Ракеты в DCS

[MA_VMF]

Предварительный расчет импровизированный Р-77-1.(зеленый) Красным наложил Аим-120 от ЕД

null

Любые совпадения с реальным прототипом случайны

Edited January 11 by MA_VMF

[TotenDead]

2 часа назад, MA_VMF сказал:

Предварительный расчет импровизированный Р-77-1.(зеленый) Красным наложил Аим-120 от ЕД

 

У 77 сопротивление меньше чем у 120? Сомнительное

[TotenDead]

В 09.01.2025 в 15:21, Chizh сказал:

 

У нас есть количественные данные о помехозащите только для Р-73. 

Возможно имеет смысл приравнять помехозащизенность 27Т к 73? По крайней мере до появления более точных данных. Все же ракеты делались в одно время в одной стране

[MA_VMF]

36 минут назад, TotenDead сказал:

У 77 сопротивление меньше чем у 120? Сомнительное

там же написано, предварительный. Потому что руль и корпус считались отдельно. Ну и сверхзвуковое сопротивление может быть реально ниже у решетчатой конструкции 

null

Edited January 11 by MA_VMF

[Chizh]

4 часа назад, TotenDead сказал:

Возможно имеет смысл приравнять помехозащизенность 27Т к 73? По крайней мере до появления более точных данных. Все же ракеты делались в одно время в одной стране

Сейчас так и есть

[Chizh]

4 часа назад, MA_VMF сказал:

там же написано, предварительный. Потому что руль и корпус считались отдельно. Ну и сверхзвуковое сопротивление может быть реально ниже у решетчатой конструкции 

null

Сопротивление решеток всегда выше

https://forums.balancer.ru/tech/forum/2017/01/t95285_5--flejm-ob-upravlenii-raketami.html

У решеток по сути одно важное преимущество, меньший шарнирный момент. Это когда нет возможности поставить мощный привод.

[MA_VMF]

2 минуты назад, Chizh сказал:

Сопротивление решеток всегда выше

Довольно спорно, зависит от формы руля. если взять прямую пластину то да у решетки явно выше . И решетки бывают разных конструкций, твой график вообще ни о чем не говорит. Какая решетка использована с каким относительным шагом, с какой относительной толщиной профиля и т.д 

[Chizh]

6 минут назад, MA_VMF сказал:

Довольно спорно, зависит от формы руля. если взять прямую пластину то да у решетки явно выше . И решетки бывают разных конструкций, твой график вообще ни о чем не говорит. Какая решетка использована с каким относительным шагом, с какой относительной толщиной профиля и т.д 

Я ссылку дал, почитай.

Да, можно оптимизировать решетку для какого-то маха по сопротивлению. Но другие параметры поедут. 

[MA_VMF]

1 минуту назад, Chizh сказал:

Я ссылку дал, почитай

Там ни слова о параметрах решетки 

А влияние очень даже большие 

null

[MA_VMF]

[MA_VMF]

График основан на CFD чела, без каких либо указаний 

Самое важное забыл, к какой площади он относил Силу сопротивления для расчета Cx

Edited January 11 by MA_VMF

[Chizh]

The reasons for the interest in lattice wing devices are its unique aerodynamic and structural characteristics, which offer, in comparison to the conventional monoplane surfaces, a combination of some benefits and drawbacks. The advantages are in particular (see e.g. [1]-[7], [16]): 1) the high aerodynamic effectiveness at low weight and volume; 2) well adjustable aerodynamic characteristics for wide ranges of Mach numbers and deflection angles; 3) enhanced yaw stability at high incidence angles and improved roll stability; 4) small hinge moments with minimal shift of the centre of pressure; 5) compact size and possibility to be folded down to the fuselage (Figure 1b) making the missile more compact and easier to store or transport. The biggest disadvantages of these wings are their relatively high drag levels at given lift characteristics as well as the weak stability at transonic speeds. The first one emerges because of the multi-plane construction of grid fins. The second disadvantage is due to the chocking of the cell flow in the transonic regime, which happens because of the typical rectangular form of each grid fin cell. These are serious disadvantages and can have a negative effect on realistic applications. If, for example, favourable aerodynamic effectiveness and yaw stability at high incidence angles are making lattice wings very attractive for high-speed agile missiles, the substandard wave drag is completely discrediting it in this situation. Therefore, the high speed applications of lattice wings are actually undisputed only as drag braking devices or stabilisers for control of bombs and dispensers or as control elements for very-short-range missiles where the high resistance certainly plays only a minor role. So, in the last years grid fins were implemented e.g. on the biggest non-nuclear Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb as well as on smaller high-precision Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM).

MP-AVT-135-35.pdf

[MA_VMF]

Вот мои исследования. Относительный шаг 1, относительная толщина профиля 0.02, Относительная высота 0.5. Сx0 отнесен к габаритной площади руля

Edited January 11 by MA_VMF

[FoxAlfa]

Can some one check tavarish palkovnik R-27ER vs DCS one? Unfortunately due a personal dipper wearing issue crawling around the house, I am not able

Edited January 11 by FoxAlfa

[MA_VMF]

9 минут назад, Chizh сказал:

