Ракеты в DCS

[tavarish palkovnik]

Не вижу этого, вижу 900 оба только для 27ЭТ и в ППС.

 

 

[Chizh]

Там все для Р-27ЭР, а не для ЭТ.

[tavarish palkovnik]

Chizh, ситуации в ЗПС, стрельба вдогон, которых я не вижу на графиках из этого программа.

[FoxAlfa]

Can just the CFD of R-27ER's be expedited so we put this to rest? We know that missile should overshoot the simulator range and probably the manual graph in ZPS, but by how much is speculation.... So only CFD can help...

[tavarish palkovnik]

31 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

So only CFD can help...

 

Theoretically speaking yes and no 

 

CFD or old fashion mathematic will give you Cx function for angle of attack (alpha) as zero, or eventually for some value of alpha but as continuous number.

 

Horizontal flight is dynamic process and for true calculations we need to have lot of other functions for corrections and/or adjustments how to convert Cx at alpha (and delta-rotation of aerodynamic surfaces) zero to true induced Cx with alpha and delta angels involved.

[Hoarfrost]

8 часов назад, BlackPixxel сказал:

Thank you!

 

So this proves quite well that the DLZ does not show the true kinematic potential of the missile.

 

Here we have the same situation. 10 km altitude, fighter at 900 km/h.

But in the first case the target is flying 900 km/h, in the second one alot faster, 1500 km/h.

 

But the range in the second case is slightly less.

 

How would that be possible if the DLZ would show the kinematic capabilities? It does not make sense. It does make sense however if we consider some energy reserve.

 

 

Означает ли это , что  график Чижа не правилен. Он учитывает максимальный кинематический диапазон по DLZ? 

[Chizh]

2 часа назад, FoxAlfa сказал:

Can just the CFD of R-27ER's be expedited so we put this to rest? We know that missile should overshoot the simulator range and probably the manual graph in ZPS, but by how much is speculation.... So only CFD can help...

We already done it for zero AoA. Now the R-27 performs everything it can for a straight target. There is nothing more to squeeze out here.

[BlackPixxel]

2 hours ago, Chizh said:

We already done it for zero AoA. Now the R-27 performs everything it can for a straight target. There is nothing more to squeeze out here.

 

And how does it compare to the DLZ of the SUV-27 sim?

[Chizh]

8 часов назад, BlackPixxel сказал:

 

And how does it compare to the DLZ of the SUV-27 sim?

Our implementation is superior to DLZ sim.

[FoxAlfa]

10 hours ago, Chizh said:

We already done it for zero AoA. Now the R-27 performs everything it can for a straight target. There is nothing more to squeeze out here.

R-27 always did perform quite close to diagram range for a straight target, it was the turning performance that was hurting it, thus reducing its 'effective' range against maneuvering target. 

With that said I did redo my 'turning' test (firing against ZPS target 45' degrees offset to right) and there also it didn't show any major speed loss as before and it did outrange the Aim-120c easy. So, I do agree it is now quite close to what is expected. 

 

I guess the last step that will get those few precent of effective range ppl think it should have is the Autopilot update to stop that massive energy loss mauver for short notches. 

 

Good work! 

P.S. Sorry for not testing and going deeper before

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by FoxAlfa

[BlackPixxel]

2 hours ago, Chizh said:

Our implementation is superior to DLZ sim.

 

Is this not another indicator of the DLZ having a safety margin on energy, and the charts 0° and 180° showing actual kinematic ranges?

[tavarish palkovnik]

I would still like to see output from simulator (this called DLZ) in ZPS at 10km for 27ER (and for 27ET what would be highly appreciated) in two options:

Fighter 900km/h / Target 900km/h

Fighter 1050km/h / Target 900km/h

 

With noted expected seconds of flight in cases of Drmax 

 

Maybe I'm asking too much but like there is a saying, 4 eyes see better then 2

[Chizh]

35 минут назад, BlackPixxel сказал:

 

Is this not another indicator of the DLZ having a safety margin on energy, and the charts 0° and 180° showing actual kinematic ranges?

Yes, DLZ is slightly less than the real capabilities of the missile. But in our case, the data from the DLZ simulator has the most reasonable kind of graph, without strange kinks and curve break. I prefer to focus on DLZ than on the weird nomograms from the manual.

[BlackPixxel]

1 minute ago, Chizh said:

Yes, DLZ is slightly less than the real capabilities of the missile. But in our case, the data from the DLZ simulator has the most reasonable kind of curvature, without strange kinks and curve break. I prefer to focus on DLZ than on the weird nomograms from the manual.

 

But the curve from the sim is not just ellipse shaped, it is pretty much a perfect circle. That seems a bit off.

[tavarish palkovnik]

Circular ellipse  is perhaps of mixing ET and ER 

[Chizh]

1 час назад, BlackPixxel сказал:

 

But the curve from the sim is not just ellipse shaped, it is pretty much a perfect circle. That seems a bit off.

This is not a regular ellipse. The figure is egg-shaped.

[Teknetinium]

Great with transparency, ED will get to a conclusion much faster like that. Appreciate that the ED show the graph you worked on. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Teknetinium

[tavarish palkovnik]

...

Edited April 23 by tavarish palkovnik

[BlackPixxel]

How comes that the Aim-54A variants have a CCM value of 0.3 in DCS? When the much newer R-27 and even R-77 have a default CCM of 1?

 

That seems out of proportion.

[Chizh]

2 минуты назад, BlackPixxel сказал:

How comes that the Aim-54A variants have a CCM value of 0.3 in DCS? When the much newer R-27 and even R-77 have a default CCM of 1?

 

That seems out of proportion.

I think it makes sense to ask questions about Phoenix to the creators.

[BlackPixxel]

1 minute ago, Chizh said:

I think it makes sense to ask questions about Phoenix to the creators.

 

But does it make sense that R-27 and R-77 have the same CCM, when R-77 is newer?

[Chizh]

8 минут назад, BlackPixxel сказал:

 

But does it make sense that R-27 and R-77 have the same CCM, when R-77 is newer?

Why do you think the CCM is the same?

[BlackPixxel]

Both have no value in the config, which makes me think they both have the default of 1.

[Chizh]

What parameter do you mean?

[GGTharos]

I think he means ccm_k0.