Suggestion for database, data supply
-
Using SAC data you posted earlier for AIM-7F (thanks for that!)
AIM-7F Engine weight 210 lb start and 75 lb at burnout gives fuelweight 135 lb, i.e. Fuel fraction 135/510100=26% and Impulse I=57504.5+1018*11=37073 lbs
Assuming AGM-88 fuel fraction the same as for AIM-7F, i.e. 26% this would give fuelweight 0.26*780= 206lb
Then assuming the same specific impulse for AGM-88 fuel as for AIM-7F fuel:
I=206/135*37073=56571 lbs
Maybe this is good enough for ballpark figure but it would be better to have actual impulse data or at very least fuel weight for AGM-88 before modelling.
On aerodynamic drag data I do not have any but one idea is to simply scale up reverse engineered AIM-7F data based on cross section area.
-
Yes, I set more or less the same burnout/total weight was AIM-7F had. I did not touched the thurst and impulse data. I have no data that AGM-88 has dual thrust engine or not.
-
I have no data that AGM-88 has dual thrust engine or not.
AGM-88 missile is powered by a Thikol SR113-TC-1 dual-thrust (boost/ sustain)
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-88.html -
I know, I also found that dual thrust. I do not have better idea for thrust than using similar characteristics as AIM-7M has and scaling up the total impulse. I check the _Hazard Classification Of United States Military Explosives And Munition_s what somebody posted earlier.
-
I know, I also found that dual thrust. I do not have better idea for thrust than using similar characteristics as AIM-7M has and scaling up the total impulse. I check the _Hazard Classification Of United States Military Explosives And Munition_s what somebody posted earlier.
Yes, I posted earlier, just according to the data I have a version AGM-88 with (Max MACH limited to ~3.2,3.4)
Also - Defuaul misseles (axial table) - looks very strange aerodynamic coefficients, when the angle of attack increases - the aerodynamic drag (Cx) is reduced, for all missiles
For example (AoA min) -1.12 > -1.04 > -0.96 > -0.88 > -0.80 (Aoa max) -
You strongly changed the coefficents and the multiplier. As I see the lower coeff. multiplier x coeff values are similar to original, just increasing with speed.
-
For angles of attack for the air-to-air missiles, such figures are actual = 10-15 ° for maneuver is to provide acceptable (Схi) at speeds of 2.5-3.5 m
These data are as a general rule, in particular from the book “Fundamentals of missiles, air-to-air,” edited by Nesterov.Something like this should look aerodynamic drag table, which shows the Mach number, and dependent Cx in straight flight.
Mach 1.2 = highest aerodynamic drag.
Missiles Cx set according the table, with the “maximum range” as previously data, early posted here .
Also limited Number MACH for each. -
Did you refersh the pack what have been uploaded previously? It is very strange that some missiles in stock dat files follows the rule what you posted and some not.
-
Did you refersh the pack what have been uploaded previously? It is very strange that some missiles in stock dat files follows the rule what you posted and some not.
Yes refresh , added Aim-120 to testpack.
A few more updated: -
Will you do the drag tweak at least for basic / most common AA missiles?
-
One more question towards the devs. Is the g’lock model controlled and defined by only the exe?
-
Will you do the drag tweak at least for basic / most common AA missiles?
Please bring a list of “basic / most common” AA missiles?
I like to do it, but a lot of time is spent on testing, in addition, need to adjust the maximum Mach number for each missile according to the known data.
-
AIM-9s (L/M, P, X, J, H)
AIM-7s
AIM-120 / MICA ER / MICA IRR-3S/R-13M/R-3R
R-40
R-60
R-73
R-23
R-27
R-33
R-77R.530
R.550Python 3 / PL-8
Python 4AGM-88
AGM-45
AGM-78/SM-1AGM-84 / BGM-109
AGM-65s (all) / AS-14 (Kh-29)
Kh-25 (AS-10/12)
AS-11 (Kh-58 )
AS-17 (Kh-31)MiM-23 Hawk
SA-7
SA-14/16/Stinger/MistralSA-2
SA-3
SA-4
SA-5
SA-6/SA-11/17
SA-8 / SA-9 / SA-13
SA-10/MiM-104 PatriotOf course some of these missile can get the same FM table because in RL likely they have very similar aero. coefficients. I used / mark where can be used the same coeffs from my asepct, but likely AIM-9s and all similar size IR missile can have the same data.
