Yes, I did mention CG shift due to spent propellant.
However not just CG but Aerodynamic center shift due to various speeds.
You are ignoring the lift of the missile body…
Btw did anyone mentioned gyroscopic force yet? Igla might be spinning faster then the Stinger therefore it would need to overcome greater centering force form the gyroscopic effect.
There are so many variables in the missile aerodynamic, so if even slightly different when they add up it can easily result in double available overload for Stinger.
How does Gaijin know that the Stinger autopilot is not programmed to do hard turns at the expense of the energy ? Because with with every airframe you can go beyond optimal Cl/Cd ratio…
Which document contains such interesting data such as CL, CD , Autopilot programming etc for the AIM9? Since you know… such document has to be legally available to anyone…
Can someone explain to me like i’m five how stinger can have twice as much average g compared to igla but have pretty close efficiency as igla? Because I don’t understand this moment.
because western and russian countries have a different definition of what is reliable for engaging. The stingers can hit more G targets, but Western countries definition of reliable is just very strict, while russian definition is very lose and exagerating, its that easy. So we have high performance but underplayed capability on one side and low performance exagerated capability on the other side.
And why stingers perform so much better? A pletora of reason just read trough the thread if you are intrested
Do you have at least 1 proof for that? Like any documents with this definitions or something like that? Because without any proof that very bad explanation…
u mean like the several documents stating stinger pulls 20g that are getting ignored and you guys cant proof it isnt meaned as average?
We have official primary sources that state 20g for stingers and 22g for mistrals. While you try to justify worse performance with comparing it to a inferior russian missle. You dont see the problem there?
I don’t care how many G a stinger has on average. 10g, 20g, 30g I don’t care. Let the developers figure it out for themselves. I don’t have enough knowledge to judge them. There is a lot of evidence that speaks both in favor of 20g and against it.
That document everyone is referring to shows the same target g and velocity as the igla documents. I’m just asking for any normal explanation as to why this is so. I’m fine with even with “russian definition is very lose and exagerating” if you give me any proof or at least evidence for that theory.
I don’t know what Russia use as their standard. But in British manuals the performance figures given are nearly always for a 85% - 90% chance of passing within lethal distance. For example:
Thank you. I will try to find something similar for comparison.
Oh no, If stingers will be buffed than my UK helicopters become stronger. Ofc I don’t want it…
I’m asking for any reasonable response because I couldn’t find answer for this myself. Not for “russian bias” whining without any evidence. As I said i’m fine even with “igla documents is very lose and exagerating” if you bring any evidence fot that claim.
Im glad I saved this, but I still think the wildest thing is that by modelling the stinger, mistral, and igla the way they have, gaijin has actually flipped the effectiveness of the missiles entirely in favor of the igla (because of course they did):
People lost interest and moved onto the next topic to complain about. Also, between the comments from one tech mods and devs on the this threads flame’s argument basically fell apart.
Do you realize that 9m39 has a much lower velocity and therefore a much smaller radius, right? By your logic, the best rocket would be 100m/s and 50g. Moreover, to call the Mistral the worst manpad missile is to be a 100% fool and be completely disconnected from reality. It flies better than Stinger and much better than 9m39 and is more stable in hitting the target than both these missiles. Although it must be said that it loses overload very quickly due to the short engine work time.
I’m not even talking about how stupid it is to calculate a turn radius that way. A simple example.
VT1 overload during the flight for the summer of 2023:
Approximate Speed Graph of VT1 for the summer of 2023:
And you propose to calculate turn radius by the maximum possible numbers of speed and overload to get a number that has no connection to reality?
