R550 Magic 2 performance

[Ktulu2]

LOL good one if ED doesn't see a problem, the problem is else where...

 

Also we see that you might as well keep on flying than using a magic, after 10s the plane already caught back.

[sedenion]

yes, we know the Magic II is currently modelized with a drogue chute... what we need now, i think, is a little bit reliable material to give to ED... I'am tired, i tried all this afternoon, and what i learn is:

 

Some had better the competances than me to do, but just don't do, while staying "blury" while saying "you are wrong, no, baaaad". So "ponce pilate", "demerde yourself", etc...

[GGTharos]

There is a V/I (visual intercept) mode in the F-15 radar which provides you with specific cues on the HuD and Radar to fly the most efficient intercept (The path is selected based on aspect, but it it basically always drives you to take an offset and make a stern conversion). I believe it is similar to what you are describing.

 

It replaces the AoA display window with target Mach in the HuD among other things.

 

My point is, no one that know of uses target CAS. :)

Closure alone will tell you everything you need to know: How fast you get to them, how much you need to adjust your own speed, etc.

 

You can also fly your own intercept fairly easily with a little pilot math and rules of thumb. In particular, the B-scope is especially useful in telling you if you're on a collision course ... though modern aircraft will just tell you where to steer for a collision course, too. :)

 

There is even a special radar mode to bring the Mirage in close formation to VID: "POL" = police.

At the end you're in range to light up the police light on left air intake and VID, even at night :smilewink:

[Corsair]

It's not target CAS displayed, it's closure speed, expressed in CAS (at aircraft's altitude).

[GGTharos]

If I look at actual closure I can right away tell how long I have until the merge (or reaching a given distance).

 

If I look at it expressed as CAS, it means nothing.

[Corsair]

I understand your point and it was what I defended until then.

 

But it comes out it is indeed expressed as CAS, and after thinking about it, it is also useful. It allows the pilot to adjust more accurately its closure rate, especially in case of a rear aspect joinup/interception, since own aircraft speed is also displayed in CAS.

 

You lose one information, you get another (well, it's the same, but expressed in another way). This compromise is justified when we look at the 2000's missions.

[GGTharos]

What do you mean 'it comes out it is indeed expressed as CAS'?

 

Which manual says so, or M2000C pilot?

 

I see no evidence that it is CAS at all, and it makes no sense to have it this way. The ONLY thing you get out of it is knowing the other guy's CAS ... and you lose from it all intercept pilot math information that you get with true closure. You lose huge amounts amounts of intercept SA/information by having it presented in CAS, which is something you simply have no need for under any circumstances whatsoever.

 

If your closure says +200kts, you're going 200kts too fast, and that's only if you're in a rear-aspect rejoin. You already have target mach displayed on radar, so you already know what his speed is.

 

Edit: I thought about it again. If it's closure presented as CAS, that's extra useless. Now you actually know nothing. You don't know his speed, you don't know your actual closure, all you know is that your closure is equivalent to him standing still and you doing 550KCAS. That's just utterly useless.

Edited January 6, 2016 by GGTharos

[Corsair]

Des gens qui savent.. Jojo here, backed up by other french forum's members, and also by Fox One's calculation (p.23, quoted by Jojo).

 

Let's set ourselves in a situation.. you are closing behind a target, fast moving, at FL400, standard altitude.

You are closing at Mach 1.2 (390 KCAS) on a target going at Mach 1 (310 KCAS).

A real closure velocity will indicate you +130 knot velocity, whereas a CAS closure velocity will indicate you a +80 knots velocity. Calculation are very approxmiate, but I think you see.

 

Advantage of a CAS closure velocity : no un practical calculation needed to actually know by how much you need to adjust your speed to perform a safe rejoin. It's more homegeneous, thus easier to use.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Corsair

[sedenion]

I see no evidence that it is CAS at all, and it makes no sense to have it this way.

 

"We" (they, in fact, i'm not in the closed club) have some source (in other place) that say:

 

This is the closure speed as CAS at (our own) aircraft's altitude.

And, i don't find that makes sense (not even for speed adjustement purpose), but... this is the fact according these sources.

[GGTharos]

Let's set ourselves in a situation.. you are closing behind a target, fast moving, at FL400, standard altitude.

You are closing at Mach 1.2 (390 KCAS) on a target going at Mach 1 (310 KCAS).

A real closure velocity will indicate you +130 knot velocity, whereas a CAS closure velocity will indicate you a +80 knots velocity. Calculation are very approxmiate, but I think you see.

 

... What? If you're closing at the same FL then your closure is his speed - your speed, period end of story. It's going to be +80 no matter what you do.

 

For TAS, EAS, CAS, IAS, GS, doppler measured closure the difference between the results will be minimal. They'll all give you about +80kts closure.

 

I could see compressibility effects affecting your CAS/IAS (in which case you might want to use EAS), but this changes nothing; your over-take is still +80kts and that is the important part.

 

I don't get it, something's wrong here or there's a concept that I can't wrap my head around.

[Corsair]

No.. at sea level, your speed differential will be indeed identical whether you use TAS or CAS as a basis to compute your closure velocity.. but since CAS decreases with pressure, thus altitude, the gap between CAS and TAS will widen as altitude grows.. and Fox One and Jojo's calculations show this :

 

Accurate measurements on the video: the distance is decreasing 0.6NM in precisely 2.72s. This gives an average closure of 794KTAS.

Using standard atmosphere model, we have -28 degree Celsius at 23000ft.

Using a flight computer, 550kt CAS closure speed gives 798kt...

 

At sea level, a 794 KTAS closure velocity will equal 794 KCAS.. At FL400, it will equal 465 KCAS (standard alt.).. it's the same with my example.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Corsair

[GGTharos]

No, it won't. It's still 794kts closure. CLOSURE.

