My mistake, I was sure it did. Thank fors the correction.
Correcting the tests how? On what basis? If there is a way to represent higher drag that actually behaves as such, what is it?
I’m not home to record further testing but next week I can delve further into it. The point of the R-77 thread and threads like these is for us to discuss the performance of these missiles.
I’ll even share how to do the custom missile files, make missions in the CDK, etc if others want to verify my testing or critique things. Primarily it comes down to finding the right info in sources.
Np i wasn’t sure either, just heard of It on a forum.
1 Like
I mean you say you got similar results after that correction, so your results are still nonsensical.
1 Like
Are you trying to say that the missiles achieving higher than expected performance = nonsensical because it doesn’t agree with your personal disposition on how it should perform?
I’ve been asking people to do their own testing and confirm this stuff. No one wants to do anything but cry wolf instead.
Thats possible, but it clearly states here that the M and F do NOT have initial flight damped guidance.
Which may have been true at that time. What was the date of the document?
Are you dense?
This is my complaint. I linked quite explicitly the issue, that the time of flight has a 1% change for a 30% change in what is supposed to be a drag coefficient. It’s not anything about higher or lower than expected, it’s that the change in testing parameters produced a result that doesn’t make any sense.
1 Like
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1047575981566738432/1174792195182698607/image.png?ex=6568e17d&is=65566c7d&hm=18c03989dacd42ef9eed24833371b7d9438638ed9141e664742bf1659b4fd948&
http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf
AIM-120C drag will be lower than AIM-120A/B due to reduced fin size and longer frame
You’re not reading what I said.
75 km for the AIM-120A. Pedantic I know but hey.
This is the source BTW, approved for public release.
1 Like
Like the third time it’s been posted this month lol, we still don’t know the launch parameters. What we know is that the Harrier shows a max DLR for AMRAAM of around 40nm from their manual as well. Would indicate it’s from subsonic launch.
1 Like
That’s not a response. If your suggestion is that my take on how drag should impact the missile is wrong, I can lay that out in more detail than I already have- given the missile is losing at least half or likely more of its velocity at this point(compare R-27ER), we can say that the impact on distance travelled over a fixed flight time is at least half that of the magnitude of the drag coefficient change(it’s equivalent at zero remaining velocity and scales to zero if the remaining velocity is zero).
If we convert this into the time taken to a fixed range, the impact should actually be disproportionately larger than the change in drag coefficient. With linear drag(wrong, but simplifying) a projectile that loses half its velocity to a fixed distance will take almost twice as long to reach the same distance if deceleration is increased by 30%. Intuitively this should make sense as the projectile’s time of flight will rapidly increase as it nears max range, so reducing max range will increase the time of flight to a greater degree than the change.
3 Likes
Regardless of whether or not you believe it, we’ll see how it performs in-game. If you want to do your own testing feel free.
Would it not be Fair to assume similar launch conditions to the AIM-7F’s SMC? Wich would make the range given at 40,000ft and a closure rate of Mach 4.
I don’t think that’s fair. As stated, the closure rate closer to mach 2 or 3 shows a maximum DLR of 40nm from the harrier manual. Testing in-game using correct thrust, weight, propellant mass, etc seems to coincide with that testing of ~74km range with 2 mach closure.
Unlikely. British reports put the maximum range of AMRAAM at 60 nm head on (that is likely with both aircraft at Mach 2 - going off the known performance of Skyflash SuperTEMP).
6 Likes
Interesting!
It’s indeed a good comparaison point for estimating early AMRAAM range.
If i get enought info about the ASF, i’m going to put it inside the main post!
It shares the same body and kinematics as the regular Skyflash SuperTEMP but has an active seeker rigth?
Do you also know if the missile loft ?
2 Likes