No. Here is what happened.
You derailed the topic with your dogshit argument with Ziggy.
You made some patently incorrect physics statements in your argument with Ziggy.
I pointed out how these statements were incorrect.
Instead of taking it on the chin and accepting you were wrong, you’ve gone on a crusade trying to make it seem like it is me misconstruing your argument.
I’m not misconstruing anything. Your statements were wrong regardless of context, and paradoxically what I was saying was actually reinforcing your point, which if you actually had a proper grasp of the topic you would have realised.
You’ve also DM’ed me with the same rubbish. No matter how many times I tell you I do not care about your off-topic ramblings with Ziggy, you keep bringing it up as if it absolves your stupidity.
You made a wrong statement. I corrected you. End of story.
I’m not asking you to thank me for physics tutoring.
I’m not even asking you to admit you were wrong, because I know that’s beyond you.
I’m asking you to stop trying to drag me into your petulant argument. Holy shit.
But instead you just double down on the stupidity, as is tradition.
Riddle me this - how does a missile without thrust vectoring guide itself to the target? Thoughts and prayers?
Because you replied me to me? Are you thick? That comment was directed at mig23m, although I guess even that was beyond your reading comprehension.
How does the missile make sure it’s thrust is pointed in the right direction?..
It was a stack exchange discussion, although it doesn’t surprise me you’re not familiar with it.
I’ll quote the key points for you, as I’m guessing the equations are too much.
The drag will increase with the square of the mass increase. The gradient of that increase depends on the span loading of the aircraft.
Drag is compensated by thrust, so you need more thrust to overcome the higher drag.
You clung to an obvious exaggeration. Had I actually used that in my argument it would have furthered my point. You’re blaming me for derailing, but you’re still here and now you’re unprofessionally slinging insults. No need to continue this discussion further because even in DM’s you want to ignore this initial preface to my original point. I’ve yet to get a response from Ziggy on btw, he’s provided zero evidence to support his opinion that the R-27 overperforms.
To tie that in with the thread, no SARH in game is useful when the target is skimming. They just miss. AIM-9L’s are legitimately good missiles, but they aren’t going to net you as many kills early in the game and are often decoyed. This is fine, but it often yields less kills per death. A patient and more skilled player will certainly be capable of winning any game he goes into with the F-16A. Relying on missiles is a negative attribute towards an aircraft imo. The F-16A is one of those aircraft that (while lacking missiles) does extremely well without them. The fact that I can do above average in it shows that the title is just a satire pre-determined statement that implies something that just isn’t true.
You directly quoted me, then gave a backhanded comment while sharing a pointless thread on a discussion that is as far from the topic as us to farfarout
It’s called irony, mate. Catch on.
By control surfaces? What does that have to do with mass apart from directional slew rates and aerodynamic slip?
Oh, and probably because the motors are pointed backwards? You know, equal / opposite reaction shit?
Aw, cute. Is the sister-site to Quora supposed to be proof of something?
This is the primary point of this entire post. An equation for the lift and induced drag on the topic of passenger airliners.
You know the one variable noted, right? One of said passenger airliners would be approximately 12-16 tonnes heavier
Can you tell me where lift-induced drag is applicable to AAM performance?
Oh, sorry, I forgot. There isn’t a single supercritical airfoil to be found on an AAM.
Did you forget what the word Gradient means? Do you know how said gradience is applicable in ANY sort of way to an AAM?
Let alone an aircraft that already achieves negative AOA in horizontal flight.
Where did you saw the quote of “drag increase with the square of the mass increase”, drag is depent on the speed and the crossection and its geometry, mass doesnt chage drag at all
I quoted mig23m for that darling. Your reading comprehension is even worse that I thought.
Apparently you’re too stupid to get it, so I’ll cross the dots for you.
Missile flies through the air with the motor burning. Some of the thrust is required to keep it flying otherwise it would fall out of the sky on a parabolic arc.
The more mass the missile has, the more thrust is required to keep it following the same flight path.
Is that simple enough yet?
Read the link posted further up. It was a direct quote from it.
there isnt much to read, the formula stated on the page doesnt show the mass anywhere, the only thing that mass can change is the kinematics, for example a heavier object with the same drag and the same initial velocity will have a better ballistics but mass doesnt affect the drag
So it seems you don’t understand how either planes or missiles work.
Furthermore, even then a heavier missile with the same thrust is going to be pulling more AoA to compensate for the additional weight. This means less forwards thrust for the missile, and consequently less speed. More AoA also means more cross-sectional area and more drag, regardless of whether you rely on aerodynamic lift or not.
I was unaware different laws of physics applied to passenger airliners.
OK?
I don’t think you know what it means, given what you wrote afterwards.
