R550 Magic 2 performance

[Bacab]

Yes, the text sounds like "This is the better missile of the world, buy it now !" (so, what americans do all the time ), but it also explain some interesting things... I fear we have nothing better at this time...

 

At least we know it maneuver at >50g, and its double fins helps for manoeuvrability... i think if they say, it's true...

I agree even if I am a bit sceptical about the 50g thing. (I think it might be obtainable only in very specific circumstances).

[Brisse]

I think the biggest issue is posed by the short engine burn. I doubt they will make an exception for the Magic and give it reduced drag.

 

The thing is, it seems to have much higher drag than the rest too. Look at the chart I made earlier in the thread and the rate at which speed falls after it reaches it's peak. The R.550 Magic 2 drops much faster than the others. The other's (AIM-9M, R-60M, R-73) are actually very similar to each other when looking at the deceleration rate.

[il_corleone]

So... they deleted the post in bug section, what? Not even an answer?

 

Anyways, here is the Video I was about to post

 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0LRPX6Qf2Y&feature=youtu.be[/ame]

Edited December 28, 2015 by il_corleone

[Brisse]

No, they merged it with this thread.

[sedenion]

So... they deleted the post in bug section, what? Not even an answer?

 

Anyways, here is the Video I was about to post

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0LRPX6Qf2Y&feature=youtu.be

 

I think we need some more accurate demonstration :)

[il_corleone]

I think we need some more accurate demonstration :)

 

There is always IASGATG ;) , if he makes something about this or the missiles in general, it will be better than we have now from ED, thats for sure

[LevelPulse]

From some sources it says the top speed is Mach 2.7, however the missile only goes up to 2700km/hh than the stated 3333km/h. Also looks like the propellant time isn't 2.2 seconds but around 2.

 

Source from:

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/magic.htm

[sirscorpion]

From some sources it says the top speed is Mach 2.7, however the missile only goes up to 2700km/hh than the stated 3333km/h. Also looks like the propellant time isn't 2.2 seconds but around 2.

 

Source from:

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/magic.htm

 

Yeah i was just checking on that.

[tflash]

From what range do you fire? I have no problems at all with the magic, they seem to "bite" quite good, but I shoot in a dogfight, from close range, from about 1 - 1,5 km, in pursuit. I'm not sure the real missile has so much longer legs as in game, but it could. Any improvement is always welcome, but at least off-line against AI it does the job for me right now.

[PitbullVicious]

That's not the point of the thread. The point is that the R.550 Magic 2 looses energy twice as fast as other short range IR missiles for no apparent reason. Of course that affects it's effective range, but that's only a symptom of the real problem.

 

But that was the point of my question :) I'm just curious to know. I just succeeded to get a kill from about 9km. Mind you, from a very artificially advantageous point (high above in a dive).

 

Wouldn't considerably larger cross section affect the energy loss? AoA during flight? Even if we otherwise consider the missiles to be similar in terms of aerodynamics?

[iLOVEwindmills]

From what range do you fire? I have no problems at all with the magic, they seem to "bite" quite good, but I shoot in a dogfight, from close range, from about 1 - 1,5 km, in pursuit. I'm not sure the real missile has so much longer legs as in game, but it could. Any improvement is always welcome, but at least off-line against AI it does the job for me right now.

 

 

Since the Magic 2 is in dimensions and weight almost identical to the AIM9, and directly competes with it for sales, I think it's a reasonable guess it's comparable in performance. I'd imagine if there were significant performance differences Matra would have never been able to compete with the Sidewinder, as every customer would just opt for the latter.

Edited December 28, 2015 by iLOVEwindmills

[Brisse]

From what range do you fire? I have no problems at all with the magic, they seem to "bite" quite good, but I shoot in a dogfight, from close range, from about 1 - 1,5 km, in pursuit. I'm not sure the real missile has so much longer legs as in game, but it could. Any improvement is always welcome, but at least off-line against AI it does the job for me right now.

 

But how do you explain the insanely high rate of deceleration compared to other missiles then? You might not notice if you are in a dogfight with the target right in front of you, but it has a huge impact on the range of the missile. I don't really care if range is X or Y, but I do care when I see something not following the laws of physics. When thrust and drag is correct, the range will end up being realistic. I don't want to give range a number because it's going to be different in every encounter.

[sedenion]

From some sources it says the top speed is Mach 2.7, however the missile only goes up to 2700km/hh than the stated 3333km/h. Also looks like the propellant time isn't 2.2 seconds but around 2.

