspect, high closure rate missle ranges are always much higher then cold-aspect shots, range wise. I thought people knew that. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedenion Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I mean even the Aim7 is performing close to half of its real world performance envelope (at least with regards to range kinematics) and has been for years, yet ED has done nothing at all to change this. A least, we can hope that ED harmonizes the S-530D and the Magic 2 according other equivalent missiles in the game... For now, they are both downgraded with too much drag and less efficiency compared to their competitor (Aim-9M, AIM-7M, R-73, R-27)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyforDCS Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 A strong case can already be made for the Magic II, someone managed to post some nice Mirage 2000C cockpit HUD footage of the Magic II DLZ in the "Magic 2" thread. I don't know if ED takes that kind of information into consideration. Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emg Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Actually RAZBAM[Zeus] has stated their "in house tester" is incredibly upset with the state of the missile, and that they need to demonstrate hard numbers to get ED to change its state it currently is in. Maybe this would be a good opportunity to help them ... come up with the right numbers so the Matra missiles are more than aerodynamic wiffle balls. Can't Razbam just make their own missile, like Leatherneck did? I guess that needs ED approval still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyforDCS Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) Can't Razbam just make their own missile, like Leatherneck did? I guess that needs ED approval still. Im not sure, but I think different rules/conditions applied to 3rd party developers at that time, and don't forget each third party negotiates it's own terms and contract with Eagle Dynamics on a case by case basis so you can't really use that as an argument. Edited January 5, 2016 by OnlyforDCS Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IASGATG Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I wonder how hard the data currently used is...? Su-27 Pilots Handbook's AIM-7 DLZ estimation chart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomCatMucDe Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 The scenario presented was quite specifically the high aspect non-maneuvering shot at those particular parameters. So if we try the same situation with a closing target at this altitude we would get the same range? that s not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 What you should get according to RL documents is 53nm with the following parameters for target and shooter: 40000' Altitude 1.4M speed Non-maneuvering, no countermeasures. It'd be nice if we knew time-to-target as well, but that information was not available. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
openfalcon68 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 So it appears that the S530D was meant to destroy bombers flying at high altitude..... What you should get according to RL documents is 53nm with the following parameters for target and shooter: 40000' Altitude 1.4M speed Non-maneuvering, no countermeasures. It'd be nice if we knew time-to-target as well, but that information was not available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts