fixed S-8OFP2 burn time

[AeriaGloria]

  Hello, I would like to mention S-8OFP2 burn time. From materials from time of S-8OFP2 being tested, it was said that the rocket motor had higher energy then previous S-8 variants. This has led many people to believe S-8OFP2 is a more powerful rocket in terms of thrust in DCS. However in DCS the S-8OFP2 has the same rocket power as all other S-8 variants, which is

3.7 kg of fuel, burned for 1.55 seconds at 180 impulse. Using the impulse equation I get about 3,611 Newton seconds. 
 

It seems online sources from the time of the OFP2 claiming the higher engine power are gone, however what ED said remains. The S-8OFP2 was introduced in DCS Ka-50 Black Shark patch 1.01 

In these patch notes it says, “S-8OFP2 - blast-fragmentation rocket. Enhanced fragmentation effects and increased engine burn time. Used against infantry and unarmored targets.”

So ED says it should also have increased burn time at the very least. I am sure it’s hard to find exactly how long the burn time is, i Remember press releases from the time saying it had almost twice the energy which is a lot. But if ED is comfortable increasing the burn time as they say it should have longer burn time then 1.55 seconds, it would create a much more accurate and true to life weapon. Of course module CCIP’s will also need to be modified, but if this could be done the S-8OFP2 could be much more like what people expect, a modernized S-8 rocket. 

 

[NineLine]

SO are you saying in 2009 we did not increase the engine burn time enough?

If so, based on what evidence?

[AeriaGloria]

On 7/13/2022 at 10:58 AM, NineLine said:

SO are you saying in 2009 we did not increase the engine burn time enough?

If so, based on what evidence?

  Hello Nineline thank you very much for the response. I am sorry for the delay. 
 

  I am saying it’s burn time is no different compared to all other S-8 variants today in the current patch, I do not know if this was also true for its 2009 introduction or things have changed since then. Perhaps when introduced in 2009 it did have the increased burn time, but somehow today, and in the past 6 months or so I have been checking the LUAs, does not have increased burn time over any other S-8. 
 

  My only evidence is the patch note saying it should have increased burn time, and the LUA file that can be accessed here based on the currrent OB patch, Quaggles LUA datamine that was created after locking the files, allowing people to see them without changing anything https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/nurs/C_8OFP2.lua,

This LUA file gives 1.55 seconds burn time, which is identical to all other older S-8 variants. It’s fuel mass and impulse is identical as well. 
 

  I’m sure ED had a good reason in 2009 to make that patch note saying it should have more burn time, there were many sources talking about the S-8OFP1 and S-8OFP2 prototypes that said it had “increased rocket energy compared to older S-8,” but those sources are no longer live on the internet and able to be linked sadly.
 

  So hoping that perhaps ED still had or remembers the source purporting its increased burn time, I do not know how much more burn time exactly, I would love to see this rocket become more accurate and it’s unique differences to other rockets be represented in game
 

Thank you 

Edited August 12, 2022 by AeriaGloria

[AeriaGloria]

  I have finally found some corroborating sources that S-8OFP2 should have more rocket burn time/power then other S-8 variants.
 

  Increase rocket motor energy is referenced here, you can use Google translate https://m.tvzvezda.ru/news/201806251657-kptc.htm

  It notes one of the advances is use of MTT composite fuel over balistic. This article also mentions the rocket has increased energy compared to earlier S-8.

https://en.topwar.ru/171651-s-8ofp-bronebojschik-novaja-raketa-iz-starogo-semejstva.html

 

  A common theme in these statements is that increases in rocket motor technology, allowed them to use a smaller motor and a 2-3 times heavier warhead, while still having range increase from 3-4 km to 6 km. 

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-07-10/new-air-ground-rocket-russian-attack-aircraft?amp

  These claims of using a smaller engine with modern fuel to makeup for a 2-3x heavier warhead might also be from changes to the rocket body and smaller fins that reduce drag. There is also exhaust vanes (like the hydra) that also produce roll mean that the despite smaller more aerodynamic fins, it can still spin fast. These qualities could make up for a small part of the increased ballistic performance.

  So With how the motor is spoken of having more energy, it makes sense that ED would put in their patch note when introducing S-8OFP2 that “Enhanced fragmentation effects and increased engine burn time.” 

  Which makes it sound that, engine power can stay the same, and only changes need to be engine burn time and the sighting information of modules using the weapon. 

   
   I understand if ED just does not have a good enough reason to pay attention on this rocket. And I understand if despite the claims that OFP has increased motor energy/burn time, it is the interpretation of ED to not change motor from previous S-8 unless more information is known. That brochures and defense exhibitions are sometimes not enough to model an unguided rocket. However if the patch note from its introduction is correct that it only needs extra burn time, then I think it would be a fantastic way of making this rocket more realistic, and a good comparison to the Hydra rockets we have in DCS. Thank you for reading and I appreciate the thought even if not possible. Thank you for reading! 

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2022 by AeriaGloria

[AeriaGloria]

It is awesome to see that the S-8OFP2 now has a much more powerful motor in line with its reported specs, and that S-8KOM and OFP2 also deal more damage closer inline with their TNT equivalent values!!!!

[Flappie]

@AeriaGloria Do you consider this issue solved? If not, what is missing please?

[AeriaGloria]

9 hours ago, Flappie said:

@AeriaGloria Do you consider this issue solved? If not, what is missing please?

  As far as I can tell everything is solved and as close as reasonably possible to known performance estimates. I am very happy with the way things are now 

[Flappie]

Thanks for your feedback.