R550 Magic 2 performance

[OnlyforDCS]

That's my point :

 

- closing velocity is true speed (delta TAS or GS)

 

This. Nothing to do with IAS.

[sedenion]

Your HUD speed is IAS, so yes it makes sense to display closing speed in CAS in HUD.

 

hmmm... well, hem no... i'am not okay with that... the IAS is the IAS, but a closing speed is another thing, since the line between you and the target, and the IAS/TAS ratio change everytime as you change your altitude... that does not make sens to me.

 

Moi je campe sur ma position jusqu'à ce qu'on me prouve le contraire. Je serais vraiment TRES étonné que la vitesse de rapprochement soit en IAS... j'ai peut-être tort hein, mais là vraiment, j'attends l'avis d'un professionnel.

[jojo]

Well sorry, read CAS for both...

[sedenion]

Okay... so... come back to the subject

 

 

Magic DLZ:

~8nm the "Raero" (fit with the Magic2 max range (15 km))

~4nm the Rpi or Ropt (if someone know...)

~1nm the Rmin.

 

Aircraft:

Alt: 23000ft

Speed: Mach 0.84

 

Target:

Distance: 6.5 nm

Aspect: 140°

Closing speed (true speed): ~550 kts

 

Are we ok with these data ?

[Corsair]

Okay, I may have said some bs.

I do not have any visualisation I can check on right now, so : what are the parameters given by the radar ?

I have now a doubt the target speed (*not* closing speed) is even displayed.

[sedenion]

we do not have radar data... only some nice HUD pictures

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=132210&d=1451997548

[Corsair]

Well, anyways.. as for the closing velocity I believe it must be a delta-true airpseed. It's the most relevant for the pilot.

And if there is a target airspeed indicated on the radar screen (to be confirmed), most relevant information would be an indicated airspeed approximation based on target's altitude.

[sedenion]

As it is modeled in the game, there is no "Target Speed", Radar and Hud speed related to target is the closing speed... don't know if the real 2000-C/RDI give some "Target Speed"...

[Corsair]

I see, sorry for confusing everyone without checking what I said. I took thd F-16 example, hence assuming there was a target speed indication on the 2000.

[cauldron]

R550 Magic I Pilot rules of thumb for visual no radar lock employment developed from Launch envelope documentation based on 0.9Pk Co speed tgt pulling 7G. Hectometres Hm was used as this was on Mirage III whose weapon system was metric <1.1nm and Imperial at >1.1nm :) ... in certain cockpits :)

 

Seal level Rmax 5200ft/Rmin 4hm(1300ft up to 60deg Angle off

0-5000ft Rmax 16Hm(5300ft )/Rmin 4hm(1300ft)at 60deg Angle off

5-15000ft Rmax 1nm /Rmin 4Hm(1300ft) at 45 deg Angle off

15-25000ft Rmax 1.25nm /Rmin 4hm (1300ft) at 0 deg Angle off

add 1.5hm(490ft) for every 10deg to 45deg Angle off

 

25-35000ft Rmax 1.8nm/Rmin 2.5hm (820ft) <20deg Angle off

 

>35000ft Rmax 3.0nm/Rmin 5.0hm (1640ft) at 0 deg Angle off

 

NON MANV TGT (1G)

SL Rmin 800ft at 0 deg Angle Off

SL Rmin 1000ft at 45 Deg Angle Off

sl Rmin 3000ft at 90 deg Angle Off

 

So as can be seen Rmin with any angle off is significantly better than the AIM9L/M. In Practical terms the R550 MAGIC I envelope overlaps the gun envelope quite easily. I can only believe the R550 MAGIC II would be equivalent or better. From a pilot perspective the AIM9 was significantly better in the Rmax cases. Close in the R550 was an amazing piece of kit but no so good when trying to run some one down like in a Bug out situation.

 

This corroborates the comments made by the HAF Mirage pilot -[posted by corleone: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1872&sid=037af91cc9223b6e46d0c887048191b4&start=60#wrapper ] that on the initial turn in to the F-16 the M2000 needed to make the Magic shot, and that in this case the Magic was in his opinion far superior to the AIM9. so maybe the is a case for better off angle and close range but a bit trade off in the longer range department. Though it no way excuses the current iteration of the missile.

 

Posted this mainly for missile maneuverability reasons.... was a bit behind on the thread :)

Edited January 5, 2016 by cauldron

[cauldron]

Now if only we could find some HUD images for the 530D :thumbup:

[jaguara5]

Already posted video. S530 at the beginning (although target is very close) . Watch also how the magic range scale changes from nm to meters at / below 1,9 nm (34 - 3400m)

 

[ame]

[/ame]

[OxideMako]

Already posted video. S530 at the beginning (although target is very close) . Watch also how the magic range scale changes from nm to meters at / below 1,9 nm (34 - 3400m)

 

 

What is ECM PTY in bottom left? Target or shooter jamming?

[sedenion]

Watch also how the magic range scale changes from nm to meters at / below 1,9 nm (34 - 3400m)

 

Yep, interesting... i think the scale change at 1.8nm => 3500m

 

Edit: well 3500m = 1.889 nm ... so ~1.9 nm in fact...