-
I now modelled AGM-88 in C++ code. I used the 280 lb engine weight for the AGM-88 from the “Hazard classification” document you posted earlier. Based on this I assumed that that total engine impulse for AGM-88 is 280/135 times greater than for AIM-7F based on 135 lb engine weight from same document. I changed the burn time for the AGM-88 so that it would reach the same peak speed and then used the remaining impulse for longer sustain. No idea how long real burn time is but I can update if I get new input on this.
The aerodynamic drag data I simply assumed that this is proportional to cross section area and consequently simply scaled from the assumed drag area for AIM-7F. Maybe too conservative but I don’t have any better to go on……
Since there is no results available to compare with I’m not sure how close this is to IRL performance and I was a bit surprised to see that the AIM-7F seems to have longer kinematic range. However, maybe this is not so strange?: First of all the “wing loading” is higher on AGM-88 and secondly, the weight/cross section area is higher for AIM-7F so based on this it should fly further. Still, strange seeing that AGM-88 has so much more impulse…
I the model, the trend is that missiles fly well until aoa starts to build up.Then they rapidly decelerate and stall out. You can see trend in the speed/time figure: In the end the missile bleeds speed very quickly.
-
AIM-9s (L/M, P, X, J, H)
AIM-7s
AIM-120 / MICA ER / MICA IRR-3S/R-13M/R-3R
R-40
R-60
R-73
R-23
R-27
R-33
R-77R.530
R.550Python 3 / PL-8
Python 4AGM-88
AGM-45
AGM-78/SM-1AGM-84 / BGM-109
AGM-65s (all) / AS-14 (Kh-29)
Kh-25 (AS-10/12)
AS-11 (Kh-58 )
AS-17 (Kh-31)MiM-23 Hawk
SA-7
SA-14/16/Stinger/MistralSA-2
SA-3
SA-4
SA-5
SA-6/SA-11/17
SA-8 / SA-9 / SA-13
SA-10/MiM-104 PatriotOf course some of these missile can get the same FM table because in RL likely they have very similar aero. coefficients. I used / mark where can be used the same coeffs from my asepct, but likely AIM-9s and all similar size IR missile can have the same data.
This is the drag I assume in C++ model: I used the SAC data on AIM-7F to get kinematic range 52 Nm at 40000 ft to reverse engineer drag. Then I simply take this base value and proportionally adjust for other missiles based on cross section area. Not very high tech but I don’t have any better for now
(Edit: Drag area in figure is value to multiply by dynamic pressure q, i.e. Cdo x ref area.)
-
Yes refresh , added Aim-120 to testpack.
A few more updated:I tested AIM-9M. The eng. zone is very close to data what I have posted. Against F-111 which flew on 10k with 500 knots at 2.1 nm distance the impact speed was about 700 kts while target performed 6G turn. I will apply the FM table rest of short range IR missile to check how it works. Seems to much better as original FM where drag decresases as AoA incresing.
-
I tested AIM-9M. The eng. zone is very close to data what I have posted. Against F-111 which flew on 10k with 500 knots at 2.1 nm distance the impact speed was about 700 kts while target performed 6G turn. I will apply the FM table rest of short range IR missile to check how it works. Seems to much better as original FM where drag decresases as AoA incresing.
Testing in approximate terms. Fixed drag coefficients.
Aim-9M Max MACH limited to ~2.8 for all altitudes.
Aim-9P MACH limited to ~2.4Impact speed 707 kts.
-
SpbGoro, very good, keep it up
-
F-15A
fuelFlowFactorNormal 0.69
fuelFlowFactorAb 2.17F-16A Block 15
fuelFlowFactorNormal 0.95
fuelFlowFactorAb 2.3In RL both has the same F100 variant. Yes, their thrust are not the same because of different inlet - this is represented in thrust data in Falcon - but I cannot find and logical reason what cause about 30% (!) difference is specific fuel consumption on max. mil. thurst…
What I’m missing? Because fuel flow modifier does not work in dat files.
-
Maybe not quite understand what you mean.
If you need to ATO always hung fuel tanks on the aircraft, there are ways:
On those machines. where there is no internal electronic warfare, Add flags (only for centrefuselage tanks)
Like as here: http://f3.foto.rambler.ru/original/514f0642-da5f-cbda-f420-1b312e7df60e/ptb.pngI tried the same with F-15’s drop tank but the ECM flag does not work. Strange.