R550 Magic 2 performance

[myHelljumper]

From this we can assume that the magic has AT LEAST the same specs as the 9M

[IvanK]

Even the R550 MAGIC I had way better Rmin performance than the Aim9 L/M inside the turn and its 30deg x 30deg Autoscan feature was amazingly good in a furball.

Edited December 29, 2015 by IvanK

[RoflSeal]

From this we can assume that the magic has AT LEAST the same specs as the 9M

 

Not at all.

 

You don't know whether the pilot is referring to its CCM capability vs flares, its maneuverability, time it takes to achieve lock, off bore capability, or its drag profile. From the video posted before, the first 4 are way more important then the last one judging from the ranges.

 

Something is probably wrong with the Cd of the Magic 2 however.

[jojo]

It seems to be Russian estimation.

 

So you can see how R-60 should compare to AIM-9.

[sedenion]

So, does anyone have a scientific explanation for the high drag of the R.550 Magic 2?

 

The Super-530D have the same "overdrag" problem (see the dedicated topic)... from now, we just can tell that for ED, The Magic II is the worst IR missile ever made in the world (except AIM-4), and the Super-530D is the worst SARH missile ever made in the world...

[Brisse]

The Super-530D have the same "overdrag" problem (see the dedicated topic)... from now, we just can tell that for ED, The Magic II is the worst IR missile ever made in the world (except AIM-4), and the Super-530D is the worst SARH missile ever made in the world...

 

Nah, I did the same testing on the Super 530D and it's nowhere near as bad. The Magic 2 has the aerodynamics of a parachute. See the Super 530D thread for the tests I did on that. Summary: I could get kills out to 37km and the missile would reach Mach 4.5 which is in line with the sources I checked. Note: You have to be at a very high altitude and launch speed to achieve that.

[IASGATG]

Here is the AIM-9M, Magic 2 and Magic 2 with the AIM-9M drag profile. All shot at 20kft M0.9. I think the graph speaks for itself.

 

[sedenion]

Nah, I did the same testing on the Super 530D and it's nowhere near as bad. The Magic 2 has the aerodynamics of a parachute. See the Super 530D thread for the tests I did on that. Summary: I could get kills out to 37km and the missile would reach Mach 4.5 which is in line with the sources I checked. Note: You have to be at a very high altitude and launch speed to achieve that.

 

 

IASGATG juste made a very interesting comparison chart with explanation, and the conclusion is that, the 530D have a drag problem too...: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2621644&postcount=79

[sedenion]

And now, the game is: Guess which one has less drag :D ! (they are in scale) not easy to guess... :

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=131649&stc=1&d=1451428443

[IASGATG]

Blunt nose is a pretty big deal tbh, although rolleroins are bad too.

[sedenion]

Blunt nose is a pretty big deal tbh, although rolleroins are bad too.

 

The Magic II is obviously more thickset. Magic II rollerions are taller but more slim and shorter... As i guess with the shape of the tow missiles, i think the Sidewinder is more designed for long range when the Magic II is designed for extreme manoeuvrability but with shorter range ( which could explain the claimed > 50g manoeuvrability of the Magic II ) The larger head of the Magic II also talk in favor of a better seeker aperture ( more able to catch target at high angle )

Edited December 29, 2015 by sedenion

[IASGATG]

The Magic II is obviously more thickset. Magic II rollerions are taller but more slim and shorter... As i guess with the shape of the tow missiles, i think the Sidewinder is more designed for long range when the Magic II is designed for extreme manoeuvrability but with shorter range ( which could explain the claimed > 50g manoeuvrability of the Magic II ) The larger head of the Magic II also talk in favor of a better seeker aperture ( more able to catch target at high angle )

 

If only someone wanted to drop some money into having it CFD'd *wink wink nudge nudge*

[sedenion]

If only someone wanted to drop some money into having it CFD'd *wink wink nudge nudge*

 

You don't like my ultra-scientific analysis ? :D

[castor]

......when the Magic II is designed for extreme manoeuvrability but with shorter range ( which could explain the claimed > 50g manoeuvrability of the Magic II ) ........

 

The effectiveness of missiles is really very very poor...:mad:

 

check this :

[ame]

[/ame]

[iLOVEwindmills]

Blunt nose is a pretty big deal tbh, although rolleroins are bad too.