Moving past the raw ignorance of this statement, do you have a counter equation or something? Or you’re just saying it’s wrong and that different physics apply to missiles?
Seems I overestimated the level of education you get at highschool in the US. Dark.
Finally, when looking at the potential strength of wing tip vortices, all this theory on induced drag must be moderated by the effect of aircraft weight. Induced drag will always increase with aircraft weight.
seems like arrogance levels is also induced by your education, neither drag or lift chage when the the weight of an solid increase, the fact that you need to increase the angle of attack is to the is an statement that lift doesnt varies by the mass, because the wheight is higher than the lift that the solid produces.
In this formula the guy he forced the lift force to equal to the wheight, but that force is still generated by the lift coheficient, the velocity squared and the surface area, not by the weight.
Also the chage on the angle of attack is an input that you aply to the system, so if you dont change the angle of attack the drag would keep being the same, which makes the mass independent to the drag, in this scenario what you will have is negative vertical acceleration.
Also known as falling. So not remaining at constant altitude. I’m failing to see your point. You literally just agreed with me. For two identical planes with different weights to fly at the same speed at the same altitude, one of them must have higher AoA, and therefore more drag. That’s literally the point.
If it helps you, think of it like this. Something that is heavier takes more energy to turn/manoeuvre. Flying at constant altitude and speed is the equivalent of constantly pulling slightly less than 1G, depending on your velocity and altitude.
My point is with your claim that drag is dependent with the mass, which it isnt as you need a conditional, in this case maintaining the altitude, if mass was actually dependent to drag, it would change the drag in any circumstances, like a change of angle of attack, a change in cross section does or a change of geometry does.
Congrats? Want a cookie? I’ve been doing the same, lying in bed. And yet I can still comb through your useless link and point out the dissimilitude of it.
I mean… It doesn’t. It’s entirely up to aerodynamic design, and there are no drawbacks when it comes to weight. It’s entirely in the airfoil design of the aircraft, as well as power output to be able to achieve said speed.
I mean… Putting it that way makes sense, though in the sense of “top speed” that you previously mentioned it makes no difference how heavy an object is.
That’s from an arbitrary link with little to no connection to the topic, as said.
If we’re going off of the topic that you just defined, it’s still pointless. You yourself said “500kg” as a general demonstration, then refer to a site that deals with a 16 tonne discrepancy. If we’re still talking high speed aircraft, that’s nearly double the weight of a MiG-31.
But yes, weight has nothing to do with drag. The aerodynamic capabilities do. I can build an aircraft with the same wingtip airfoil as its root, and it will have multitudes more drag than an aircraft that is about 40-50% heavier with properly abading airfoils.
Believe me, my entire career has gone into it.
As I’ve said. Top speed still makes no difference, and its acceleration / top speed is not reduced due to drag. The primary diminishing force is gravity, not drag, which in that instance works to reduce the forwards force of the missile.
If we’re talking planes, then yes, this will marginally affect the AoA. Though no – drag is not the reason for the reduced acceleration, and the maximum airspeed will still be the same despite the reduced thrust to weight.
You seem to be unaware that we are not talking about 42 tonne aircraft, nor comparing them to 56 tonne aircraft.
So… The argument of induced drag is useless. Only parasitic drag makes a difference, in which weight is not a factor.
You don’t seem to understand that your quote was directly mentioning parasitic drag and its increased based on an ARBITRARY NUMBER TO THAT TOPIC, LET ALONE OBJECTS WHICH DO NOT USE AIRFOILS TO GENERATE LIFT.
A counter equation for what? Am I suddenly needing to dissect and disprove an equation which is non-applicable to the topic? If you want me to strike out the variables that are not needed in that equation, we can remove the lift-curve-slope, the span coefficient, and… You know what, why don’t we just start with an equation for parasitic drag?
We wouldn’t need to account for any parasitic drag, and any induced drag due to inclination has a marginal decrease in the +1 → +4 AoA realm when your chord = 0. I doubt you want to wait a week for me to post, so I’ll add it in an edit when FOAM is running again, but an increase in weight to the extent of ~100kg will not cause anywhere near that >4dg skew needed to see even close to a doubled drag figure. With said neutral chord, you’d need around 6-7dg AoA to see an increase in drag to the degree of a multiplicand of 2.
Hey… Uhm… Can you tell me where said “airfoil” comes into play? I don’t quite see what this has to do with weapons that don’t produce lift by any contemporary means.
No! lol a high school diploma is sufficient. Studies show that it’s just the newest generation of graduates are far less educated these days.
Reading comprehension is nonexistent and literally defeat their own arguments in the same exact comment. It’s insanely funny. Then they want you to spend your whole evening after work explaining it to them in which they will run off on seven different topics completely forgetting the initial lesson!
