Again, the grid fin doesn’t require equal AoA to planar for similar torquing moments on the missile.
If you’d stop pretending to misunderstand torque moment provided by the fins vs torque required from the servo it would.
No, you’re misleading. You already admitted you don’t understand how the grid fins improve accuracy and maneuvering performance at lower airspeeds and higher AoA.
You’re implying the planar fin has anywhere near the same torquing moment on the missile as the grid fin without having nearly equal drag is… interesting. The grid fin not only enhanced maneuverability with reduced size but allows for higher AoA, stability, accuracy, and less drag than the larger planar fin required to do not quite the same job.
… What?
How is it baseless, it’s data already discussed and provided in sources in this same thread.
It’s not relevant, I’ve pointed out how the response given is purposefully misleading. You realize that I’m not the one you must convince to a-historically nerf the missile right?
In real life rockets ramp up to correct thrust and then it ramps down as propellant goes empty. In-game it is an on/off switch and is often adjusted to ensure correct overall energy and time to target is met. As such, values change from that which was historical. Additionally, during motor burn missiles have less drag thanks to the aerodynamic cone of thrust behind them. To account for the reduction in drag they may simply raise thrust slightly since the drag value is static.
Overall, specific impulse may not match but deltaV should be similar.
Yes, these are both well-known issues with Gaijin’s modeling that they hack in order to compensate for. The point is that their initial pass at stats gives the missiles similar Isp so I do not expect them to significantly change their relative performance.
Right, the graphs show that very clearly.
The graphs Chartreuse is sighting give torque moment on the fin hinges/servos, not torque moment provided by the fins. Torque moment provided by the fins is a function of the Cl, and drag from providing that the Cl/Cd graphs. And the graphs clearly show that the grid fin provides more lift/missile torque at the same AoA, but more drag until a commanded Cl of 0.6-0.8 depending on mach, corresponding to 12-20 degrees fin AoA.
No, specific impulse measures the efficiency of the motor and propellant. It is a measure of how much thrust over time is produced based on the amount of propellant burnt. More thrust over more time with less propellant used is higher efficiency.
Currently AIM-120 and R-77 appear to be underperforming. Both match historical thrust figures, as such should probably get a ~15% improvement in thrust to account for reduction in drag during burn time. Additionally, the lofting is not very efficient and shouldn’t exist on the R-77. The R-77 should have similar current range but without lofting so it needs to be adjusted in drag as well.
I know exactly what it means lol but it is just very useless outside a limited sort of optimization problem where you want the maximum provided moment for the minimum cruise drag. But in reality missiles ofc actually care about their L/D through flight, and their absolute not relative Cd. If the fin provides lots of moment but high drag when it does this Kmax figure completely hides that, and similarly it hides if the missile provides higher moment but at the cost of higher drag.
Any aerodynamicist looking at this graph will tell you how well this or that aircraft flies. The graph shows how aerodynamically perfect it is. The torque generated by the lattice steering wheel is required less than by the monoplane
You’re soooo unbiased tossing around “aerodynamically perfect.” Also actually I shouldn’t have trusted your explanation, because it’s wrong. Kmax isn’t Clmax/Cdmin. It’s the maximum value of Cl/Cd for any AoA, the optimal lift coefficient. Which makes it more of a useful number(if you’re designing a bomber or something), but not the applicable number for a missile because the missile can’t choose an AoA to fly at to maintain its trajectory to minimize Cd, it must maintain a fixed amount of lift which means a varying Cl as it’s speed changes. So this single number isn’t what needs to be optimized.
I mean they are obviously wrong. Kmax is the maximum value of Cl/Cd across al AoA. Clmax is the maximum lift coefficent, normally right before a stall. CdMin is the minimum drag coeffient, normally 0 AoA. These are no the same AoA(duh) so Kmax = ClMax/CdMin is completely wrong.
Here, look at this graph. You can see CdMin and ClMax and they’re nowhere near each other. Cl/Cd isn’t graphed here, but it’s in the middle somewhere.
This is a drag polar graph, where you can see that KMax(point b) ClMax(point d) and CdMin(point a) are all different.
