Falcon version similar to FC2?

[SgtPappy]

In that case, they both reach M2.6, but there is no garuntee that that the Sparrow launched from 0 speed will be able to reach M2.6 on internal fuel.

 

Not at all, it was an example. The point is, the missile's maximum, self-attained speed is higher than that of the launch platform.

 

What do you mean by "both"? The F-15?

[Exorcet]

I meant both the M2.3 launched missile and the one that started at 0 speed. The missiles in your example can reach max speed with their own internal fuel, so in that case you can't accelerate them past M2.6 unless the launch platform accelerates past M2.6

 

More realistically, a missile might reach M 3.5 if launched from a helicopter in hover, but will be able to accelerate to M 4.0 if launched from a fighter under the same conditions (except flight speed).

 

This is because the missile runs out of fuel before it drag equals thrust.

[SgtPappy]

Ah, there we have an interesting rebuttal. I believe that makes more sense...

 

So if the maximum thrust is suddenly lost before drag = thrust then there would indeed be an advantage to launch speed. Oh my I ought to be thinking much harder after all these years of physics...

[GGTharos]

No, your initial thought was just fine. While thrust=drag may be reached at some point, realize that missiles tend to have thrust between 10 and 20 times their own weight (per second :) )

 

The Sparrow III for example, which is a pretty old version of the missile, had 5000lbf (or was it 7000lbf? I forget) boost stage and 2000lbf sustain stage. So it operated at a maximum about 10g for 3 sec, and 4g acceleration thereafter, if you ignore drag.

[Eddie]

What is a rocket motor? A source of thrust. What is a hand throwing a ball? Yep, a source of thrust. The physics involved are the same, it's only the speeds and forces that change.

 

Indeed, when drag = thrust the missile will not be able to accelerate any further. The thing is, drag will not equal thrust at high altitude until a much higher speed is reached. This is why all missiles (both A/A and S/A) have greater effective range against high flying targets.

 

At sea level a missile may max out at M3.0, just like a fighter might max out at M1.1. However at 40,000ft the missile will certainly not max out at M3.0.

 

Consider this, if an F-15C can reach M2.5 at 40,000ft but only M1.1 at sea level despite the fact its air breathing engines actually produce much more thrust at low level, how do think a missile with a non air breathing rocket that is producing the same, or more, thrust will get on at the same altitude.

 

The thing is missiles DO gain a speed boost from the launch aircraft, it's a fact, and big factor in BVR combat. So if you don't see how, then I think you need to reconsider, because you're either not understanding the physics involved or not considering everything in your thought process.

[SgtPappy]

Lol, I do understand that now, as posted above :P

 

I had to get the fact that drag =/= thrust before the rocket motor fuel runs out... a fact which is the most important to my understanding right now. I was under the impression that the missile reaches maximum, drag-limited speed even before the rocket fuel runs out which is woefully incorrect.

[SUBS17]

Hello,

 

A lot of my friends who sim have fun with FC2, but they're all Viper fans. So I'm planning on finding a version of Falcon we can all play.

 

I know that Falcon is super realistic and difficult to learn, so if there's a version of Falcon that's similar to FC2 in terms of learning curve?

 

With Red Falcon, Falcon BMS and Free Falcon versions showing up on Google, I have no idea where to begin! Thanks for your help.

 

All the aircraft in these sims are quite simple to fly, land and employ weapons. So you do not need to ask for a FC2 version of Falcon 4. F-16s are so simple it only takes the same amount of key presses to do basic weapons use. Only slightly more if you are using LGBs etc. Regarding missiles for BVR the higher over your enemy the better the advantage to use the Aim 120. BTW missiles LOFT when launched and aside that I never worry about the physics of it. Another thing about the missiles for the ones that you launch is guiding it until it uses its own radar eg Aim 120 And using counter air manouvers while doing that to avoid the other guys missiles coming towards you. (A Pole, F Pole etc) I reccomend Falcon 4 BMS the latest version.:thumbup:

[SgtPappy]

Hmm I don't think I ever noticed the missiles loft in FC2. It's good to know that they do in BMS 4.32.

 

I know that the aircraft in BMS 4.32 are essentially modified F-16 models with tweaked avionics, but how do the flight models compare? For example, my friends all fly Vipers but my favorite plane is the F-15 so I'd be flying that with them from time to time.

 

Is the F-15 going to behave exactly the same as the F-16? Or is it faster/better climbing/less maneuverable compared to the F-16 like it should be?

[mvsgas]

:huh: I guess I need to move on since I still do not get how higher launch speed will affect "thrust=drag".

