The limits were increased in 1969 during the development process. (And seems like the missile went into production the same year)
The missile was declared operational in 1971/1972
This report is from 1973
The missile was completely functional with the 20g and 22 deg limits.
It was just later determined that the missile had some reliability problems.
No missile has 100% reliability IRL.
You’re misunderstanding the whole case.
The missile structurally could not sustain the full commanded 20g’s. What the guidance computer would try to pull is irrelevant, the missile could not do it. It was reduced to prevent it from even trying.
Just because the guidance controller tries to do something, does not mean the missile structure CAN do said thing.
This excerpt you posted literally stated that all missiles that failed had the same issue: they tried to pull too hard and broke up.
No
The missile could sustain 20G
That’s why only a fraction of the launches resulted in loss of control and breakup.
The fraction of the missiles that failed were all the missiles that had the common element of “terminal high g maneuver”
ie: they pulled to hard and could NOT sustain it
It isnt optimal to always pull max g’s, the missiles that did not fail clearly did not attempt to pull the full 20g single plane.
Your own sources prove clear as day the I-HAWK cannot pull 20G single plane. It is structuraly incapable of doing so
Where does it say that
That’s just on the list of many “potential fixes” suggested by the Ad Hoc group which was consulted to investigate the matter.
BTW, as I explained here, it does not seem like Sedjil was modified as per the suggestions of the Ad Hoc group, as the 1974 follow on report says that the “gapped wing configuration” has solved the elevon hinge moment potential cause of the problem, but Sedjil does not have gapped win configuration:
You’re right, “potential” reduction to 12g.
Doesnt change the fact that regardless of what change was eventually implemented, the Sedjil is in structural configuration of the I-HAWK that has a guidance computer with a 20g limit, but a structural limit that is very clearly below said level. The missile CANT pull 20g, but it could try (and fail).
Which means more so than anything that the Sedjil CANNOT pull 20g, as no fix for the high g loss of control/breakup was implemented lmao
At the end of the day, its up to gaijin to decide if they will choose to model the missiles max g limits based on the guidance computers theoretical attempted limits, or the missiles very real structural and aerodynamic limits. I’m curious to hear what the decision on that point will be @David_Bowie
The failure is not a guarantee. It has a chance of failure, like all missiles do (be it higher or lower).
It’s not like the missile went into production and service without testing it with the 20g and 22 deg limits.
The report itself makes it clear that the I-Hawk airframe is 20G capable:
“Terminal high G maneuver” doesn’t mean it tried pulling 20g and broke its wings.
It means the missile completely lost controlled flight (due to loss of roll control) and essentially went sideways.
The report states the wings have a negative factor of safety at 20g single plane commanded
And states “the change may have pushed a marginally safe design into a flight region where loss of control is statistically probable”
ie: Not all would fail, but most would.
“Terminal high G maneuver” means “it pulled a lot of g’s before attempted impact and subsequent failure”
You’re clearly selectively interpreting this document as favourably as you can, and not objectively. The missile was more likely than not to fail if it tried to pull 20g’s. All missiles that DID fail tried to pull a “high g maneuver” This actually doesnt even mean 20g’s btw, 20g’s is just the guidance controllers limit, it is entirely possible and even probable the missiles lost control before even hitting the 20g mark.
Says who
Where did you pull that from?
If you read the 1974 report you will understand that wing overload is not the cause of the problem.
The problem was a control problem …
Hence the suggested 20g & 26 deg AoA limits with the incorporation of ERCL (Elevon rate command limiter) “to fully utilize the IH airframe’s 20g capability”.
Plus, you can see that even with 12g limit the missile was still not 100% reliable (as no missile is):
Thats what “statistically probable” means…
Thats a blatant lie, you’ve once again selectively ignored other portions of the report, and even quoted the sentence wrong.
ERCL is “necessary but not sufficient”
Which is why the part you misquoted says “near-full”, not “full” like you’re pretending it says.
