Note that in the provided excerpt(s) “Figure. 6d”, there is practically no acceleration registered in the horizontal (aka. quadrature) component during steady state flight over a rotation(“Figure. 6b”). As such the average acceleration is the “maximum” value once the steady state is achieved post launch across many rotations, as is evident in rotations occurring between 0.4~0.9 seconds (“Figure. 6c”).
As such the value for “lateral acceleration” seen in documentation can be very well assumed to be either maximum or average acceleration as it evidently would not make a difference for the FIM-92 if it was modeled faithfully.
Where as with the Redeye / Igla there is a significant quantity(“Fx”), only that over any particular rotation (assuming that the roll rate remain constant over time, which it doesn’t IRL) the net lift is canceled completely. and that the average value for “Fz” is very much not the maximum observed lift.
If I wanted that I’d point out the fact that The Stinger (FIM-92B and later variants, which use the POST seeker) missed out on the “Optical Contrast lock” mechanic, arbitrarily (Type 93 and Strela received it). Even though it is well known that it uses a dual band(IR / UV) seeker. Simply because the UV band is not in the “visual spectrum” of light.
Which again has been reported in the following report
Or that the ATAL (Rail used to mount ATAS missiles) is limited to the basic Stinger arbitrarily because we can’t prove that any particular airframe carried which missile even though We’ve got primary documentation stating that the ATAL can mount the -92C or -92E, and that the AH-64E(V)6 (among other mainline AH-64 variants, and assorted US airframes), can mount the ATAL rail.
I’m still waiting for Japanese CAS aircraft. For example, the Ki-51/71, the Japanese equivalent of the IL-2, or the A6M7, the equivalent of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 F-8, or the Ki-93, the equivalent of the T18B (57). Does Gajin seriously believe that the Japanese are incapable of building such aircraft? After 70 years, is the American propaganda that the Japanese only build aircraft under license and are incapable of making their own aircraft in the Gajin universe still relevant?
That’s probably the road we are heading down right now. I don’t see a reason why Gaijin wouldn’t do so. They have shown a clear reluctance to back track on badly timed additions.
You get a KH38MT, you get a KH38MT, YOU ALL GET A KH38!!!
Mr. @Smin1080p_WT , when will the Ki-48 be added to the tech tree? Blocking the Ki-48 as a single experimental aircraft as an event vehicle is unfair. Approximately 2,000 Kawasaki Ki-48 aircraft of four main variants (Ki-48-I, Ki-48-II Ko, Ki-48-II Otsu, Ki-48-II Hei) were built.
I think you’re misreading this part, when the line is flat in “Figure. 6c” the missile is no longer turning and is pointed upwards and is boosted by the rocket engine which provides the vertical acceleration. If you look at “Figure. 6f” you see the corresponding wing incidence during the measured flight and you can see that the wings are periodically deflected in time with the missiles rotation until around 0.3-0.4 seconds in at which point they “dither” to stabilize the flight path, once the wings are no longer actively deflecting the vertical acceleration stabilizes and flattens out.
The g-load experienced from “turning” should instead be read from the “CONTROL PANE PITCH RATE” graph ( “Figure. 6e” ). So i still think my description is more accurate at this point in time.
(Unless i’m very tired and completely misreading this paper, i’ve been reading and analysing papers all week for a university assignment…)
