What’s wrong with the speed and motor?
1 Like
The top speed is much too high… V-Launch will demonstrate this easily. This is because the motor is too large.
What if I told you the speed and motor may be underperforming according to a primary source contrary to what you said?
Then I would love to see this information in relation to my own report.
Your report here states that the delta v of the motor of MICA is 750m/s. [DEV] - Mica Incorrectly Modelled // Gaijin.net // Issues
With drag and etc, the speed is lower. This is wrong, I will say that the burntime is correct though from your other report of 3.5-4.0 seconds.
However, according to a NATO source, in which there’s 11 pages on the MICA’s motor alone, it states that the MICA itself accelerates up to 1,000m/s in 3.5 seconds. So the motor alone must be greater delta-v than 1,000m/s in order for this to be achieved.
Spoiler
1 Like
So it is possible that the delta v of the current MICA is underperforming, while the burntime should be shorter. This would give the MICA a much higher acceleration/speed than it currently does now.
Does anyone have any actual proof its drag is too high, or have ppl once again made the idiotic mistake of looking at the drag multiplier in the code, comparing it to another missile with a different diameter, seeing a bigger number, and decided that the drag is higher because its a simplistic explanation that fits their world view?
The MICA ingame has a bad loft profile and a very high speed, both things that impact drag negatively, I’ve yet to actually see anyone prove it actually has “too much”, they just keep repeating it without any real evidence afaik.
1 Like
The calibre is wrong… it’s 165 in game not 160.
The coefficient is determined by the shape of the missile as well as the surface area. I guess Gaijin has standard values for different missiles for the shape. What is definitely underperforming tho is the surface area since the diameter is wrong. I the missile indeed has a shorter burn (meaning faster acceleration), then its range would be impacted negatively compared to the current MICA, all other parameters being the same, since the missile would experience more overall drag, being faster
1 Like
I mean, sure, but drag is calibrated via the diameter and the drag multiplier anyways, so its possible they decrease the diameter and increase the drag multiplier anyways to keep the drag the same
Ive seen ppl argue that both the diameter and multiplier should be dropped, but with no actual proof that the actual imparted drag on the missile is “too high”
Its total dV is already over 1000m/s at 10km alt, its actually still 900m/s down at 3km alt, which is absolutely insane.
Spoiler
3km alt:
10km alt:
Its dV at 3km alt (~900m/s) is higher than the dV of the AIM-120A/B at 10km alt (~830m/s) for example.
You could argue it doesnt achieve its dV fast enough (~6.77s currently vs 3.5s per your source) but that would likely actually hurt its range even more in-game, which I know is a major sticking point for you already.
1 Like
As always… you have misunderstood the situation and me completely, I am very happy with today’s developments.
Twas a misunderstanding, its the 1100m/s value in game that this 1000m/s actual value should be compared too.
Set the drag to 0.01 on my model to try simulate some sort of imperfect vacuum
In order for it to achieve 1000m/s in this very unperfectly modelled vacuum, the engine would need to burn at 27.7 KN for 3.5s
If the hard limit of 50km is removed, the diameter fixed to 160mm and the Cx in game ujntouched at 1.65, the missile can achieve 80km in less than 120s assuming a shot at 11000m and 1600 kph
It was a misunderstanding again on my part. I have gone to my original position. The missile must accelerate to 1,000m/s in under 3.5 seconds.
Not necessarily. Its overall range can be even improved or kept the same using sources from its vertical launch peformances while improving its time-to-target performance.
Aaaanyway
- MICA having at least a DV of 1000m/s in 3.5s
- Mistral 3 going to 930m/s in 2.2s
- Aster-30 going 1400 m/s in 3.5s as well
There’s some sort of pattern when it comes to french missiles it would seem X)
3 Likes
Yes, note the burn time might be lower than 3.5s, closer to 3.2s based on the diagram.
This would be 28kN at 3.2s to get a ≈1000m/s dV. However we have a debate on whether the phrase refers to a deltaV or the velocity increasing by 1000m/s.
1 Like
for now i’ll go with the conservative option of Delta V, that’s why i said at least
Mistral 3 isn’t Validated yet by DGA,… maybe you were talking of previous mistrals?