R550 Magic 2 performance

[Kev2go]

welp based on facts provided it does seem M2000 missile performances are underwhelming likely because of Beta "Syndrome" and hopefully will be fixed over time.

 

 

Ed just need to issue a statement that this issue is on thier radar so we can know they will do something about it for sure.

[PitbullVicious]

Short burn so boost only.

So this could explain the difference of what we see as higher "drag" if the missiles we are comparing to have also sustain thrust.

[AussieGhost789]

So this could explain the difference of what we see as higher "drag" if the missiles we are comparing to have also sustain thrust.

 

Pretty sure most short range IR only use a single stage boost motor.

 

Also, if the drag is too severe then the missile will be affected whether the motor is burning or not.

[billeinstein]

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...

 

And the smoke generator can also get tone...

[PitbullVicious]

Pretty sure most short range IR only use a single stage boost motor.

 

Well plausible and if we can establish that, we can move to the next question. (Well, I can. I'm not at all knowledgeable about missiles and a quick search didn't bring up anything on the matter. I'm learning as I go along. This module is really the first one where I'm getting into the details of more or less modern A2A combat.)

 

Also, if the drag is too severe then the missile will be affected whether the motor is burning or not.

 

Of course, but that's really not under observation here as we are currently able to infer anything about the drag only after the boost has finished. It appears to be different from other missiles, but there can be several reasons for that (such as diameter, which was already discussed). Just looking at the dimensions of the missiles, the R-73 seems to become closest, so it might be beneficial to understand what is same and different between these missiles.

Edited December 29, 2015 by PitbullVicious
Edited the last paragraph to make sense. It didn't.

[tflash]

An insight in the resp. engine burn time would clarify a lot I guess.

[OnlyforDCS]

We are going in circles. Unless someone does a CFD of the Magic II, there is no way we are going to know it's realistic drag curve. Pitbullviscious is right about this, even though he is wrong about taking one dimension and inferring something out of it. You can't just look at a missiles diameter, things like missile shape, fin shape, fin span, motor burn time etc. all play into it, although it's true that longer and thinner missiles will have lower drag than shorter and thicker ones.

 

What we can say with 100% certainty right now, and the only thing we can say with 100% certainty is that in DCS aerodynamically speaking the Magic II is performing very poorly against comparable missiles. (The 9M and the R73).

[PitbullVicious]

Pitbullviscious is right about this, even though he is wrong about taking one dimension and inferring something out of it. You can't just look at a missiles diameter, things like missile shape, fin shape, fin span, motor burn time etc. all play into it, although it's true that longer and thinner missiles will have lower drag than shorter and thicker ones.

 

Hold on a second. Either I've miscommunicated what I've been trying to say or you haven't been reading my posts carefully.

 

Of course the cross sectional area is only one contributing factor, but a rather obvious one (especially in sub-sonic speeds. I must say that I'm very uneducated about super-sonic drag). My intention was to raise it as it is one of the factors that is obviously quite a lot different to some of the missiles mentioned as similar in this discussion. I've said many times there are several other factors which we (or at least I) don't know (implying that saying anything too strong at this point is impossible).

[Brisse]

it is one of the factors that is obviously quite a lot different to some of the missiles mentioned as similar

 

And yet, it is almost identical to the R-73 which I showed in a previous post, so we do have a missile that we can compare it with. Control surfaces are a bit different, but not all that much really. The thrust vector control of the R-73 is irrelevant in my drag testing because the missiles are not turning.

 

How do you explain then, that 5 seconds after engine flame-out, the R-73 has 58% of of it's velocity left to work with, while the R.550 Magic 2 only has 43% left? That is a huge difference, and I see no logical explanation for it.

 

Edit: Just if your curious, I calculated the same thing for AIM-9M and R-60M, but keep in mind they are not the same shape so not directly comparable. As expected, the AIM-9M does pretty well with it's slim shape.

AIM-9M: 67%

R-60M: 63%

Edited December 29, 2015 by Brisse

[PitbullVicious]

And yet, it is almost identical to the R-73 which I showed in a previous post, so we do have a missile that we can compare it with. Control surfaces are a bit different, but not all that much really. The thrust vector control of the R-73 is irrelevant in my drag testing because the missiles are not turning.