The 20g limit mentioned is likely combined plane btw:
12g ± 2g single plane, 19.8g combined plane with a factor of safety of 30% to account for overshoot
Its possible its meaning 20g single plane, but thats definitly not what I’m understanding to be the actual single plane capability of the missile in the Sedjil’s configuration.
The 20g limit mentioned is likely combined plane btw
Pretty sure MiG_23M already explained that before if you want to scroll up
I’ve had MiG_23M blocked for months, so I didnt see it. Point still stands the sedgil should not be capable of pulling 20g’s in-game. Tho Sudo_su’s point of “reliability not being a factor in WT” is technically true, if a missile has a statistically significant chance of catastrophic failure when attempting to pull a certain level of G’s, that imo falls out of the realm of a “reliability” issue, and into the “structural/design limits” category.
If a plane could hit M2.8, but had a “statistically significant” chance of blowing up trying to do so, itd be limited to a top speed at which it didnt blow up yanno?
At the end of the day tho, like I siad, thats up to gaijin. Imo the report very much reads as “the I-HAWK (and therefore the sedgil in its current config) cant pull the desired 20g’s (single plane) without a good chance of breaking apart, structural and guidance changes are required to allow it to pull the 20g design limit (combined plane) of the missile”
It was originally designed with 14G in mind, but later in 1969, the target g requirements were raised from 3g to 6g and consequently commanded g and AoA were increased to 20g and 22 deg (which is what the missile went into production and operational service with and stayed until at least 1974.
Then there is this part, (as one of many suggested potential fixes in the initial 1973 report) suggesting limiting “commanded G” to 12, “which is what the structure was designed to accommodate”
And we know that the 12/14G value is the single plane design limit of the wings.
Meaning the missile autopilot actually pulls its (20g) “commanded g” in single plane.
And:
I.e. the autopilot is not capable of dual plane maneuvering, thus it cannot equally distribute the load on both pairs of wings. So:
1- “When pitch and yaw are limited” (e.g. The autopilot is trying to pull 5G in one axis and 10G in another axis), the forces are not “being distributed equally on both sets of wings”.
1- Only when the autopilot is trying to pull max G in both axes (i.e. “When pitch and yaw are not limited”, i.e. When the autopilot is trying to pull 20G in pitch and 20G in yaw), the forces are “being distributed equally on both sets of wings”
You can’t really compare plane reliability with missile reliability.
Now granted, even a lot of planes and tanks had reliability problems and limitations IRL that they don’t have in the game.
But with missiles and bombs, reliability failures are even more common. (especially if we are talking late 1960s and early 1970s)
OK “near-full” …!
Yes, as I said, there were some other modifications as well.
The point was that it was mainly a control problem. And the fact that the 1974 report itself says that I-Hawk’s airframe is 20g capable.
BTW, seems like Sedjeel missiles both with and without gapped wing modification existed:
With gapped wing:
Without gapped wing:
You didn’t read the document, stop butting in.
However, would sometimes command full elevon deflection to pull towards a target and had insufficient roll control. This meant that pitch-yaw-roll coupling would cause the missile to tumble and breakup on occasion. These issues were due to them not conducting more extensive analysis of the wing and the aeroelastic effects. All of this is covered in the documentation that everyone seems to be misreading now.
That’s not true.
That’s also not true, did you even read?
You have read, and continue to discuss my comments with others in discord. What is the point of telling people you have me blocked still?
SMH i swar man people in these forums can not read. It literally says “pitch and yaw planes” which is dual plane. So yes it can pull 20 Gs in dual plane but not single plane.
That doesn’t mean anything.
Every missile is gonna have pitch and yaw planes.
Dual plane means that the autopilot can maintain X configuration towards target’s plane of motion and use both sets of wings for both yaw and pitch.
The fact that it says that the loads are not equally distributed on both sets of wings, means the autopilot is not maintaining an X configuration relative to the target’s plane of motion:
