Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen

Only you think there's 20% difference and your R-27 measurements are clearly wrong so...

 

There is an almost 20% difference, measure the dang thing yourself, i am getting tired of your laziness. If they are clearly wrong why don't you do it yourself and prove me wrong?

 

Technically no. Petrol will only explode when in a fine mist under extremely high pressures. That's what causes 'knock' or detonation in engines.

Ok, so to sum up, it won't explode but it will but it won't? The point is combustion can look a lot like explosion under the right circumstances.

 

A ditch in a desert? For drainage?:lol:

I see you don't spend much time around deserts, yes, there are many ditches and the like in "deserts". I couldn't be much more obvious in the video, the truck runs off the road and into the ditch.

 

Well that's basically why your argument fails on every front. 1) The warhead is dual fused and very unlikely no to explode on impact. 2) Evidence shows an inert missile is likely to crash through with no explosion. 3) The only thing besides the warhead capable of exploding is in the rear, and the missile impacts from the front. 4) Your theory requires the rocket motor at the rear to explode without triggering the warhead at the front.

1. So? That doesn't mean they work flawlessly every time.

 

2. There was nothing to explode, hence no explosion.

 

3. Then why do inert stingers in tests bake a fireball?

 

4. Yeah, as i have said it is possible that the warhead was spoiled ie unexplodable.

 

20m is by your terrible measuring.

And what was the result of your measurement?

 

I see no evidence of such.

I see no evidence contradicting his claim either.

 

You can't tell if it's in-line with the plane or not from that angle.

I mean it is between the camera and the plane, "in line", and yes we can tell that.

 

I'm afraid it is not straight.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

How do you know what angle the fins are at?

It shouldn't matter, but experimenting i am not so sure the proportions are preserved.

 

The explosion occurs at 0:19, at least 5-7s after trail ends 0:12-0:14. It is impossible to tell how far that distance is but the missile could theoretically (based on speed) do 4-5km in 5s.

That is what i was saying, it has too far to go in too little time to slow down like the trail appears to at the end.

 

 

I word of advice:

 

Weta43 posted actual evidence which actually convinces me, if you provide actual evidence instead of snarky 3 word answers you might be able to actually convince someone (me).

 

So the trail just happens to continue for the same length of time that an R-27E burns for? Again, your theories rely on perverse twists of fate and low probability events compounding each other.

It is debatable weather it is the exact time of a 27ET, but i agree the trail lasts for at least 8 seconds.

I'm getting tired of your terrible measurement just like with the R-27. There's almost a 20% difference in length between the R-27 and R-27E and you got that wrong.

 

Nope. The fireball develops far more slowly than an explosion.

 

I think you should ditch your argument.

 

1. Just a coincidence again.

 

2. Another coincidence. And AIM-9Xs have a smokeless motor so you wouldn't know that.

 

3. No evidence that they do.

 

4. But the rocket motor at the other end of the missile did explode? :D

 

~6 times vehicle length.

 

I see live warheads making similar sized explosion in FLIR, non-live missiles making no explosion. and live warheads making far bigger flashes in normal video.

 

What is the height difference between the camera and aircraft though?

 

Definitely not straight.

 

Of course it matters. The apparent width of the fins relative to the aircraft depends on what angle the missile is rolled through. I.e. if the fins are perpendicular to the viewing direction, they will appear bigger.

 

The trail only appears to slow down because the missile is further away and things further away seem smaller. Crikey!

 

You mean like the burn time?

I'm getting tired of your terrible measurement just like with the R-27. There's almost a 20% difference in length between the R-27 and R-27E and you got that wrong.

 

If you are tired of it why don't you get some image processing software and prove me wrong? No, there is an about 15% difference.

 

Nope. The fireball develops far more slowly than an explosion.

 

Nope:

 

I think you should ditch your argument.

 

Haha nice one! And nice divert attempt, it is clearly a ditch, an inert missile wouldn't stop a truck in 5m.

 

1. Just a coincidence again.

 

There are no coincidences...