Edited January 5, 2016 by sedenion

[Corsair]

What is ECM PTY in bottom left? Target or shooter jamming?

 

It is indication specific to the ICMS countermeasure system that equips HAF 2000EGM. The corresponding switch on the ICMS control panel can be either set to ECM PTY or NWS PTY (priority). I have à few guesses about this function, though nothing certain .. But anyways it doesn't concern Razbam's module.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Corsair

[jojo]

Okay, I may have said some bs.

I do not have any visualisation I can check on right now, so : what are the parameters given by the radar ?

I have now a doubt the target speed (*not* closing speed) is even displayed.

 

Not in HUD but on radar display

[cauldron]

A video feed from a tacview PvP between Mig29-M2000 & F15. Clearly demonstrates that something is seriously amiss. Not only does there seem to be a drag chute deployed after rocket burnout but during as well. The R550 reacts very slowly to off boresight and can do 30g max.

 

[ame]

[/ame]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quick summary of vid: a good one to see as 6 iR missiles were fired in total from R60's AIM9 and R550.

 

Game: Tacview ACMI - Universal Flight Analysis Tool

 

1st missile: R550 launch @ 1:25 M2000 vs Mig29 probably outside launch envelope but clearly shows a lack of maneuver at launch slowly gaining up to a fixed 30g turn to miss. Definitely not much off boresight as R550-ll should have.

 

2nd missile launch: 1:36 series of 3xR60's in sequence. the second hits - but its a near proximity hit, not damaging the F15 severely, but note that the R60 has more energy conserved in its flight as the R550.

 

3rd missile launch: 2:26 R550 launched @ 1.2NM range [7200feet range] @ initial speed of M.94 vs target similar speed in an approx 3g turn. Note how after the missile rocket stops burning it literally deploys a drag chute and slows down. Missile is clearly trying to track but has no energy after about only 1.2 to 1.5NM of travel, still .5NM behind its target being overcome by the launching plane!

 

4th missile launch: 2:51 AIM9 fired by teammate in F15 whom should have known better at M2000 in the slot behind the Mig29, but its curious to note that it is launch in similar parameters - but distance is approx 2NM vs 1.2NM for the R550 - to the previous R550 - to bad its directed to the teamate, but note the energy gain during burn (the aim suffers little drag during burn and in coast phase remains with high energy to intercept the M2000. Near hit by proximity causing minor damage only.

 

5th missile launch: 3:47 AIM9 from F15 to MiG29 at approx 1.5NM range high angle off/head on shot connects only by proximity and does no damage.

 

4:20 series of gun engagements which culminate in the MiG29 lost right side tail surfaces and R-engine with fire.

 

6th Missile launch: 5:10 AIM9 from F15 to MiG29 at 1NM distance with target slowed to .4M non maneuvering... Kill shot.

 

7th Missile launch: 5:45 from second M2000 at <1nm range. Only successful R550 hit on already burning wreck of MiG29

[jojo]

1st missile: R550 launch @ 1:25 M2000 vs Mig29 probably outside launch envelope but clearly shows a lack of maneuver at launch slowly gaining up to a fixed 30g turn to miss. Definitely not much off boresight as R550-ll should have.

 

Close to minimum range with 90° angle trajectories...really no hope, I don't know if another one would do better !

[Azrayen]

It is indication specific to the ICMS countermeasure system that equips HAF 2000EGM. The corresponding switch on the ICMS control panel can be either set to ECM PTY or NWS PTY (priority). I have à few guesses about this function, though nothing certain .. But anyways it doesn't concern Razbam's module.

 

Well, there still is PCM in the 2000C ;)

[cauldron]

Close to minimum range with 90° angle trajectories...really no hope, I don't know if another one would do better !

 

I agree, but of note was the lack or reaction for the first 3 seconds of flight, it just flew straight, then decided to try to track.

 

But more importantly ... That's it? no comment over the performance of the R550 launch at 2:26 or the AIM9 at 2:51 mark? I am surprised you have no comment on those.

[jojo]

I agree, but of note was the lack or reaction for the first 3 seconds of flight, it just flew straight, then decided to try to track.

 

But more importantly ... That's it? no comment over the performance of the R550 launch at 2:26 or the AIM9 at 2:51 mark? I am surprised you have no comment on those.

 

First shot: the target is probably out of seeker field of view after 1s, that should be why it doesn't turn anymore.

 

For the rest I agree with you...too much drag !

[Ultra]

3rd missile launch, why does the Magic decelerate so quickly from M2.44 to M0.6 and then the deceleration becomes gradual from M0.6 to ~M0.5 even though it looks like it hasn't started falling yet?

[cauldron]

That all depends on how the atmosphere has been modeled, and the supersonic and subsonic Cd.

 

But drag is not linear by an means.

[cauldron]

First shot: the target is probably out of seeker field of view after 1s, that should be why it doesn't turn anymore.

 

For the rest I agree with you...too much drag !

 

You know, i still had my lingering doubts about the missiles, but this for me, puts the nail on the coffin. Something is fundamentally going on that is wrong.

[jojo]

You know, i still had my lingering doubts about the missiles, but this for me, puts the nail on the coffin. Something is fundamentally going on that is wrong.

 

What, the drag or the seeker ?

 

About the drag I don't further report to be convinced :smilewink: