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?
2 Likes
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:
It states that when pitch and yaw are limited (lowering AoA of fins from 22 to 15), the autopilot selects “+” axis for maneuver towards target vector rather than “X” axis. Previously, when pitching with full elevon deflection (in either pitch or yaw), it left no trim left for sufficient roll control.
… you didn’t read though, apparently.
1 Like
Gave it some more thought and I think you might be right, majority of the report is discussing single plane, so not sure why that 20g stated would be combined plane. That being said, the Sedjeel in its ingame configuration would still be in the config that is statistically likely to fail if trying to pull more than its initially designed g-load, which i still consider to be beyond a “reliability issue” and as such should be limited to original design constraints.
Not to mention that the F-14AM is a massive balancing issue, and would make a lot more sense if its LRAAM’s were modelled on the lower end of their potential max G-pull, seeing as in its current state, or its current dev server state, the F-14AM should be thrown up to 13.0 MINIMUM, if not 13.3. Gaijin should have never added this plane to the game. It was shear stupidity.
I actually did. Amazing right?
Your statement makes it quite clear that you did not understand it, or did not take the time to actually read it.
The missile was fully functional, there were even suggestions to further increase AoA to 26° and some simple modifications rather than software change to future lots could have resolved the issue.
This isn’t a reliability problem, it’s just a suggestion to improve it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s still more reliable than the Sparrow or R-27 and yet those are in-game functioning 100% of the time … that’s because reliability is not a game feature.
The better way to balance it is to give the ordnance its’ real world limits (20G, 15-22° AoA) and balance it like all other aircraft in-game. By efficiency.
Seems like Sedjeel missiles both with and without gapped wing modification existed:
I.e. Fixes were also made to the Sedjil to remedy any reliability issues stemming from this.
Curiously, the pictures with gapped wing modification seems to be all / mostly when mounted on a plane, whereas the pictures without gapped wing modification are all / mostly with static display missiles.
“Initial design g-load” and “original design constraints” are irrelevant.
The project requirements were changed during development and it was finalized and went into production and service with these new parameters.
The “original design constraints” merely existed on paper or very early prototypes …
If anything it’s quite likely that ultimately, if things turned out as planned by the 1974 report, the missile was ultimately changed to 20g & 26 deg AoA with incorporation of ERCL and gapped wings.
I find it quite unlikely that the missile would constantly switch between X and + configurations depending on how much G/AoA it is pulling.
For one, there would be no reason to do so … If it has an autopilot capable of maintaining the X configuration relative to the target’s plane of motion, why would it ever leave the X configuration and switch to + whenever it’s not pulling max G/AoA?
I think what it means is that “when pitch and yaw are limited”, i.e. when it’s not pulling max G/AoA, “the load is not being distributed equally on both sets of wings”, not because it intentionally is using the + configuration, but rather because it doesn’t have the ability to maintain the X configuration.
When the autopilot is applying max pitch and yaw commands (i.e. Pitch and yaw is not limited) then it doesn’t really matter what configuration the missile is relative to the target, since it’s applying max elevons (minus a little bit of “reserve” that is supposed to be left for roll stabilization) … So obviously the load is going to be equally distributed on both sets of wings (as both sets of wings are going to be at their max load, at least as long as the missile hasn’t departed controlled flight) …
The missile autopilot will select which axis is closest to the target or switch to X if needed to allow high roll rates without instabilities, the elevons simply needed limiting so as to leave sufficient remaining tolerance for roll control.
Because to pitch with full force in a direction (it being AoA limited) it would need to use all elevons as opposed to two. In “+” configuration, provided AoA is not a limiting factor, the other two elevons can be used for yaw and roll control.
Using a combined guidance methodology will suit a missile far better than limiting it to one mode with drawbacks.
im iranian, almost nothing new has been added to the iranian f-14, so its the f-14a
radar, avionics, engines and other systems are the same with f-14a,
I’m American, the Iranian F-14AM is upgraded in all the ways actual sources have said it is. It’s known as the F-14AM when these upgrades are applied.
2 Likes
no upgrade has been spotted by me yet lol its very hard for mullah regime to upgrade this modern jet
thats why they want su-35 so bad
Of course we are all human and we all have our own political views, but the discussion here is from a purely technical perspective, rather than a political one.
It’s hard to imagine that the original AWG-9s are still functional with the original components.
Radars, especially radars of that era have relatively short MTBF.
So obviously many faulty components had to be replaced over the years.
And many of the original components are simply no longer available as they are long obsolete.
So obviously they would be replaced with modern electronics.
Those changes, and a shift towards modern digital electronics (software-based and otherwise), would likely result in increased performance in some areas.
We have seen an example of this for AGM-65A:
Spoiler
And the technology for making both ground based and airborne radars as well as radar seekers seem to exist in Iran.
(Again, regardless of the political views that one might have … You can hate North Korea, but that won’t make their nuclear weapons and ICBMs disappear)
Examples of radar seekers:
Examples of airborne radar:
Bayyenat radar for F-4E:
And Absar SAR radar which is allegedly intended for drones:
Ground based radars are more diverse, and include AESA/PESA variants:
Of course they use a lot of Chinese and Russian components, but the point is that the technology is available to them.
1 Like
New bug report:
Sedjil incorrect dimensions and weight and battery life:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HszowEu5JCis
According to TM 9-1410-530-14 the I-Hawk missile which is what the Sedjil essentially is has the following dimensions and weight:
Length: 503.3 cm / 198 in (In the game 425 cm)
Diameter: 35.6 cm / 14 in (In the game 37.0 cm)
Weight: 637.8 kg / 1406 lbs (In the game 625 kg)
Wing span (not sure if relevant in the game, but there is a “wingAreaMult”: 1.4 in the missile’s config file in the game): 120.4 cm / 47.4 in
Battery life: Greater than 110 seconds at full-load (In the game 105 s)
Also @InterFleet @David_Bowie regarding the length of the Fakour-90 I added more evidence to this report:
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/62aqRWP8TtYp?comment=YTZfgobj8s3fFCaSkVx2vCnw
Direct measurement on the Fakour-90 images using the known 356mm diameter gives a length of around 4 meters (According to the official export brochure of AD-40A which is the export variant of the Fakour-90 without the inner booster grain/pour of the propellant, the length should be around 3960mm which is the same length as AIM-54):
@Pacifica sorry for ping, political discourse needs cleaned up here before they get my thread closed.
3 Likes