 

2. Another coincidence. And AIM-9Xs have a smokeless motor so you wouldn't know that.

 

You claimed it had burned out like 30 pages ago and there is no exhaust flame.

 

3. No evidence that they do.

 

Start at 4:18

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrDh2K7b8M

 

4. But the rocket motor at the other end of the missile did explode? :D

 

Sure.

 

~6 times vehicle length.

 

Not even close, at the very maximum 4, but maybe you should actually measure it instead of using your fingernails or something.

 

Even if it was 6 times the vehicle length that is still only 40m and therefore you still need glow.

 

I see live warheads making similar sized explosion in FLIR, non-live missiles making no explosion. and live warheads making far bigger flashes in normal video.

 

We still have no inert FLIR hits, so nothing to compare.

 

What is the height difference between the camera and aircraft though?

 

It doesn't really matter. So are you saying the missile by some freak accident was perfectly in line between the camera and the plane but was actually 20m away? High probability FTW!!!

 

Definitely not straight.

 

Ok, it definitely looks straight, but from what Weta43 posted it looks like a ET.

 

Of course it matters. The apparent width of the fins relative to the aircraft depends on what angle the missile is rolled through. I.e. if the fins are perpendicular to the viewing direction, they will appear bigger.

 

I was going off length of fins, not width. Go measure it yourself and you will come up with the fins length being 25% of the total length, which matches the 27T.

 

The trail only appears to slow down because the missile is further away and things further away seem smaller. Crikey!

 

I was talking about how the relative motion seems to gradually and consistently slow and then sharply slows, indicating the missile stoping smoking and the wind carrying the trail.

 

You mean like the burn time?

 

It has been proven smoke time is not always an indicator of burn time so no, it was not really solid evidence. And It looks like the missile stops smoking at 0:10 so more like 8 sec of burn time which presents a problem for you.

 

Also, the liveleak video is much better resolution, so watch it there for good picture.

Your R-27 measurements were off by 20%. Therefore none of your measurements are trustworthy.

 

Yep. That video proves me right.

 

It will if it goes straight through the driveshaft. Why else would it crash and stop?

 

Your entire argument is one of compounding coincidences.

 

Debris cloud. No sudden flash.

 

How exactly? HE warhead at front with dual fuse fails to explode but rocket motor at rear does?

 

So far my assessments have proven more accurate than yours wrt dimensions.

 

We do have live FLIR hits and inert Brimstone FLIR hits.

 

There's no way of knowing that it's precisely in line. The aircraft is 20m long, the flash is maybe 50m wide. It's like trying to measure fin to length ratios without knowing what angle the fins are at, i.e. very silly and leads to incorrect conclusions.

 

Very jagged edge. Surely you could have measured that?

 

And you were wrong to do so because the missile is at an angle.

 

I have no clue what you're even getting at. You can see the extra bends in the trail develop after 0:08 and 0:10.

 

A contrail would have continued to the point of impact and nope, the trail has extra bends after 0:10. And you've already been proven wrong on the missile type, so the burn time must be 10s.

Your R-27 measurements were off by 20%. Therefore none of your measurements are trustworthy.

 

Go and stinking measure it yourself, you will come up with the fin length being 25% of the total length, and the 27T is 15% smaller than the 27ET, not 20%.

 

Yep. That video proves me right.

 

Look at 0:36, instant flash.

 

It will if it goes straight through the driveshaft. Why else would it crash and stop?

 

It looks like it is after it got hit and it ran off the road into the ditch. You keep mentioning KE, how does a 50kg missile stop a 2800kg truck in 5m?

 

Your entire argument is one of compounding coincidences.

 

Yeah, like an inexperienced rebel flown MiG-29 sneaking up on an F-15 and hitting it with an R-73 that detonates on a flare that jettisoned out of time with the first two?

 

Debris cloud. No sudden flash.

 

Its is a fireball, like i said. A debris cloud doesn't go from bright orange to black smoke.

And its in slow-mo, and its a puny stinger.

 

How exactly? HE warhead at front with dual fuse fails to explode but rocket motor at rear does?

 

I don't know ask the stinger, it did.