 

I understand altitudes, drag and thrust effects on speed/range. I get that there is not specific number in aircraft nor weapons. The only way this makes since is if every missiles out there is incapable of reaching maximum physical speed at a given altitude with its engine. Then, I get it since the launching platforms would help the missile reach that maximum physical speed, but every missile? And this would add another parameter when launching missiles at high supersonic speed since you could get the missile nose to heat so much ( since it is going so much faster) that could affect it structurally. Imagine a F-22 at over 50,000 feet , max AB in intercept course, launches an AMRAAM which in term climbs, missile would be flying at very high mach, at what point does the nose cone or the fins start burning or melting? Would the missile be able to turn as many "G" or would it break?... I'm getting cross eyed. That is if maximum speed is affected by launch vehicle.

 

Oh well, thanks guys, moving on.

 

SgtPappy, BMS is mainly F-16 sim. Some people have worked on other aircraft but only one currently with good avionics/flight model etc is the F-16. The rest have different levels of modeling, some say the Mirage 2000 is very good ( never tried myself).

[GGTharos]

I guess you weren't looking hard enough, or using them at the right ranges/altitudes to see them do so.

 

Hmm I don't think I ever noticed the missiles loft in FC2. It's good to know that they do in BMS 4.32.

[GGTharos]

:huh: I guess I need to move on since I still do not get how higher launch speed will affect "thrust=drag".

 

It won't, but you'll just never reach that condition at altitude. The rocket motor doesn't burn long enough, and as such launch speed affects the missile peak speed.

 

Then, I get it since the launching platforms would help the missile reach that maximum physical speed, but every missile?

 

Pretty much - think about it, those rockets burn for maybe up to 14 seconds for the longest burning ones. Missiles are pretty aerodynamica as well, and their thrust is always > 1:1, which is not the case for high-altitude supersonic aircraft, and look at how much speed they need to pick for thrust=drag.

 

And this would add another parameter when launching missiles at high supersonic speed since you could get the missile nose to heat so much ( since it is going so much faster) that could affect it structurally.

 

If the missile can hit mach 3 at 1000' and not worry about it, I don't see why it has to worry about it at 50000' and mach 4.

 

Would the missile be able to turn as many "G" or would it break?... I'm getting cross eyed. That is if maximum speed is affected by launch vehicle.

 

Why would it break? At high altitude you're AoA limited rather than structurally limited. You're more likely to fly out of control than pull enough g's to break the airframe.

[SgtPappy]

SgtPappy, BMS is mainly F-16 sim. Some people have worked on other aircraft but only one currently with good avionics/flight model etc is the F-16. The rest have different levels of modeling, some say the Mirage 2000 is very good ( never tried myself).

 

Oh I know. I admire the F-16 as well, but BMS is the only high fidelity sim in which both the F-15 and F-16 can be flown side by side with 3D cockpits... unless there's an F-16 cockpit mod in FC2 I'm not aware of. Even so, I'll be playing both sims.

 

I don't mind if the F-15 isn't going to be as accurate as the F-16... as long as it's flyable and has at least a flight model tweaked to be more of an F-15.

[SUBS17]

Hmm I don't think I ever noticed the missiles loft in FC2. It's good to know that they do in BMS 4.32.

 

I know that the aircraft in BMS 4.32 are essentially modified F-16 models with tweaked avionics, but how do the flight models compare? For example, my friends all fly Vipers but my favorite plane is the F-15 so I'd be flying that with them from time to time.

 

Is the F-15 going to behave exactly the same as the F-16? Or is it faster/better climbing/less maneuverable compared to the F-16 like it should be?

 

F-16s FM in BMs is the best one ever made for an F-16 sim and is the best out of all the previous Falcon 4 mods. I compare it to the VRS SH in how the FBW is modelled and behaves as you fly it. I don't fly the F-15 in BMS only the F-16 although I have flown the Mirage which is quite fun to fly dogfights.:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

:huh: I guess I need to move on since I still do not get how higher launch speed will affect "thrust=drag".

 

I understand altitudes, drag and thrust effects on speed/range. I get that there is not specific number in aircraft nor weapons. The only way this makes since is if every missiles out there is incapable of reaching maximum physical speed at a given altitude with its engine. Then, I get it since the launching platforms would help the missile reach that maximum physical speed, but every missile? And this would add another parameter when launching missiles at high supersonic speed since you could get the missile nose to heat so much ( since it is going so much faster) that could affect it structurally. Imagine a F-22 at over 50,000 feet , max AB in intercept course, launches an AMRAAM which in term climbs, missile would be flying at very high mach, at what point does the nose cone or the fins start burning or melting? Would the missile be able to turn as many "G" or would it break?... I'm getting cross eyed. That is if maximum speed is affected by launch vehicle.

 

Oh well, thanks guys, moving on.