 

It's not exactly blunt is it, the seeker heads look pretty much identical in shape. Only difference is the Sidewinder is slightly smaller and a bit tapered in the front.

 

I doubt the difference would be significant over the relatively short distance that these missiles are expected to fly. At least compared to amount of drag they experience when making hard turns.

[IASGATG]

It's not exactly blunt is it, the seeker heads look pretty much identical in shape. Only difference is the Sidewinder is slightly smaller and a bit tapered in the front.

 

I doubt the difference would be significant over the relatively short distance that these missiles are expected to fly. At least compared to amount of drag they experience when making hard turns.

 

If this is to scale, that's a pretty blunt, and it would make a pretty big difference in performance imo. That being said, with a 2s burn time and almost as much Ns as the 9M it should do a lot better than the 9M in the first few seconds of flight. To put rough numbers to it, I'd imagine within the first 2nmi or so the Magic is better, beyond that I imagine the 9M is better. With the 9M getting maybe a mile range over the Magic.

 

That being said, this is 100% speculation based off of the general shapes of the missiles with the known motors of the missile using educated guesses. CFD would be needed to know for sure.

[sedenion]

I doubt the difference would be significant over the relatively short distance that these missiles are expected to fly. At least compared to amount of drag they experience when making hard turns.

 

I think (but, this is an ultra-scientific analysis as you know) the aerodynamic shape of the Magic II ( fins slightly larger and way more complex, taller and full movable rollerions, where sidewinder only have fixed rollerions with small gouverns and very small fins ) mean that it has a better manoevrability than the sidewinder (may be much more), but, that also mean more drag... BUT, probably NOT as much as currently.

[Brisse]

You are all comparing apples and oranges here. The AIM-9M and Magic 2 isn't that similar. The R-73 is much closer to the Magic 2. Same shape of body and nose, just that the R-73 is slightly larger. The ratio of the diameter and length is almost identical for R-73 and Magic 2. The AIM-9M stands out as being much slimmer.

 

By the way, have you guys read earlier pages in the thread? We have been over this a thousand times already :)

[sedenion]

Hmm...

 

http://cargolade.free.fr/matramgic22.jpg

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/AIM-9L_DF-ST-82-10199.jpg

 

It seem that Sidrewinder have many more things that protrude and potentially generate drag... Magic II is much more...how to say... "French Touch" ?

 

( well this kind of thing will never be taken into account by ED, but it's interesting )

[sedenion]

You are all comparing apples and oranges here. The AIM-9M and Magic 2 isn't that similar. The R-73 is much closer to the Magic 2. Same shape of body and nose, just that the R-73 is slightly larger. The ratio of the diameter and length is almost identical for R-73 and Magic 2. The AIM-9M stands out as being much slimmer.

 

By the way, have you guys read earlier pages in the thread? We have been over this a thousand times already :)

 

I think you'r right... Comparing Magic II to R-73 is a better idea...

[Corrigan]

This thread was very good but has devolved into "feelings" about how draggy that nosecone is. If we wanna convince ED that there's something wrong enough to change, we need to do better. Could someone good at 3D modelling make a model of the front from pictures, perhaps? Then we might be able to calculate the drag.

 

EDIT: I had an unrefreshed version of the thread, there have been some helpful posts since :)

[IASGATG]

You wont be able to calculate the drag with a 3D model without CFD. I'm afraid Supersonic isn't that easy. :) xxx

[GGTharos]

Those vortex generators ahead of the canards are probably responsible for this ... typically this means superior AoA capability, where the 9 tried to increase this (AFAIK) by using the double delta design.

 

R-73 went the same way as the Magic.

 

Although watching footage of AIM-9L/M it looks like you can easily employ it at 1500' under the right circumstances, but that's really r-minnish.

 

Even the R550 MAGIC I had way better Rmin performance than the Aim9 L/M inside the turn and its 30deg x 30deg Autoscan feature was amazingly good in a furball.

[GGTharos]

Actually no, these aren't 'feelings'. Supersonic drag in missiles is primarily driven by the nose fineness ratio. Period, end of story :)

 

But you don't have to take my word for it: Look up some material by Prof. Fleeman :)

 

This thread was very good but has devolved into "feelings" about how draggy that nosecone is.

[sedenion]

R-73 went the same way as the Magic.

 

However, i think the R-73 currently have much less drag than the Magic2 in game... ( can someone do a beautiful comparison curve ?)