 

So far my assessments have proven more accurate than yours wrt dimensions.

 

Ok, show proof of one assessment you made that was proven accurate. What are wrt dimensions?

 

The truck is about 150 px long

The flash is about 505 px wide

 

That makes it 3.36 vehicle lengths.

 

Its on you now, prove me wrong, or stop the baseless accusations.

 

 

We do have live FLIR hits and inert Brimstone FLIR hits.

 

We have zero inert FLIR hits, the 0:40 was bogus.

 

There's no way of knowing that it's precisely in line. The aircraft is 20m long, the flash is maybe 50m wide. It's like trying to measure fin to length ratios without knowing what angle the fins are at, i.e. very silly and leads to incorrect conclusions.

 

Watch it frame by frame and interpolate, it is perfectly in line with the plane.

 

Also, if it detonated on a flare like you claim, it would have to be right at the plane because the flares are ejected downwards.

 

As for fin length ratios, the angle shouldn't matter in theory because the fins are attached to the missile, but by some freak accident (which obviously could never happen because its not likely :megalol: ) maybe the image distortion changed the proportions to that of a 27T.

 

Very jagged edge. Surely you could have measured that?

 

Yeah, like i said before, draw a straight line along the edge.

 

And you were wrong to do so because the missile is at an angle.

 

As i said, the proportions should in theory remain the same regardless for angle.

 

I have no clue what you're even getting at. You can see the extra bends in the trail develop after 0:08 and 0:10.

 

Sorry, At 0:10 the trail stops, and then the wind is bending the trail, watch an earlier part of the trail, it is bending also.

 

A contrail would have continued to the point of impact and nope, the trail has extra bends after 0:10. And you've already been proven wrong on the missile type, so the burn time must be 10s.

 

Goldfish much? We just resolved that as wrong 2 pages ago (contrails are also very altitude dependent):

 

It probably has more to do with fuel residue smoking (unless of course MANPADS burn for 10 sec):

 

 

 

 

Who is clutching at straws?

The R-27ET is 18% longer but basically your measurements are pure guesswork and lead to false conclusion, that much is proven. You couldn't even count burn time correctly either.

 

Nope, slow flash taking many frames.

 

Cuts power between the engine and the transaxle, leaving the vehicle still in gear but with no motive force to overcome friction. Also, 1.8m long missile nailing it into the ground briefly.

 

Happened to an even more experienced USN pilot in 1991.

 

Could make out any bright orange, just looked white. Poor quality video. But it's also non-equivalent because the missile strikes the jet engine, even a bird in there can cause problems. In this case a stab is hit.

 

The truck is 3.5cm long, flash is 20cm long in the same axis.

 

Only by your inaccurate conclusions. I suppose they just switched to FLIR to show it crashing into a ditch huh?

 

I wouldn't say so.

 

You don't need to draw a line when it's than obvious.:D

 

Nope. Camera is in vertical plane, missile is at ~45deg to camera. The end nearer the camera will appear longer.

 

Nope, there are clearly extra bends up to 0:12.

 

Nope, we didn't. Missile steering before impact could have briefly changed contrail, this R-27ET is done smoking 7s before impact. And I think the fact it's an R-27ET has been proven here, hence burn period must be 10s due to specification.

The R-27ET is 18% longer but basically your measurements are pure guesswork and lead to false conclusion, that much is proven. You couldn't even count burn time correctly either.

 

Well, if you go off the 27T it is 18.4% longer, but if you go off of the 27ET

it is 15.5% longer, so you guessed wrong and then corrected and we were both right.

 

Nope, slow flash taking many frames.

 

Well, yeah, of course, it had much more fuel to sustain and prolong the flash, and remember, Brimstone flashes take around 3 frames.

 

Cuts power between the engine and the transaxle, leaving the vehicle still in gear but with no motive force to overcome friction. Also, 1.8m long missile nailing it into the ground briefly.

 

1. You realize hitting the in between the powerplant and the transmission is a very low probability shot, right?

 

2. You realize that it is impossible no matter what the tires are doing to stop a truck going that fast unless it hits something solid ie a ditch bank?

