Ракеты в DCS

[F-2]

https://www.f15sim.com/files/F-15 Radar PSP.pdf
 

https://www.f15sim.com/files/F-15 Radar BIT Data.pdf

 

books on apg-63 signal processors 

 

book on n019 with relevant information on n001 as well

11411_[armyman.info].pdf

[PinkCube]

On 1/24/2023 at 10:56 AM, Chizh said:

Yes, of course. Currently, R-3S in the development in the DCS core. 

Excellent news

[tavarish palkovnik]

Нужна помощь/help needed
 

 

This I’ve found here when you discussed about AIM-7 few years ago.  Motor Mk58 was of my interest some years ago as well but I gave up quickly, however lately interest for motors of US origin is back. I thought while doing some work with motors of AIM-54 that I figure it out but now with return to AIM-7F, I’m not sure in anything anymore.

Question is, does anybody knows how exactly Americans present their numbers for thrust and impulse? It is some kind of weird converting to standard 69:1 but I can’t figure it out.

This table gives everything but…we have pressure rates, we have thrust values, we have nozzle geometry, we have conditions for given parameters (20000 ft and 70F) we have everything but simply these numbers can’t be linked together. 
Booster: 25577 N / 122 bar 

Sustainer: 4528 N / 20,8 bar

and throat diameter 38,56mm. All is here. F=Ct*p*A is indisputable but these numbers gives some insane values of thrust coefficients. It is 1,759 for boost and even more insane 1,864 for sustain stage !? For nozzle with expansion ratio 6,2 and estimated heat ratio k=1,2 maximal thrust coefficient in vacuum is something about 1,675 ->
 

 

How the hell they make this converting? If we take pressure figures as true, which looks like true, although sustained is a bit low when compared to motor of Osa 9M33 motor which is quite similar and if nozzle geometry is true what should not be in doubt, I’m getting way much different numbers.

For sea level, this input would give, what I like to call true numbers, 23130/3335N and these are without any reduction factor due to various process losses. At 20000 ft or 6100m that would be 23516/3721N

Total 121568 Ns (27331 lbs) and 127184 Ns (28594 lbs) what is nothing close to presented 32272 lbs. Or even worse when I see 36073 lbs
 

 

What could be a trick? Anybody knows, please.

Osa motor just for comparison, similar in size and burning time

 

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by tavarish palkovnik

[tavarish palkovnik]

By the way, could be coincidence or maybe not…sustaining stage and 20,8 bar of chamber pressure together with expansion ratio 6,2 for heat ratio 1,2 suggest pressure at nozzle exit of 47300 Pa (0,473 bar) what is ambient pressure at 6000 meters or 20000 ft

[tavarish palkovnik]

 

If I’m not wrong, and I hope I’m wrong  they present numbers as follows:

I will take motor Mk47 of AIM-54 as sample with it’s insane 97120 lbs of total impulse.

Average chamber pressure is 700 psi (48 bar) , nozzle expansion ratio is 18,5 and fuel weight is 375 lbf.

Cf in vacuum for k=1,2 and such nozzle is 1,8

Nozzle such sized with chamber average pressure 48 bar for full expansion looking for…48/X=18,5^1,2666*4,3591…exit ambient pressure of 0,2735 bar

Thrust coefficient for such conditions is 1,8-(18,5*0,2735)/(48)=1,695

Thrust coefficient for standard 69:1 conditions is 1,8-(18,5*1,013)/(69)=1,528

And theoretical delivered specific impulse for CTPB and nozzle with expansion ratio 18,5 and 1000/14,7 psi, with no losses, at sea level etc etc could be around 235s

 

 

This one is for ratio 20 but concept is understandable. 
So…235*1,695/1,528*375=97756 lbs and with burning time 25 seconds that makes 3910 lbf 

Sustainer of Mk58…Cp=1,675…pe=0,473bar…Ct=1,534…Ct=1,584…Isp (69:1) could be 245s

 

245*1,534/1,584*48,2=11436 lbs / 10,86 seconds = 1053 lbf

Booster…1,675…2,78…1,624…1,584…245*1,624/1,584*84,8=21300 lbs / 3,69 seconds = 5772 lbf

If this is true how they present numbers, then this is complete bull<profanity> which has nothing related whatsoever with true numbers, true values in altitude gradient

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by tavarish palkovnik

[tavarish palkovnik]

Except, it looks nice 

[H7142]

7 hours ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

 

If I’m not wrong, and I hope I’m wrong  they present numbers as follows:

I will take motor Mk47 of AIM-54 as sample with it’s insane 97120 lbs of total impulse.

