litzj Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2018/09/initial-version-of-missile-sim-for.html I planned to make performance evaluation of the missile for its range. Coefficient of missile should be calculated by CFD (M, AoA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted September 22, 2018 Author Share Posted September 22, 2018 https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2018/09/aerodynamic-validation-of-missile-sim.html Recent update : validation for CFD setting for generic missile shape. Unfortunately, I cannot achieve very precise aerodynamic coefficient due to limitation of CFD computing source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted October 13, 2018 Author Share Posted October 13, 2018 Full detail of the Article is here. https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2018/10/aim-120c-study-using-missile-sim-part-1.html As the first study object, AIM-120C is chosen, and the objective of the study is sensitivity analysis for range performance and its optimization. Range of study includes "Rocket parameter", "Launch condition", and "Multi-stage version of CUDA". This Part 1 will show sensitivity analysis of rocket parameter for AIM-120C baseline missile; Part 2 is optimization of rocket parameters and launch condition for longer range; Part 3 is proposal of AIM-120 sized dual-stage CUDA missile with optimized configuration. Part 1 : Sensitivity Analysis of AIM-120C As shown in Fig. 1-1, baseline of AIM-120C is modeled; some part of the data like propellant weight, and burn time are referenced from previous estimation work. Target parameters of the sensitivity are propellant weight, burn-time, ISP, Drag(CD), Lift(CL), and usage of dual-pulse. Reference launch condition is set as M1.3 at 30000ft, and I assumed missile go straight without altitude change. Range is calculated when speed of the missile is re-decreased as M1.3 (The missile should pursue target having at least M1.3 speed). As a summary of Sensitivity (M1.3, 30kft) (1) 1.2 km Range↑, M 0.1 Speed↑ via 1.0 kg↑of Propellant (in given total weight) (2) 0.67 km Range↑, almost zero Speed change via 1.0 s↑of Burn time (smaller mass-flow) (3) 0.2 km Range↑, M 0.01 Speed↑ via 1.0 s↑of ISP (4) 0.65 km Range↑, almost zero Speed change via 1.0 % Drag reduction (5) almost zero Range, almost zero Speed change via 1.0 % Lift↑(negligible) (6) 0.4 km Range↑, M 0.02 Speed↓ via 1.0 s increase of Dual pulse interval Change of Lift is almost negligible for both range and peak speed performance. Higher lift configuration having more, longer, or larger fins is related to maneuverability and stability. It is natural that increase of some parameters (Propellant, and ISP) are directly proportional to the range and speed increase. Longer Burn-time and Drag reduction can increase range without change of speed performance. (Tendency can be changed at different reference condition) It could be interesting result that increase of Pulse interval can extend range while small decrease of peak speed. In given hardware specification (weight, propellant, ISP, lift, and drag), longer burn-time and pulse interval are recommended to extend the range of the AIM-120C class missile. Improvement via optimization will be performed at Part 2; Result of this sensitivity is applied while study for trajectory and launch condition will be conducted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted October 21, 2018 Author Share Posted October 21, 2018 I just published update of AIM-120C study using Missile-SIM https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2018/10/aim-120c-study-using-missile-sim-part-2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted November 9, 2018 Author Share Posted November 9, 2018 https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2018/11/patch-note-of-missile-sim-guidance.html There is real-time plot video for the Missile-SIM (Guidance of Missile with 0.1s time step) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex854Warrior Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 Very intresting, how accurate are the inital values you've inputed (burn time, the amount of fuel,...) ? Is the amount of thrust produced at different stages taken into account ? And also when it comes to guidance simulation, what exactly is it doing, just guiding the missile to the target or is it also making sure the missile optimizes it's energy consumption ? Thank you :) The R-77, MIM-104, Matra S530D, AIM-7M and the S-300 missile performance, can't remember the exact name, are some of the ones I would be most intrested in seeing. Regards, Rex. P.S. : The missile in your tests looks more like an AIM-120B. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted November 16, 2018 Author Share Posted November 16, 2018 Very intresting, how accurate are the inital values you've inputed (burn time, the amount of fuel,...) ? Is the amount of thrust produced at different stages taken into account ? And also when it comes to guidance simulation, what exactly is it doing, just guiding the missile to the target or is it also making sure the missile optimizes it's energy consumption ? Thank you :) The R-77, MIM-104, Matra S530D, AIM-7M and the S-300 missile performance, can't remember the exact name, are some of the ones I would be most intrested in seeing. Regards, Rex. P.S. : The missile in your tests looks more like an AIM-120B. Original model is B model, YES, but I cut the edge of the tail fins to fit C model. Unfortunately, parameters of the missiles were estimated from another reference; exact value of rocket motor is basically classified. Still, the