 

Happened to an even more experienced USN pilot in 1991.

 

That happened once and it was a professional pilot, not a rebel, your case for probability is pretty cute.

 

Could make out any bright orange, just looked white. Poor quality video. But it's also non-equivalent because the missile strikes the jet engine, even a bird in there can cause problems. In this case a stab is hit.

 

We are talking about flash, not general problems, it is definitely flame.

 

The truck is 3.5cm long, flash is 20cm long in the same axis.

 

You are seriously using a ruler aren't you. What axis are you measuring? Use Gimp or photoshop or something to get accurate numbers.

 

Only by your inaccurate conclusions. I suppose they just switched to FLIR to show it crashing into a ditch huh?

 

You have no case for the 0:40 FLIR truck crash, its almost sad. Yeah, they probably thought it was cool or something.

 

I wouldn't say so.

 

So how far off? like a few meters? that is not much.

 

You don't need to draw a line when it's than obvious.:D

 

Speak English, Man! :D

 

Nope. Camera is in vertical plane, missile is at ~45deg to camera. The end nearer the camera will appear longer.

 

That is why i started to question the reliability of that method, but if it was that bad, wouldn't it crap up any conclusions you have made also?

 

Nope, there are clearly extra bends up to 0:12.

 

Exactly, the wind is swirling it around, the trail abruptly stops at 0:10.

 

Nope, we didn't. Missile steering before impact could have briefly changed contrail, this R-27ET is done smoking 7s before impact. And I think the fact it's an R-27ET has been proven here, hence burn period must be 10s due to specification.

 

In the video the missile smokes for 10 sec and then stops smoking, then the camera pans and there is a puff a very great distance away, so yes, i did, unless you just decided MANPADS burn for 10 sec :megalol:.

It is relevant because you claimed the AIM-9X was 20% longer before the strike but clearly your measuring is bad.

 

That's why it's called combustion, the flame front propagates across the material. In an explosion, the explosive all goes at once.

 

There is a picture of the hole smack-bang in the vehicle centre-line in the same video. It is an extremely accurate missile.

 

Not at all. Being nailed into the ground plus transmission braking will do it.

 

How do you know who was flying the Yemeni MiG-29? Iranians?

 

Not clear. And from an engine, where fuel is burning, it could be, but the OP strike is not to the engine, it is to a stab, so non-equivalent.

 

Along the road, flash at largest time.

 

Yeah, they randomly switched to FLIR to show the truck hit a ditch... in the desert.

 

Impossible to say from that angle. If you put your finger in front of your eyes, that will be 'in-line' with the plane too.

 

It ain't straight.

 

Nope, because they match with the burn time.

 

Nope, powered flight.

 

We know a MANPADS doesn't burn for 10s though, just as we (or more specifically I), knew it wasn't a MANPADS that hit the plane.

It is relevant because you claimed the AIM-9X was 20% longer before the strike but clearly your measuring is bad.

 

Then measure the aim-9x and prove me wrong. You have yet to prove any of my actual measurements as wrong. Was the method i used on the r-27 proven problematic? Yes, and i immediately admitted that when i realized it.

And history has proven my actual measurements to be very precise:

 

I claimed the 27T is about 15% smaller by measuring the scale drawing that Weta43 posted.

 

Going by listed dimensions the 27T is about 15% smaller.

 

 

That's why it's called combustion, the flame front propagates across the material. In an explosion, the explosive all goes at once.

 

I know, and if the surface area is large enough ie the material is crushed, the combustion will happen rapidly enough to imitate an explosion.

 

There is a picture of the hole smack-bang in the vehicle centre-line in the same video. It is an extremely accurate missile.

 

You said those were different hits though, and that hit would have severed the drive shaft in between the trans and the axle, so the tires would be free-wheeling ie no resistance.

 

Go to 0:35 even a warhead can't stop a truck going slower:

 

 

You have no case.

 

Not at all. Being nailed into the ground plus transmission braking will do it.