Average chamber pressure is 700 psi (48 bar) , nozzle expansion ratio is 18,5 and fuel weight is 375 lbf.

Cf in vacuum for k=1,2 and such nozzle is 1,8

Nozzle such sized with chamber average pressure 48 bar for full expansion looking for…48/X=18,5^1,2666*4,3591…exit ambient pressure of 0,2735 bar

Thrust coefficient for such conditions is 1,8-(18,5*0,2735)/(48)=1,695

Thrust coefficient for standard 69:1 conditions is 1,8-(18,5*1,013)/(69)=1,528

And theoretical delivered specific impulse for CTPB and nozzle with expansion ratio 18,5 and 1000/14,1 psi, with no losses, at sea level etc etc could be around 230s

 

 

This one is for ratio 20 but concept is understandable. 
So…230*1,695/1,528*375=95675 lbs and with burning time 25 seconds that makes 3827 lbf 

Sustainer of Mk58…Cp=1,675…pe=0,473bar…Ct=1,534…Ct=1,584…Isp (69:1) could be 240s

 

240*1,534/1,584*48,2=11203 lbs / 10,86 seconds = 1032 lbf

Booster…1,675…2,78…1,624…1,584…240*1,624/1,584*84,8=20866 lbs / 3,69 seconds = 5655 lbf

If this is true how they present numbers, then this is complete bull<profanity> which has nothing related whatsoever with true numbers, true values in altitude gradient

 

 

 

The 97000lb-sec of total impulse is accurate per foia'd documents to the AIM-54 MK47 motor.

Edited October 21, 2023 by H7142

[tavarish palkovnik]

Yes right, it is documented just like 36073 lbs for Mk58 only those are unusable numbers

Here you can find some finals about Mk47 and Mk60, unfortunately most of previous text I made there is in mess now with deleted images

 

[H7142]

17 hours ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

Yes right, it is documented just like 36073 lbs for Mk58 only those are unusable numbers

Here you can find some finals about Mk47 and Mk60, unfortunately most of previous text I made there is in mess now with deleted images

 

I personally foia'd the doc this number came from the 97000lb-sec is correct. 

Edited October 22, 2023 by H7142

[tavarish palkovnik]

7 hours ago, H7142 said:

I personally foia'd the doc this number came from the 97000lb-sec is correct. 

 

And it is appreciated, but I'm not putting this number in doubt, here also it's stated same

 

 

I'm just trying to figure it out and to explain what is behind of these values and how to ''read'' it. While Phoenix's and Sparrow's numbers must be taken carefully, Sidewinder is with nozzle and pressure ratios such that this converted value is close to actual, unconverted, true value at sea level. Total impuls 13912 lbs / 5,2 = 2675 lbf what is very close to cca 2600 lbf what should be thrust at sea level. It is because nozzle with 5,5 ratio and pressure ratio close to 69:1 makes that

[BlackPixxel]

In the last update some IR missiles were adjusted, including R-13M1 and Aim-9P-5.

When launched under same conditions now, the R-13M1 (here incorrectly labeled as R-3) is reaching a lower top speed (even though impulse/weight according to the config are very close). And then it slows down much quicker than the Aim-9P-5. Being two almost identical looking missiles, that doesn't make much sense to me and indicate that the drag for one of those two missiles must be wrong.

 

Edited October 22, 2023 by BlackPixxel

[Chizh]

23 часа назад, BlackPixxel сказал:

In the last update some IR missiles were adjusted, including R-13M1 and Aim-9P-5.

When launched under same conditions now, the R-13M1 (here incorrectly labeled as R-3) is reaching a lower top speed (even though impulse/weight according to the config are very close). And then it slows down much quicker than the Aim-9P-5. Being two almost identical looking missiles, that doesn't make much sense to me and indicate that the drag for one of those two missiles must be wrong.

 

 

Yes, you are right. Will correct.