[Corsair]

KCAS closure =/= True speed closure.. the damn closure varies depending on the speed measurement you take as a basis..

[Corsair]

Let me take bigger numbers.. you're at FL500. Standard altitude again.

Chasing aircraft is at mach 2 = 1150 KTAS = 530 KCAS

Target aicraft is at mach 0,8 = 460 KTAS = 190 KCAS

 

Aspect angle is 0. Both acft at same alt.

 

Closure computed with CAS as basis = +340

Closure computed with TAS as basis = +690

Edited January 6, 2016 by Corsair
CAS incorrect

[sedenion]

( i still find that a TAS closure is more intuitive anyway since that gives some constant distance / time ratio, while CAS... hem... when you have the target in visual, you just know you have to reduce the closure speed near ~0 the "+X" or "-X" given CAS... who care ? )

[Corsair]

The thing is, as pointed out by Jojo, you don't always have the target is visual.

Thus, a closure indication that is homogeneous with your speed as displayed in the VTH is both easier to exploit and safer.

[sedenion]

j'ai envie de dire... heu, ouais, si vous le dites... :huh: c'est peut-être vrai hein, après tout j'ai jamais été confronté à la situation, donc je sais pas, mais je suis pas convaincu...

[Rlaxoxo]

I don't think you need to be a genius to figure out that something needs to be changed here

 

Missile slows down way to much no matter how much you can try and explain it it's just really bad

 

I'm gonna use AIm-9 Till this gets fixed

[mattebubben]

I don't think you need to be a genius to figure out that something needs to be changed here

 

Missile slows down way to much no matter how much you can try and explain it it's just really bad

 

I'm gonna use AIm-9 Till this gets fixed

 

sadly thats not an option in MP.

[cauldron]

Wow.... the thread is about the R550 dysfunctionality in DCS, its NOT an argument over CAS or IAS or even how to conduct an intercept.

 

Can we stay on topic, thanks. Or please open a new thread about data needed to intercept.

[Corsair]

Sorry for thread derailment.

There is a clear consensus on the major underperformance of the R.550-2.. what more is needed to know/discuss ?

[cauldron]

Made a little video to demonstrate the difference between the Magic 2 and Aim 9M

 

Here you go

 

 

In the middle part of the video I've done tests at 3,000/6,000/10,000 Meters

 

Performance doesn't change much

 

i noticed in my own play thru that the R550 in PVP dogfights behaves the same as your last test [5:15 mark], the R550 flies ballistic for about 1 sec before guiding to the seeker's target, the AIM9 seems to start its turn asap. - Also the missile[R550] should be able to do a 50g turn, i've only seen it do 30g max in dcs.

 

i have a tacview up in the other thread concerning the R550.

 

Basically fire on boresight just outside of guns range, only chance the missile has to hit.

Edited January 6, 2016 by cauldron

[jojo]

Besides there are 2 threads on Magic 2 running...counter-productive !

[sedenion]

Sorry for thread derailment.

There is a clear consensus on the major underperformance of the R.550-2.. what more is needed to know/discuss ?

 

Comparing the given Magic2 DLZ with any comparable one : AIM-9M, R-73, to tell: "no reasons that the Magic2 was modeled with a drogue chute"

 

I think it's time to gather all data that was given in this thread and do some synthesis. (same for S-530D)

[sedenion]

Synthesis:

 

Magic2 current in-game performance:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2618312&postcount=9

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2632420&postcount=1

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2621678&postcount=107

we also noticed:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2632944&postcount=12

 

There is obviously a problem :

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2620803&postcount=87

 

No realy reason for this downgrade, because :

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2619436&postcount=40

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2621437&postcount=100

 

About the Magic1 :

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2621884&postcount=130

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2633017&postcount=13

but :

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2621936&postcount=134

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2622322&postcount=141

 

Then we also have this :

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2630685&postcount=31

that show :

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=132216&stc=1&d=1452007620

Where we know that :

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2632380&postcount=224

(meilleur domaine de tir = best lauching range)

 

 

Sumary:

 

- The R-550Mk2 is currently the worst modeled IR Short Range missile in the game, which seem ununderstandable.

 

- The current drag coeficient of the R-550Mk2 in game simply appear as a gross error.

 

- Current R-550Mk2 in game seem to be even the worst missile in term of "turn rate"/"reaction time", with max "30g" manoeuvers.

 

- The R-550Mk2 is in fact a >50g missile.

 

- From good sources (pilots's testimonies), the Magic1 (R-550) was already a 50g missile with better performance than the AIM-9M/L except for long range. The R-550Mk2 share the same aerodynamical design than the Magic1, but with improved seeker, proximity fuze dans 10% more propellant.

 

- An Mirage 2000-C's HUD picture show the R-550Mk2 DLZ, where we can clearly see the 8nm/15Km claimed max range for the R-550Mk2 (AIM-9M is 18km), and the "Best Launching Range" at 4nm, with target at 140° aspect (40° away from aircraft) and ~790kt closure speed (the R-550Mk2 seeker locked the target at 6.5nm), which should make the R-550Mk2 comparable to the AIM-9M

 

- The inflicted damages to the target by the R-550Mk2 seem to be downgraded. Its warhead is configured at "Simple", we suspect this is not fair. The Magic2 has an advanced proximity fuze and 12kg TNT, at least as much effective as the AIM-9M one.

 

- Detail: Current in-game Magic2 label is only "R-550", it should be at least "R-550-Mk2", "R-550 Mk2" or "R-550 Magic II" (Mk2 stands for Mark 2 = Magic II, "R-550" alone is "Magic1"

Edited January 7, 2016 by sedenion