 

SgtPappy, BMS is mainly F-16 sim. Some people have worked on other aircraft but only one currently with good avionics/flight model etc is the F-16. The rest have different levels of modeling, some say the Mirage 2000 is very good ( never tried myself).

 

Missiles such as the Aim120 are designed to operate under certain conditions and G, they most likely are programmed not to exceed those limitations and the structure would be strong enough to handle extreme cold, heat, G, moisture etc that can be expected when carried on a Fighter. The point of height and speed is energy and time is reduced for the missile to reach that top speed that it requires to go after its target. So the higher/faster it is the more energy and the better the result. Launching an Aim120 at high alt and at high speed in F4AF results in a longer range at which the missiles Rmax can be seen on the Hud.:smilewink:

[mvsgas]

I'm really trying to walk away but I'm a geek and a nerd in a Forums... it's like bringing an alcoholic to the bar :D

More and more often I forget people don't hear my inner monolog and I forget to explain my point

If the missile can hit mach 3 at 1000' and not worry about it, I don't see why it has to worry about it at 50000' and mach 4.

 

Why would it break? At high altitude you're AoA limited rather than structurally limited. You're more likely to fly out of control than pull enough g's to break the airframe.

 

Using my original thought that missiles do reach the maximum speed on their own power ( which I still believe is true for most missiles) I meant it if the missile goes faster because the launch vehicle, instead of the missile flying its max mach, the missile would be flying at 2 or 3 mach above that, fins glowing red and nose cone just coming apart, then it entering lower , more denser air, airframe soft like the skin of the SR-71 and the missile just breaking or blowing apart. So that is what I meant when I ask if the missiles would be able to pull g or break.

 

 

Missiles such as the Aim120 are designed to operate under certain conditions and G...

I know bud

 

... they most likely are programmed not to exceed those limitations

I think you give the missile more credit than you should

 

 

...and the structure would be strong enough to handle extreme cold, heat, G, moisture etc that can be expected when carried on a Fighter

Again, I know this. Like I just explain to GG above. I was using the idea that missile do reach maximum physical speed on their own power and if missile do go faster if launch from a faster aircraft, then it would pass that speed threshold, generating more heat.

 

.The point of height and speed is energy and time is reduced for the missile to reach that top speed that it requires to go after its target. So the higher/faster it is the more energy and the better the result. Launching an Aim120 at high alt and at high speed in F4AF results in a longer range at which the missiles Rmax can be seen on the Hud.:smilewink:

 

So to sum ti all; you all are saying that the missile range is increased and it has more energy at impact on a non maneuvering target at a specific altitude because it goes faster if the launching aircraft is going faster. So and Aircraft going at mach 2 will add that much energy to the missiles top speed. That is what I get you guys are saying.

 

I say range and energy at the target are increase not because maximum speed changes, I think is because the missile was at that maximum speed for longer. Traveling at maximum mach speed for longer, reaching the target at faster speed and traveling longer distance.

So, instead of the missile being at max mach for 1 second ( like when launch from an aircraft below mach) to the missile being at maximum mach speed fro 5 second when launch from a supersonic aircraft. So to me, the way I see it, the kinetic energy was the same, but the missile was able to use it before drag reduce the speed.

 

Now moving on...maybe :D

Edited August 10, 2012 by mvsgas

[Cali]

I think the missle will reach it's top speed much easier, the faster you are going. I remember reading and hearing about F-15C's in DS1 when they picked up a enemy on radar they would speed up to like mach 1 and be flying around 30k feet. I also did test a few years back on 120's/77's/27ER's and Aim-7's. The 120's and 77's were in boost phase for 7 seconds, I don't remember what the stats were on the ER's and 7's. This was back in FC1 I think, so lots could have changed in FC2. I'll see if I can locate that thread again. I notice that the 120 in FC2 and BMS act very differently from each other. But in both sims, the higher up you are the more range you get.

[SUBS17]

I think height of launch is the one that affects them the most, speed itself helps but the missile uses a solid fuel rocket so speed is not controlled what the missile does is burn the solid fuel then use its energy to fly towards the target without additional power so higher and faster means increased distance.

[SUBS17]

 

I think you give the missile more credit than you should

 

 

 

Now moving on...maybe :D

 

I don't think you realise those missiles are alot smarter than whats in sims. They are proabably programmed to counter manouvers that the aircraft is trying to use on them.eg barrel roll to exceed gimbal limits. It would also know if to LOFT or not, and to counter ECM etc. Then theres its flight path with Aim120s its Lead pursuit as well ground clutter etc as the enemy aircraft trys to shake it off.

[mvsgas]

I do realize and I also know that the data link from the aircraft is most important since the missile can't do much without it

Believe what you wish.

Edited August 10, 2012 by mvsgas

[EtherealN]

Split the pertinent part of the missile energy discussion over here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=92924