 

Source from:

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/magic.htm

 

Mach 2.7 / 500 m/s in addition to carriers speed

 

that mean 1800km/h in addition to aircraft launcher speed if i well understand... if the missile is launched at 600km/h, the maximum speed of the missile will be 2400km/h for example. Unfortunately, we don't have the same kind of information about AIM9... so we cannot compare

[104th_Cobra]

Yeah. I saw some video of someone firing the Magic at almost 6 miles... Even the Sidewinder wil be employed inside 2 miles. Yesterday I had good kills with the Magic against the Mig-21 on ACG Jets server, merging, getting separation and firing from 1-2 miles. I had a frontal aspect kill, in the weeds, from 2-3 miles.

 

But, if that chart is feasable, the kinematics apparently are with some bottleneck.

 

Let's wait for the radar lock Magic cage and, if needed, for the correction of the uncaged HUD boresight point.

 

From what range do you fire? I have no problems at all with the magic, they seem to "bite" quite good, but I shoot in a dogfight, from close range, from about 1 - 1,5 km, in pursuit. I'm not sure the real missile has so much longer legs as in game, but it could. Any improvement is always welcome, but at least off-line against AI it does the job for me right now.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Xpto

[tflash]

But how do you explain the insanely high rate of deceleration compared to other missiles then? You might not notice if you are in a dogfight with the target right in front of you, but it has a huge impact on the range of the missile. I don't really care if range is X or Y, but I do care when I see something not following the laws of physics. When thrust and drag is correct, the range will end up being realistic. I don't want to give range a number because it's going to be different in every encounter.

 

I'm not disputing this, I guess the rapid deceleration that you show in the graph is caused by the motor not burning long enough?

 

On the other hand I do not believe Magic 2 is same generation as AIM-9M, it might actually have shorter legs but who knows, and probably not as short as it shows to be in your graph. Hopefully they can adjust that.

[Brisse]

Wouldn't considerably larger cross section affect the energy loss? AoA during flight? Even if we otherwise consider the missiles to be similar in terms of aerodynamics?

 

The AIM-9M is indeed skinnier (longer and narrower) but look at the R-73.

 

R-73:

Weight: 105kg

Diameter: 165mm

Length: 2.93m

Length/diameter ratio: 17,8

 

R.550 Magic 2:

Weight: 89kg

Diameter: 157mm

Length: 2.72m

Length/diameter ratio: 17,3

 

As you can see, these two missiles has very similar body shape. The R-73 is just slightly larger but retains the similar shape. It would only make sense then that they have similar drag, but ingame the R.550 Magic 2 is much much draggier.

[tflash]

But is the deceleration in the graph caused by drag or because motor just flames out ? I have the impression first (short) part of flight is not draggy?

[Brisse]

But is the deceleration in the graph caused by drag or because motor just flames out ? I have the impression first (short) part of flight is not draggy?

 

No, I think it's the drag. Look at the slope of the curve falling after the peak. The slope has nothing to do with the rocket burn and everything to do with drag. The rocket motor only affects things during acceleration, which means the upward slope before the peak and the amplitude of the peak (top speed).

[PitbullVicious]

But is the deceleration in the graph caused by drag or because motor just flames out ? I have the impression first (short) part of flight is not draggy?

 

No, I think it's the drag. Look at the slope of the curve falling after the peak. The slope has nothing to do with the rocket burn and everything to do with drag. The rocket motor only affects things during acceleration, which means the upward slope before the peak and the amplitude of the peak (top speed).

 

Maybe you're both right :P

 

Maybe I'm starting to imagine things (it's quite late here already), but looking at graphs from different missiles on TacView it looks like the R550 is "time compressed".

 

Well, it is difficult to say anything conclusive at this point, and I think I need some sleep. Maybe I'll see things in different perspective tomorrow.

[Brisse]

Maybe you're both right :P

 

Haha, I see what you did there :)

[mattebubben]

I'm not disputing this, I guess the rapid deceleration that you show in the graph is caused by the motor not burning long enough?

 

On the other hand I do not believe Magic 2 is same generation as AIM-9M, it might actually have shorter legs but who knows, and probably not as short as it shows to be in your graph. Hopefully they can adjust that.

 

 

The magic II is comparable or actually a few years "newer" then the Aim-9M

 

The Aim-9M first enterd service in 1982-83 (aim-9M1)

 

While the Magic 2 enterd service in 1986.

 

And both have had changes over the time they where produced.

 

But they are comparable and most where made in the same timeframe.

[PitbullVicious]

Do we know if the Magic 2 is boost-sustain or boost-glide?

[jojo]

Short burn so boost only.

[Bacab]

Those links are the most interesting things I have found on the Magic family:

http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/636306/Matra_R550_Magic_LONG_text.html

 

http://pakdef.org/r550-magic/

 

The first one is a bit difficult to read (seems like google translate was used) but its understandable.

[captainhammer]

Something I found noteworthy about the R550 is that I was able to get tone and shoot down an incoming missile. I don't recall that being possible with the AIM-9...