[=KAG=RubiN]

скажите, вы как-то правили "Берёзу"? Ситуация - я на Су-27, в меня стреляет кто-то 120кой, далеко, километров с 50. ПОтом в меня стреляет Пэтриот, который намного ближе. Я не вижу что в меня летит Пэтриот, я на индикации вижу что в меня летит В-В и она далеко и явно не долетит. Что в меня летит Пэтриот и он вот-вот попадёт - я не ощущаю, ибо "Береза" отдаёт приоритет 120ке. Так теперь работает?

[H7142]

9 hours ago, =KAG=RubiN said:

скажите, вы как-то правили "Берёзу"? Ситуация - я на Су-27, в меня стреляет кто-то 120кой, далеко, километров с 50. ПОтом в меня стреляет Пэтриот, который намного ближе. Я не вижу что в меня летит Пэтриот, я на индикации вижу что в меня летит В-В и она далеко и явно не долетит. Что в меня летит Пэтриот и он вот-вот попадёт - я не ощущаю, ибо "Береза" отдаёт приоритет 120ке. Так теперь работает?

-120 получил серьезную переработку в плане кинематики, в отличие от Пэтриота. Да, производительность Пэтриота значительно ниже, чем должна быть, потому что он все еще использует старый код управления ракетой. Единственная ЗРК, которая действительно претерпела изменения, это С-300.  ЗРК действительно требуют большой доработки, но это займет время, и сейчас основной акцент сделан на ракеты для авиации.

[Фагот]

6 часов назад, H7142 сказал:

-120 получил серьезную переработку в плане кинематики, в отличие от Пэтриота. Да, производительность Пэтриота значительно ниже, чем должна быть, потому что он все еще использует старый код управления ракетой. Единственная ЗРК, которая действительно претерпела изменения, это С-300.  ЗРК действительно требуют большой доработки, но это займет время, и сейчас основной акцент сделан на ракеты для авиации.

Вопрос был о совершенно другом. Тем не менее. Какие изменения, помимо новой модели, коснулись С-300? И если ещё улучшать - начнётся буйство, ибо тут уж не раз поднимали тему о "завышенной эффективности" ЗРК. Правда, не опираясь на фактаж.

[H7142]

5 hours ago, Фагот said:

Вопрос был о совершенно другом. Тем не менее. Какие изменения, помимо новой модели, коснулись С-300? И если ещё улучшать - начнётся буйство, ибо тут уж не раз поднимали тему о "завышенной эффективности" ЗРК. Правда, не опираясь на фактаж.

Статистика тяги и сопротивления С-300 была скорректирована для лучшего соответствия доступным данным летных графиков. Это стало значительным улучшением кинематических характеристик системы.  На сколько мне известно, это были единственные внесенные изменения.

[snaryad2]

Пострелял разным оружием по крылатым ракетам ACLM над морем
Су-33 стабильно все сбивает (ну это ожидаемо, он не дорабатывается)
F-16 Амраамы с правильных ракурсов в целом сбивают, AIM-9M уходят в молоко, но там пуск против Солнца, или я просто путаю тоны). При сопровождении круг ошибок пуска чуть дергается, это, видимо, колебание ЭПР
F-18 и F-14 AIM-7P при пуске в заднюю полусферу почти всегда не долетают, хотя расстояние 5 миль и цель между метками макс и мин дальности пуска
Сами ACLM ведут себя непонятно. Раньше летели всегда по прямой и с ровной скоростью. Сейчас они иногда разлетаются в разные стороны, оказываясь при этом на расстояниях более 10 км друг от друга. Один раз одна из ракет при ее преследовании плавно ушла вправо на 90 градусов

Если надо, могу еще поизучать это поведение, позаписывать треки

[Chizh]

21 минуту назад, snaryad2 сказал:

Сами ACLM ведут себя непонятно. Раньше летели всегда по прямой и с ровной скоростью. Сейчас они иногда разлетаются в разные стороны, оказываясь при этом на расстояниях более 10 км друг от друга. Один раз одна из ракет при ее преследовании плавно ушла вправо на 90 градусов

Если надо, могу еще поизучать это поведение, позаписывать треки

Проблема с нарезанием кругов крылатыми ракетами известна. Будем фиксить.

