These are all computer simulation data and can only be used for general reference. Even so, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to refer to the more optimistic set of figures.
that chart is very confusing ngl, could be a language barrier tho
Man the pl15 is so pretty 😍
Maybe this AI-translated image is easier for you to understand?
Honestly, modern AI images are so realistic they’re almost indistinguishable from real ones…
was the condition 1 or 2 mentioned in any part of the post?
Nop. The original post only explains the working principle of a dual-pulse engine. What I mean is simply that this academic chart showing the 145 km range of the PL-15E happens to be included in the post as one of the source references.This is only part of the paper; it contains more data, but I couldn’t find the full image.
I’ve found the original paper. Judging from the simulated missile parameters, it appears to adopt the airframe data of the AIM-120, and applying the 170 kN·s total impulse and 72 kg propellant mass of the PL-12A engine.
Calculated under the parameters of Condition 1, it indeed yields an impressively high missile terminal speed of Mach 2.47, slightly lower than the 939 m/s (Mach 2.75) given in the paper.
1 Like
ah, that explains why it’s performing that way, the initial mass is also too light
1 Like
so i got a banger idea.
this was posted by the AVIC weibo account:
as you can see those are PL-12´s with their frontal wings removed, for unknown reasons (shouldnt be for testing as they test on dualpylons so the pilot can see the missiles).
So since so many are not satisfied with the pull of the missile, i think we should change the visual model to this, to fit the perceived pull.
3 Likes
Are you sure this ain’t just a new missile. The tail fins looks different, might just be angle.
its 100% a pl-12, if we look at the fins (tho the head looks weird cause of perspective/lighting)
Spoiler
and if we compare to a equally grainy pic they are the same fins
tbh it had me and a few other confused too, our first go to was the PL-17 but that is way too big, then PL-15 but the rear fins dont match neither does it have frontal fins, then we thought maybe PL-16 but that should have different rear fins afaik and hasnt been seen. And the PL-12 rear fins perfectly match.
No idea why they would take off the frontal fins tho.
the LD-10 is just a PL-12 but as an ARM (the cone isnt that much different if there is any difference at all)
They have different seekers, the LD10’s seeker is slightly wider than the main part of the rocket
the PLA doesnt use the LD-10 anyway (i am of the opnion that in both cases it is the lighting and the Perspective, that makes the seeker look bigger)
maybe its a training unit?
would be blue
it could be part of creating a further improved pl12 for export? internal component proportions, if those black strips are any indicator, seem changed somewhat. though, i’m doubtful whether this’ anything of substance so far. it could for all we know be a one-off whacky test design based on an existing airframe for cost-saving
would’ve been cool if the photo was higher resolution or maybe more zoomed in:)
Yep, they only changed the text on stats card, nothing about real performance was changed XD
1 Like
Truly a Gaijin classic.