The reasons for the interest in lattice wing devices are its unique aerodynamic and structural characteristics, which offer, in comparison to the conventional monoplane surfaces, a combination of some benefits and drawbacks. The advantages are in particular (see e.g. [1]-[7], [16]): 1) the high aerodynamic effectiveness at low weight and volume; 2) well adjustable aerodynamic characteristics for wide ranges of Mach numbers and deflection angles; 3) enhanced yaw stability at high incidence angles and improved roll stability; 4) small hinge moments with minimal shift of the centre of pressure; 5) compact size and possibility to be folded down to the fuselage (Figure 1b) making the missile more compact and easier to store or transport. The biggest disadvantages of these wings are their relatively high drag levels at given lift characteristics as well as the weak stability at transonic speeds. The first one emerges because of the multi-plane construction of grid fins. The second disadvantage is due to the chocking of the cell flow in the transonic regime, which happens because of the typical rectangular form of each grid fin cell. These are serious disadvantages and can have a negative effect on realistic applications. If, for example, favourable aerodynamic effectiveness and yaw stability at high incidence angles are making lattice wings very attractive for high-speed agile missiles, the substandard wave drag is completely discrediting it in this situation. Therefore, the high speed applications of lattice wings are actually undisputed only as drag braking devices or stabilisers for control of bombs and dispensers or as control elements for very-short-range missiles where the high resistance certainly plays only a minor role. So, in the last years grid fins were implemented e.g. on the biggest non-nuclear Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb as well as on smaller high-precision Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM).

MP-AVT-135-35.pdf 1.7 \u041c\u0411 · 0 загрузок

про околозвук и трансзвук согласен. Скачки заперты в решетке. 1.2М

 

 

[tavarish palkovnik]

21 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

Can some one check tavarish palkovnik R-27ER vs DCS one? Unfortunately due a personal dipper wearing issue, I am not able

Thanks @FoxAlfa for pushing it. If possible I would like to see three leveled flights at 10, 15 and 20km with launch velocity 600m/s. Seems we really read all those diagrams incorrectly 

 

 

Trajectories with dots are just leveled (straight, horizontal) flights, meaning N=1

Full lines are trajectories also leveled but with applied extra overload N=4. Seems all such Russian diagrams as standard, present velocities and distances vs time, where extra overload is added to missiles, something like 3G over 1G of target.

Can’t be just coincidence, several of those have same pattern 

Edited January 11 by tavarish palkovnik

[MA_VMF]

24 минуты назад, tavarish palkovnik сказал:

Full lines are trajectories also leveled but with applied extra overload N=4. Seems all such Russian diagrams as standard, present velocities and distances vs time, where extra overload is added to missiles, something like 3G over 1G of target.

As the Su-27 pilot wrote. The rocket should create an additional 3G at the end of the flight.

[tavarish palkovnik]

It has sense, it should have such reserve but when making programming of trajectories for me normal non-overloaded data (initial basis) should be used and then depending of situation, applying overload and braking data coming from initial basis.

I’m not sure is this what I wrote is understandable  I know what I wanted to say but when I read it even to me is confusing 

[tavarish palkovnik]

To explain what I wanted to say, and pictures are always the best way 

Now for sure, I think so, can be said that ЗВП are created in way that rocket’s calculated flights for creating zones are such to ensure one of criterium and that is demand for reserve of at least 3G in steering channels (запас перегрузки). Meaning…rockets in calculations are overloaded with these extra 3G. Simply, several rockets are all with same pattern 

This is just one of numberless cases, R-27ER with launching velocity 500m/s at altitudes from 5 to 20km with applied extra overload 3G but still in leveled and straight flight (calculation case, because straight leveled and extra overloaded flight is in contradiction with practical physics). Targets at same altitude and with same velocity

 

 

And this is enough to draw curve of ЗВП in maximal. 106,7km (20km) 105,2km (19km) … 37,7km (5km)

Rocket has velocity not less 500m/s (ППС пуск), it has reserved 3G, flight time is not more than 60sec 

But in reality if target flies straight and leveled, in direction to rocket, then rocket will not use those extra 3G

 

 

 

At 20km altitude, difference in final velocity and distance is significant for these two flights, and on first guess it could be concluded it actually makes big difference. I thought so, but when I put numbers in picture it is a bit different 

 

 

Red dots are точки встречи of calculated 3G extra overloaded rocket and green dots are for 1G straight leveled trajectories. 
Down under differential is with tendency of zeroing, up there some differential exists as expected but not so significant. Or it is, depending of perception. My numbers showed me that at 20km it could be hit at distance of 78,6km in 56 seconds vs hit at 76,7km in 60 seconds. Two kilometers and 4 seconds…hmm…sometimes it can save head on the neck but I think it is after all negligible in this case. In any case interesting in theoretical means…and in practical means, most probably these extra 3G will be used after all from some unexpected reason in these long 60 seconds 

[tavarish palkovnik]

Then also effect of minimal temperature should be included when making layouts of ЗВП. This what I’ve done is for normal temperature 

Russian documents were always fair and presented the worst possible cases…opposite to cowboys which always exaggerate theirs

Total impulse of R-27ER motor on minimal temperature decreases for some percentage (more than few), of course, compared to normal one…what has influence and ЗВП I’m sure were created for minus

 

 

Good example, ПТУР Конкурс 9М113 (9К111), max range 3000m because of -50 although it goes to 3700 at +50

[tavarish palkovnik]

 

[MA_VMF]

Т.е это диаграмма полностью правдива получается

с запасом +3G

Только скорость походу приборная,а то для истинной как то маловато. 1100км/ч приборной 501 м/с и получаем 65км

Edited January 15 by MA_VMF

[tavarish palkovnik]

Also one for R-27R

 

 

Same principles as for R-27ER of course 

[FoxAlfa]

7 hours ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

Also one for R-27R

 

 

Same principles as for R-27ER of course 

Can we get this for fighter speed 900 kmh and target speed 700 kmh... since know ТР charts are for those speeds? And 1100 kmh and 900 kmh target? 

[tavarish palkovnik]

Of course