[snaryad2]

Продолжаю стрелять по ACLM. В этот раз AIM-7M. На удивление достаточно четко попадают. P продолжают часто мазать, хотя по идее должны лучше работать по низколетящим целям.
Еще замечена интересная штука, если на F-18 включить LOFT, то точка прицеливания уходит сильно вниз, хотя по идее должна идти вверх, типа ракету надо пустить вверх под углом.

[tavarish palkovnik]

Not related to anything, just to share here because this is place of people fancying rocket propulsion beside other things 

ATACMS rocket motor->

 

This should be configuration after all, instead of commonly presented sketches with some kind of radial slot on front side. This is full blood dual thrust concept necessary to achieve trajectory of this missile (if someone is interested in external ballistic of ATACMS we can about it as well).

Motor without nozzle construction is 912kg and inside should be something about 800kg of HTPB based propellant. Document says motor works 30 seconds and other document says it develops static thrust of 40000 lbf (178000 N) not specifying further details. This 9-slots finocyl indeed can gives such force and it could takes for about 3 seconds roughly after which thrust gradually in 4 to 5 seconds decrease to some 40000 N which will push rest of total time.

Normal motor, of normal configuration and with normal numbers behind. 

[H7142]

On 11/11/2023 at 9:13 AM, tavarish palkovnik said:

Not related to anything, just to share here because this is place of people fancying rocket propulsion beside other things 

ATACMS rocket motor->

 

This should be configuration after all, instead of commonly presented sketches with some kind of radial slot on front side. This is full blood dual thrust concept necessary to achieve trajectory of this missile (if someone is interested in external ballistic of ATACMS we can about it as well).

Motor without nozzle construction is 912kg and inside should be something about 800kg of HTPB based propellant. Document says motor works 30 seconds and other document says it develops static thrust of 40000 lbf (178000 N) not specifying further details. This 9-slots finocyl indeed can gives such force and it could takes for about 3 seconds roughly after which thrust gradually in 4 to 5 seconds decrease to some 40000 N which will push rest of total time.

Normal motor, of normal configuration and with normal numbers behind. 

Would be nice to have in game.  We need more weapons and units in general.

[tavarish palkovnik]

Link to the site with freshly published flight and combat MiG-25P manual, on English and allegedly for Iraqis dated back in 80’s. There are some basic data about R-40 as well, could be interesting

https://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2023/12/mig-25p-foxbat-flight-and-combat.html?m=1
 

In addition also pressure-to-time curve of Maverick’s motor. It is a bit different to usually circulating data on the internet, and with this pressure data and with known nozzle geometry, thrust-to-time can be easily determined 

 

[tavarish palkovnik]

HARM, AGM-88A…is there any solid data about motor, whichever? Length is 83,5” and propellant weight is 280lbs, that is what can be found. 
Also propellant components 

 

 

As well as some kind of maximal velocity as 1937ft/s (590m/s) but behind this number everything be hidden.

But is there anything about burn time or pressure rates, either in boost or sustainer?

 

 

This should be cross sectional view of HARM motor but confusing one. Two radial slots are understandable, booster grain with gradually toward nozzle expanding dog-bone also. But what about sustainer grain, longitudinal cross cut shows it as cylinder and radial as dog-bone as well !? Two configurations changing outcome in all ways. 
 

Without radial slots and with tubular sustainer it would looks similar to Mk-65 of AIM-7F but if sustainer is also dog-boned then this dual thrust motor is somewhat different

Edited December 14, 2023 by tavarish palkovnik

[tavarish palkovnik]

No, dog-bone should not be in sustainer, these two radial cross sections are more ''booster grain on sustainer side'' and ''booster grain on nozzle side'' as it looks like in longitudinal cut. Otherwise motor would explode becuase roughly calculated pressure would go in range of 300 bar. This could be normal motor after all

[tavarish palkovnik]

Any volunteer with 3D modelling skills, for work together on HARM motor?

 

 

It is kind of complex form for 2D taking burning surface measurements. 3D model would be very useful, step by step integration, initial surface-offset for calculated burning web-new surface-new offset etc etc...and several dozens time same activity  Of course if result will be awkward, everything from the beginning 

Roughly but really roughly this is form that is expected to be