simulation is under the development status; some functions providing different thrust for the given stage is configured while optimized control functions are WIP Thanks for your interest. I will update my SIM result when the new feature is available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex854Warrior Posted December 28, 2018 Share Posted December 28, 2018 (edited) Did some more testing, for medium to high altitudes the equation you provided is spot on with the performance of the DCS AIM-120C (tested at 40k feet and 15k feet, MiG-31 at mach 1.3, launcher same altitude at mach 1, closing speed mach 2.3), at lower altitudes though it's a little off compared to the performance in game, about 30% ish less calculated range. Though I didn't do enough testing to call that number relevant it's just what I noticed generaly. So good job ED I guess ? When are the other missiles getting tuned ? The MIM-104, the MIM-23, the 48H6E2 and the 5V55,... EDIT : While this data is very nice and probably accurate, it doesn't really fit public data, which makes me wonder why. Now of course the easy explanation is that the public numbers are wrong or fake but it's the "easy" explanation. Maybe the engine parameters are off, if anyone has some inputs on that it would be great :). Edited December 28, 2018 by Rex854Warrior [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted December 28, 2018 Author Share Posted December 28, 2018 Did some more testing, for medium to high altitudes the equation you provided is spot on with the performance of the DCS AIM-120C (tested at 40k feet and 15k feet, MiG-31 at mach 1.3, launcher same altitude at mach 1, closing speed mach 2.3), at lower altitudes though it's a little off compared to the performance in game, about 30% ish less calculated range. Though I didn't do enough testing to call that number relevant it's just what I noticed generaly. So good job ED I guess ? When are the other missiles getting tuned ? The MIM-104, the MIM-23, the 48H6E2 and the 5V55,... EDIT : While this data is very nice and probably accurate, it doesn't really fit public data, which makes me wonder why. Now of course the easy explanation is that the public numbers are wrong or fake but it's the "easy" explanation. Maybe the engine parameters are off, if anyone has some inputs on that it would be great :). Estimation for the rocket motor performance cannot be exact because exact burning profile or ISP is in secret. Also, my CFD also has limitation in accuracy because of limited computing source. Now I am currently working for addition of air-breathing propulsion for my Missile-SIM, like ramjet and scramjet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Hi, Since we are mainly interested into DCS here, it would be great to be able to input DCS missiles parameters. It would allow us to check various missiles performance without having to set up the mission in mission editor and flying the mission. This is very time consuming. Mirage fanatic ! I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted January 16, 2019 Author Share Posted January 16, 2019 Hi, Since we are mainly interested into DCS here, it would be great to be able to input DCS missiles parameters. It would allow us to check various missiles performance without having to set up the mission in mission editor and flying the mission. This is very time consuming. Ya, I hope there will be a good tool for performance test of missiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted January 16, 2019 Author Share Posted January 16, 2019 https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/01/wip-status-of-missile-sim-addition-of.html I am working on ISP part update for air-breathing engine of the missiles. Also, I had tested some inlet CFD for DB construction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted February 9, 2019 Author Share Posted February 9, 2019 https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/02/wip-status-of-missile-sim-addition-of.html I have added Ramjet style option for the Missile-SIM, and tested for the generic Ramjet AtA missile. ISP of missile is changed by flight condition (AoA, M) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/03/aim-120c-study-using-missile-sim-part-3.html I have compared generic model of CUDA / AIM-120C / CUDA+Booster / Meteor class missiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted April 2, 2019 Author Share Posted April 2, 2019 https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/03/aim-120c-study-using-missile-sim-part-3.html I have compared generic model of CUDA / AIM-120C / CUDA+Booster / Meteor class missiles https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/04/aim-120c-study-using-missile-sim-part-3.html I did sensitivity analysis for the previous missiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted May 19, 2019 Author Share Posted May 19, 2019 https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/05/aim-120c-study-using-missile-sim-part-3.html Before I expand my simulation, there is few additional result for AIM-120 related stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worrazen Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 Ya, I hope there will be a good tool for performance test of missiles Mention the idea on the DCS Wishlist. Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litzj Posted September 14, 2019 Author Share Posted September 14, 2019 https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2019/09/missile-sim-performance-evaluation-for_14.html Test for ATACMS missile class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts