where is the nose on scenario ?
if anything that should be the one that matters the most, since the missile has to maneuver even harder in that particular case
can’t really draw any conclusion if half the test is missing…
2 Likes
That is talking about the positioning of the Rmev cue on the HUD, essentially the no-escape range marker. The marker is saying that if you fire the missile within this range then even if the target does a 9G turn and tries to run away the missile will still have enough speed / energy to catch up with them. It is not saying that a 9G turn will defeat the missile.
The wording is a bit convoluted, but that’s essentially what it say to do:
The figures for soviet missiles in the Jaguar tactics manual probably originate from the Directorate of Scientific and Technical Intelligence (basically the department of the MOD tasked with gathering intelligence on foreign equipment), so I would put the difference between the UK and Soviet numbers down to the UK numbers being based on intelligence gathering, so may not be entirely accurate (though as you can see for the SA-2 they were very close).
As I said in the post, the vast majority of the missiles in the section are not rolling airframe missiles, so it would be confusing / misleading if the peak overload was given for rolling missiles.
18 Likes
This thread will now be a serious thread on Stinger/Manpads maneuverability. All off-topic comments will now be removed
14 Likes
There are some misunderstandings here:
Most if not all IR missiles in game have proportional navigation IRL, but it doesn’t necessarily means the in game PID have the integral and derivative terms = 0,
The control scheme for the canards might be Bang Bang, but the guidance system is proportional, the two does not conflict.
3 Likes
So why can the QW 2 pull more G’s with essentially the same design…
Since velocity is a very important factor in maneuverability why it’s at a lower value ingame?
670m/s(~mach1.95) while the most frequently given value is mach 2.2 or ~750m/s - It is also mentioned that this velocity is achieved in the first 2s after the ignition of the dual-thrust engine. Some sources even mention that the top speed is mach 2.54 and even 2.6 is achievable in certain flight trajectories.
1 Like
tjis claims target can maneuver up to 8g for fim-92a
ODIN is sadly not a accepted source.
Oddly, they decided to cut the mistral spool to around 1.5 seconds but left igla stinger unchanged. (Ill throw ty90 in there too since its also a long spool) With iglas, at least on ka50, irl they do need a couple seconds to cool down before use, but after that they are good to go until the coolant runs out
Im a complete layman so what I say is probably wrong, but assuming force is centripetal force, I divided the formula by the mass of the missile. When I plug the formula into desmos, and let x be angle of attack, I get a very steep line.
R is rho
V is velocity
A is area
Am I getting one of the terms wrong? I have the area be so small to demonstrate the very steep curve, also because I don’t know what the area of the stinger fins are.
The max delta angle of the stingers is 1.3, not sure what unit they’re referencing though. Here’s some more data from the datamine if any of it will help.
As I said, there are assumptions on the Fin AoA, where the flow needs to be “attached”
Whenever a wing have too great of an angle, the flow detach from the wing, and would cause stall.
Most of the time, such angle does not exceed 20 degree, which is < 0.349 radian…… which is a very small number.
The exact stall angle might even be smaller depending on the wing cross section and Mach number.
It should also be noted that the FinAoA from data mine does not necessarily translate to the actual finAoA of the missile.
See below, it is linear up until the wing stalls, which then the formula no longer applies.
1 Like
Those autopilot limitations are mostly from the electronics not able to withstand high lateral G-forces,
which is why they are early missiles.
Later missiles such as AIM-7F, AIM-9L, and Igla/Stingers are most likely to be aerodynamically limited rather than autopilot limited.
From a pure speed point of view.
If a missile is 1.1 times faster (mach 2.2 versus mach 2)
then the maximum forces exerted by the fin will be 1.21 X according to equations (1.1^2)
which somewhat matches Igla’s 10.2g versus 13g of stingers…
Provided that other variables stays constant.
If a missile is 1.25 time faster (mach 2.5 versus mach 2)
then it is 1.56 X
which also somewhat matches Mistral’s 16G
1 Like
here is iome paper about high speed fin/canard research…
nor exactly stinger but may be useful
u counted rolling airframe into ur math?
I’m currently on holidays so i don’t have the most stable of connections, but I have done some further reading.
The following source implies that there is Non-insigficant (though secondary, to the impact of fin-AoA)additional forces generated by the body and tail vortex interactions
The direct contribution of the canards to instantaneous normal
force dominate all other sources. However, the fuselage
and tail section contributions are not insignificant (recall
Figures 20 through 22). Still, the variation in fuselage
and tail-section contributions to normal force are a sec-
ondary effect of canard position and resulting vortex/
body interaction.
And as such may explain to some degree difference in available loading between systems as there is likely drag related tradeoffs for designs.
6 Likes
Though I think that is the issue. The assumption made by Gaijin is that the only difference is the max speed of the 3 missiles, if that was the case, then you would be right. However, it is that assumption that is the issue. If nothing else, they operate with a different guidance method and we also have no idea what other differences might exist.
That is the greatest concern of many, that the use of data for one missile that happens to perform the same role is the same, or at least, close enough for another entirely different missile, made by a different country, with different technology, experience, etc etc. If the stinger and Mistraal were IGLA derivative, then it would be fine, but they arent even related.
Does this mean nerfs for the R-27ER can achieved by providing data for the Aim-7 and an assumption that the soviets couldnt build anything better than the west?
4 Likes
Well, until I pointed it out for the developer they thought the maximum overload of the Magic 2 was going to be similar to the AIM-9L and have modeled it as such. It should be peaking at 35G as soon as the missile is traveling at 1.25 mach (or, off the rail if you are launching from 1.25 mach)… and from 300m alt.
Anyhow, hopefully now that they are aware of this we see changes to other missiles with similar designs so they can reach peak overload sooner such as AAM-3.
Further, I hope it enlightens them to the idea that these missiles might be able to pull a higher G loading at lower speeds than they currently think they do.
4 Likes
Yep, hopefully. Too many missile have issues and I fear how many of them have those issues because they are modeled to resemble another, entirely different missile.
I could reasonably accept the idea of the average G being lower than the peak G, its not entirely unreasonable. But it does feel like the missile misses more often than in should because it couldnt get onto target in those first few seconds. If that G was too low, that would explain that problem.
3 Likes
Be nice if the roland 1/2s would actually work too.
Not entirely the focus of the discussion but isn’t it a little weird how modern the Stingers we get in game are, we have E stingers 1995 model and K stingers which afaik are a 2018 model designed with small drones in mind and data link, something that definitly shouldn’t be present on LAVAD.
All Iglas in game are the 1983 model.
It’s just weird to be given considerably more modern versions than Igla then have it’s performance nerfed based on Igla performance.
I think the reason we have E model is because ATAS were the first Stingers in game and they’re also E model, (though I’m not sure Lynx Stingers technically should be they may predate ATAS proper?).
1 Like