 

And if you would've read my posts, you would've noticed that I have also mentioned this a couple of times, in fact just a couple of posts above in this thread :) And therefore...

 

How do you explain then, that 5 seconds after engine flame-out, the R-73 has 58% of of it's velocity left to work with, while the R.550 Magic 2 only has 43% left? That is a huge difference, and I see no logical explanation for it.

 

... I cannot, but as you may have noticed, I'm looking into eliminating SOME possible factors. Sustain burn after the boost burn would be an explanation, although a highly improbable one with these kind of missiles (I've been told).

 

Also, could you describe how you are actually doing the test?

 

What you are describing is indeed peculiar and worth looking into (and I believe I could replicate your results yesterday in a different kind of test, but it wasn't at all formal, so I wouldn't trust my own results quite yet ;) ).

 

I just believe that by first narrowing the problem down it is possibly easier to report it (or it may become obvious that there is no problem after all). As OnlyforDCS noted, unless we know more about the actual missiles, it is difficult to say if it is correct or not.

[Brisse]

I can't find a definitive answer because I'm not sure the sources are reliable, but from what little I have found, none of these missiles has any sustain burn capability. R.550 Magic 2 should burn 2.2 seconds and then it's just a glider. I think R-73 works the same way, but can't find a good source with a definitive answer.

 

For my testing, I simply fly at a certain altitude, at a certain speed and launch the missiles straight ahead without any targets, so they are not turning. This should remove as many factors as possible and I just look at how it's gliding characteristics are which depends purely on drag.

[IASGATG]

The reason the Magic slows down so much is because the drag curve for the missile is.. well.. huge.

 

Putting it into terms, it is bigger than any other missile in the game.

 

Quick comparison for you.

 

Mach 1 Cd

AIM-9M = 0.08

R-27ET = 0.09

R-73 = 0.12

Magic 2 = 0.18

 

Mach 4 Cd

AIM-9M = 0.05

R-27ET = 0.05

R-73 = 0.062

Magic 2 = 0.15

 

(The reason the Cd for the 27ET is lower is because of the increase in cross sectional area, so I probably shouldn't have added it as the other missiles have the same area)

Edited December 29, 2015 by IASGATG

[OnlyforDCS]

The reason the Magic slows down so much is because the drag curve for the missile is.. well.. huge.

 

Putting it into terms, it is bigger than any other missile in the game.

 

Quick comparison for you.

 

Mach 1 Cd

AIM-9M = 0.08

R-27ET = 0.09

R-73 = 0.12

Magic 2 = 0.18

 

Mach 4 Cd

AIM-9M = 0.05

R-27ET = 0.05

R-73 = 0.062

Magic 2 = 0.15

 

(The reason the Cd for the 27ET is lower is because of the increase in cross sectional area, so I probably shouldn't have added it as the other missiles have the same area)

 

Yes, this is pretty much what Brisse's test already showed. These figures are out of the missile .lua file?

[IASGATG]

These figures are out of the missile .lua file?

 

Yes

[tflash]

I agree we do not need to look further, it's the drag.

[Brisse]

So, does anyone have a scientific explanation for the high drag of the R.550 Magic 2? Or perhaps I should ask the opposite? Does anyone have a scientific explanation that proves the current modelling is wrong?

[OnlyforDCS]

Best guess? Terrible french aeronautical engineers?? :) Just kidding of course, I have no idea but I hope that it's an 'oversight' on the part of Eagle Dynamics, that stems from very little available documentation on the performance of the actual missile. I doubt that it could be this terrible, but maybe it really is, unfortunately unless someone is willing to CFD or has some better documentation on the actual missile I think we will never know.

[IASGATG]

There is no reason that objects of similar shapes should have radically different drag profiles, no.

[PitbullVicious]

Well, that was rather conclusive. The remaining questions are then: "Is it realistic?" and if yes "why?" (well, at least I'm interested on the actual aerodynamics behind it).

