Doesn’t drag also depend on mach number irl?
1 Like
which is a function of speed and altitude.
1 Like
Not exactly
From my understanding, they give each missile a fixed value, which won’t slow the missile down the same way depending on the speed.
HOWEVER, having a fixed value to mention drag is already wrong in on itself, as it doesn’t take into account how the airflow interacts with different control surfaces.
A prime example of this is R77, which has grid fins. Those grid fins have quite a high drag when the missile is transsonic, but don’t have that much of an impact when the missile is high supersonic. Gaijin being forced to only use one number, they have to come up with an artificial mean, which can have different impacts on said missile, depending on the scenario.
This value is designated as “Cx” in the files, but it isn’t the only value used in game for drag calculations. The parameter “Diameter” also found in the files also impacts the way a missile slows down for example. It’s entirely possible there are others hidden i’m not aware of too.
5 Likes
Oh yeah that makes sense
1 Like
I think you have just misunderstood me
How so ?
i dont understand the idea of a “250m/s drop”, in game mica has 1100m/s dV and achieved about 850m/s top speed…
note SLM just about provides +1000m/s and that also has a 1250m/s dV(with an exceptionally low drag coefficient btw).
It does absolutely account for drag. On the same page where the velocity increment was mentioned, it specifically states that the requirement was for aircraft separation and to hit targets at short range and long range. Wouldn’t make sense for it to not account for atmospheric conditions in this respect.
thus you would be arguing that the +1000m/s increment isnt even provided at 0 airspeed, which makes the claim all the more ludicrous.
Not that a missile’s drag can be seen to the naked eye, but MICA does’t appear particularly draggy to me, at least not necessarily more than SLM
Would have to check that one again tbh.
The important thing is, +1000m/s how? because mica already does +1000m/s in game
If it does 1000m/s of total acceleration in game, doesn’t it mean that it’s good in that aspect ? But that the burn time is wrong and should be 3.5s.
Also correction @Fireball_2020 when mentioning the speed. I think I said most sources I have say Mach 3.5+ with one at Mach 4, but it’s actually Mach 4+ with one source at Mach 4.5 (corrected)
Currently in game the MICA does about that if I am correct, meaning that motor deltaV might actually be correct ? And then from ground launch due to the initial turn and denser atmosphere it drops down to 750m/s or something like that
i havent seen anything legit at mach 5 personally.
i think the top speed of mica now is more a reflection of it’s lack of loft. It gains about 0.1-0.15M by giving it a higher loft.
The top speed for a feasible launch with the in game model is 4.79 with current loft and 4.85 with an extended loft.
Yeah no you are right I went to look again at where I remember seeing the highest figure and it’s indeed Mach 4.5, don’t mind me confusing myself half of the time
EDIT : most say Mach 4+ with one saying Mach 4.5. Here I am finally correct lol
No worries aha. And if you were to correct the burn time but maintain the dV… i expect it would rip through mach 5 and keep going… oh and thats without fixing the calibre either.
Not necessarily. If the deltaV remains constant, it should not accelerate any faster if the burn time is slower.
With the current fuel mass(same dV), a single burn, fixed calibre, and improved loft it does M5.1
If we reduce the dV(and so thrust to 1000m/s), it does 4.77M.
I see… so yeah im not 100% convinced by the current dV/fuel mass
Quick question (probably long answer), but how do you measure that ? You have some tools ?