I am not so sure about that. Once the wings are deployed it would stay deployed. The “in and out” in the document might mean two extreme ends of deflection, which corresponds to Bang Bang controller. Approximately Proportional Navigation is the result.
6G, with specific conditions. Without knowing the conditions, the sentence itself is not very useful.
For example, on F4J’s weapon deployment manual, There are AIM-7E2 launch diagram against targets with certain evasive maneuvers. If those information are available then testing would be very black and white.
Now some sources on Stinger with PID would be interesting. The canard would then oscillate instead of having only two states.
Well currently all the discussions in this thread is sound. I am mostly interested in why the math doesn’t match with the description of manual.
1 Like
Not the case here as it specifically lists that the autopilot modifies the angle of the canards at a variable rate, something bang bang guidance cannot do, as the canards would either be at maximum angle or stowed, not deploying to a modified magnitude based upon the width of the lift sector.
Addendum as well, the primary in use functions report later on directly states that the guidance system uses proportional guidance as well.
I really don’t know what more you want my guy, it flat out says the control section (thus the forward canards) “guides the missile on a proportional navigation course to intercept with the target”.
It should be noted as well that the only mentions of bang bang guidance in this entire document is for the 2.75 inch test vehicle which preceded the Redeye’s development as to test the feasibility of the system, every mention of the produced systems guidance package only references proportional navigation guidance further into the document.
14 Likes
The Stinger and Mistral already have PID in game in the files, why do we need to provide any more sources on this?
Stinger having PID:
Mistral having PID:
Igla having only a P controller (otherwise known as Bang-Bang):
There are other people who have shown the Stinger and Mistral having PID as well though
14 Likes
Why should this matter, though?
Why even waste your time, they don’t care about what is realistic. They only care about what will grant them money.
They constantly lie and have double standards.
9 Likes
Does this work?
Per the document it states that impacts were attainable in tests with the GTV-2 test design against targets operating at up to 400 knots, maneuvering at 6Gs, at slant ranges between 2000 and 4100 meters, and up to a altitude of 9000 feet.
4 Likes
Extremely well explained counterclaim with excellent supporting evidence! Bravo! This is exactly the type of discussion the Forum needs, not “Russian Bias!!!1!”
3 Likes
If he asks for maths then give him maths, not some more pictures…
He literally asks for a mathematical proof on the implications of PiD controled fins/flight on
lateral acceleration. And that is a nail in the coffin
Thats quite some math right here :/
If this isn’t correct then either:
A) Being a faster missile than Igla makes it possible for it to pull harder (But somewhere near ingame mistral probably)
(using the mach 2.2 - this makes the stinger 23,5% faster than Igla(745m/s V 570m/s)
(What is the actuall speed of the FIM92? In game its mach ~1.95(670m/s) while sources frequently state mach 2.2 and even mach 2.6 being possible on certain flight trajectories[found one stating mach 1.95])
B) The canards can do some whooping AoA values
C) Stinger can’t pull that hard
1 Like
Do we know that aerodynamics are what limits the Igla to 10g? There are plenty of missiles (Firestreak, Red Top, Sparrow, etc.) where the autopilot artificially limits the missile to pulling less g than it is aerodynamically capable of. If the autopilot is the limiting factor for Igla then that could explain why it apparently pulls significantly less than Stinger, despite their similarities.
12 Likes
Unless the devs don’t belive that the fins can be in a position different than than the two outermost, which defeats the whole purpose of PiD…
In the case of the Redeye components I’ve already posted, the missile was able to obtain a peak velocity of mach 1.7 in 5.8 seconds while being able to engage a target maneuvering at 6Gs. The stinger is known to have both superior control surfaces and a more potent boost sustain motor.
Even without those features the missile would still be underperforming compared to it’s inferior predecessor if kept at the same velocity as the Redeye in game.
There is no math needed to confirm this as this is the performance of the Redeye as it’s performance metrics are stated by the “Historical Division, US Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama”. You cant really get more first party than the literal arsenal that worked with convair to design and test the weapon aside from White Sands.
Also another prop nav cutout mention for the Redeye
Here is also a side by side of the Redeye and Redeye II (aka the XFIM-92A the first Stinger)
Its quite obvious that the Stinger sports a vastly elongated motor section and a completely new kick motor, while the overall design of the seeker section, bar internal changes, remains largely the same.
8 Likes
Or the servos were weak and could only deflect so much at the speeds…
Or there was a electronic used that could not handle higher g loads…
I don’t need no confirmation that the Stinger is a vastly superior missile over the Redeye and that it can outpull any defensive manouver but it is clear (and it was long time before) that common sense and reasoining sadly don’t work here for the most part, hence the “quick maths” are needed
I was acquainted with their logic(or the lack of it) with the AGM65 when we tried to prove that a 51kg explosive remains a 51kg explosive even when you make it as a HEAT warhead and that it doesn’t matter if its 51kg HE warhead or 51kg HEAT one - it will obliterate anything if it hits directly…
But gaijin is like
HE= aha!good, big boom!;
HEAT= bad, something something, HEAT ate HE no boom
(especially since Russia has no counterpart ingame)
So no matter how obvious something is, it won’t do without sikrit documents
…or maths apparently
(sometimes even then it won’t be implemented if they don’t want to)
9 Likes
Do you have any docs on the igla-s?
Unfortunately not
1 Like
I think the developers are seriously overthinking things. All available information points to 20-22G overload and capable of intercepting a target maneuvering at 7G’s and 170-310 m/s speeds. Currently it can do none of these things in-game.
Whether they think the G overload is less than 20-22 is irrelevant, it still can’t meet the design REQUIREMENT to RELIABLY hit a target at 310 m/s and 7G’s overload. Actually, it can’t hit a target at half that speed and 6G’s.
15 Likes
Is it possible that the stingers thruster can also be thrust vectoring?