[il_corleone]

ED should see and take this seriously, I am no Engineer, but this looks wrong

[OnlyforDCS]

Well, that was rather conclusive. The remaining questions are then: "Is it realistic?" and if yes "why?" (well, at least I'm interested on the actual aerodynamics behind it).

 

I think the point IASGATG was trying to make is that no, it's not realistic. As to why, well it's probably best not too delve too deep into that. At least not in the public forums. ;)

Edited December 29, 2015 by OnlyforDCS

[King_Hrothgar]

A quick and dirty test revealed the following:

 

1) At 3km height when fired at mach .9 in level flight against no target, it has a top speed of ~3,000km/h (833m/s)

 

2) It takes 5s for it to drop below 1,000 km/h (278 m/s).

 

3) Losing 2000 km/h (555 m/s) in 5 seconds requires an average of 11G acceleration against the direction of travel.

 

I'll let you make your own judgements on how plausible that seems.

[OnlyforDCS]

Yes that does seem a little excessive. Does anyone have the link to the leaked french M2000C manual? Does it say anything in that manual about the performance of the Magic II or even Magic I? That could help make the case stronger for ED to take a look at it.

[PitbullVicious]

I think the point IASGATG was trying to make is that no, it's not realistic.

 

Yes, looking at the missiles such a big difference seems perplexing even to my layman's eyes. But as a researcher I've also got into the habit of expecting nothing at a face value :D

 

As to why, well it's probably best not too delve too deep into that. At least not in the public forums.

 

Oh my God! It's the recently released area 51, isn't it. :P

[il_corleone]

Some statements from a Greek pilot of Mirage 2000 from a user on the post Some honest talk about the Mirage

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1872&sid=037af91cc9223b6e46d0c887048191b4&start=60#wrapper

 

Maybe the text is some offtopic, but what is written about the Magic, is far from the game

 

No greek mirage 2000 was shot down by an F-16. it was an older mirage F1.

 

Conversely a Turkish F-16 piloted by an israeli pilot was shot down by a mirage 2000.

 

A nice video where many turkish F-16s are locked by Greek Mirage 2000 (this one is much more obvious): [ame]

[/ame]

 

There is a greek mirage 2000 pilot called duplex who wrote on this thread page 4. this is what he wrote when responding to someone. Basically M2k is a better dogfigther and superority aircraft but inferior multirole aircraft.

 

Would you agree with these statements of a former HAF fighter pilot?

 

<<To conclude, the Mirage 2000 is slicker than the Viper but less powerful. >>

 

This true.

 

>>With good pilots on both sides, they are probably equal in dogfight>>

 

This is wrong. A good pilot in an M2K will kill a good pilot in an F-16 9 out of 10 times (1 provided for launch failure).

 

I served in an M2K fighter squadron in HAF. We analyzed tactics and combat scores against HAF F-16 squadrons all the time.

 

The M2Ks higher INSTANTANEOUS turn rate gives it an advantage during the first pass. The F-16 cannot outturn the Mirage. It has to climb in hopes of avoiding the lock. A good M2K pilot will end it right there (the Magic 2 is a better IR weapon than the AIM-9L/M).

 

A rookie in the M2K, however, will probably lose the F-16's climb. The more powerful viper will escape and will then gain the advantage because of 1) Altitude 2) Higher SUSTAINABLE turn rate.

 

As for turn rates, altitude differences are purely theoretical and in practice make no difference EXCEPT for sea level manuevers where the more powerful Viper starts gaining the advantage.

Would you agree with the statement that F-16 is a better choice for multi role missions than Mirage 2000 ?

 

Absolutely. The M2K is a multi-role fighter also, but its performance varies greatly among roles - whereas the Viper performs almost all missions at a very satisfactory level.

 

HAF M2Ks are specialized. 331's (where I served) primary role is now TASMO (naval strike with AM-39 Exocet) and 332's primary role will become Deep Strike (with SCALP EG). CAP & Air Supremacy are their secondary roles.

 

The F-16 sqdns OTOH undertake a number of roles such as SEAD, CAP, CAS, and numerous specialized strike missions (enemy AFBs, enemy C&C centers etc). The Viper is a much more volatile weapons system

Edited December 29, 2015 by il_corleone