And what is the maximum overload of the Igla supposed to be?
In study guides it’s written to be 10.2G (that’s what gaijin using)
Charts are from manual.
In british docs it’s 16G irrc.
And 10.2/16 is that magical 63% that keeps getting referenced.
I’m pretty sure the British docs put Igla at 14g.
from this guy?
R-73 = AIM-9X lol so where 9X?
The force generated by a thin airfoil can be assumed to be given by equation
F=1/2 * rho * V^2 * A * 2 pi * alpha
Rho is air density,
V is velocity,
A is area of the fin
Alpha is fin Angle of attack
Provided that
- Flow is invisid and incompressible
- Flow stays attached
- It is a “thin airfoil”
So to generate force to turn the missile
You can either have higher speed, larger fin,
Higher fin angle of attack(provided that flow stays attached)
Now, I am not so sure about the exact fin AoA that can be achieved by Igla / Stinger. Neither of which seems larger than ~ 10 deg.
For Mistral, I couldn’t even find a photo of exact Servo mechanism. The model on display doesn’t show details at all…
yes
I am also interested in technical explanation on the inconsistency between the manual and physics… where does the explanation falls apart.
The difference between the navigation efficiency of Bang-Bang versus PID, which is the whole argument of the thread. Why is using Russian sources on a missile that uses Bang-Bang a good enough source to nerf NATO missiles using PID? I thought Gaijin said using Russian sources for NATO tech wasn’t something they were going to do?
Ehhhh, my report on the radars went largely unadded, all the ship radars in game are still identical stats wise.
The fun to me comes from having the chance to dive back into the history of these machines, the banging your head against gaijin part is the least fun part involved.
Aside, and on the topic of the stinger, I do have some documentation that states that the LAAD Redeye was tested against targets operating in 6G turns, meaning the Redeye was capable of a minimum of 18Gs, otherwise it would have been unable to engage the test targets it hit. Given the Stinger is a direct development from the Redeye, it’s performance should be equal to or above that of the Redeye.
It should be noted too that the only part of the Redeye controlled in a “bang bang” fashion within it’s actuators was it’s wing deployment, they specifically state that the actuation for guidance was proportional
Here is the statement of engagement of targets maneuvering at 6Gs
Thus, if the Redeye, the predecessor of the Stinger, was required to and capable of engaging targets maneuvering at 6Gs, the stinger should at a bare minimum be able to as well.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121014150215/https://fas.org/asmp/campaigns/MANPADS/2005/redeye.pdf source and yes
It is a historical look at the system and has the proper declassification tags and submissions.
That was the ground devs who said that. Missiles are handled by a different dev team.
I’m kinda confused if you are here as a official gaijin technical moderator or just someone else adding to the discussion. And why is the burden of proving the official documentation values that are corroborated by other multiple sources real, and the RAF manual is without any doubt official and real, on the players?
What do gaijin ask of the players: primary and secondary sources providing values of the equipment to be implemented.
What are you asking now: prove with x y z calculations that the values provided by the official sources are real.
That’s kinda absurd to be honest.
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.
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.
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
Why should this matter, though?