 

No, it won't, if you lock up the brakes in dirt going 60mph you will slide a very long ways, and it doesn't hardly get pinned down at all, look at the slow-mo normal video hit earlier in that video, the suspension hardly moves (if at all).

 

How do you know who was flying the Yemeni MiG-29? Iranians?

 

I don't, but there is zero good info about the alleged MiG-29 sneak attack, so we can't assume it was an unlikely pilot.;)

 

Not clear. And from an engine, where fuel is burning, it could be, but the OP strike is not to the engine, it is to a stab, so non-equivalent.

 

There is not any fuel being burnt at the nozzle in a non afterburning engine.

 

Along the road, flash at largest time.

 

I am still getting 3.5 lengths, 4 at the absolute max, are you using this frame (it is the largest and easiest because the flash is mostly opaque):

 

 

Yeah, they randomly switched to FLIR to show the truck hit a ditch... in the desert.

 

Yep, and if you look closely there are hot pieces of something flying around right at the start of the FLIR indicating it was hit just before the start of the FLIR.

 

Impossible to say from that angle. If you put your finger in front of your eyes, that will be 'in-line' with the plane too.

 

Yes, but is still has to be close enough to do damage to the plane, and by you account detonate in a flare, so no matter what it has to be very very close.

 

It ain't straight.

 

Ok, i think you may have mentioned that before possibly :lol:

 

Nope, because they match with the burn time.

 

Burn time is a very shakey argument, the trail very abruptly stops at 0:10, and than appears to continue very very slowly untill 0:12, indicating the motor burning out at 0:10 and the wind bending the trail into view until 0:12.

 

Nope, powered flight.

 

Veeeeeerrrrrrry Sllllooooooww powered flight :lol:

 

We know a MANPADS doesn't burn for 10s though, just as we (or more specifically I), knew it wasn't a MANPADS that hit the plane.

 

And since we know that, we can conclude a missile can produce a trail longer than its burn time, but less than its flight time, its just that simple.

I have measured it, 2.5cm before and after.

 

Actually history has proven your measurements completely wrong with the R-27.

 

But it is nearly 20% bigger.

 

The only way to achieve that is by turning the fuel into an aerosol or dust, which is not the case here.

 

Not if the wheels are still connected to the rear transaxle. And the missile is a 1.8m long bar pinning the vehicle to the road.

 

Hit in different place. Why else would they show that in FLIR?

 

There is information about an R-73 hitting a flare though, and we know a ground launched one is unlikely to reach the altitudes seen in the second video whilst still burning.

 

No, but the missile crashes through the engine itself.

 

You are wrong, as always.

 

Stones thrown up by the tyres, not glowing. And answer me this. The vehicle is under remote control, so how would an inert strike and a hole in the trailer cause the vehicle to crash?

 

Not really, rod warhead, cut stab. Minimal damage.

 

It ain't straight.

 

The speed of the trail diminishes all the way, it's called perspective. And the burn time of the R-27ET, as already proven, is known to be 10s from specs.

 

How on Earth do you suppose you can determine that? What direction is it going in? E.g. if it was going directly away from the camera, the end of the trail would not appear to move at all. You measure without thinking.

 

No we can't because the MANPADS trail continues to just before the point of impact when the missile is steering.

 

And the missile has already been proven to be an R-27ET anyway. So what are you arguing here?

I have measured it, 2.5cm before and after.

 

Why are you still using a ruler? Use gimp, its free and open source and has a nice measuring tool to get the exact amount of pixels.

 

These pictures are to scale, the difference is obvious, even to the naked eye:

 

Actually history has proven your measurements completely wrong with the R-27.

 

The measurements themselves weren't wrong, the method i used in that instance was problematic, prove one of my actual measurements wrong.

 

But it is nearly 20% bigger.

 

3.79m divided by 4.49m = 84.4% 100 - 84.4 = 15.6

 

It depends on if your going by the 27ET or the 27T, i would think you would know some basic math if you were involved in missile testing.

 

The only way to achieve that is by turning the fuel into an aerosol or dust, which is not the case here.

 

Unless it is. Real explosives have a similar flash development time to a lot of the rockets in the video, its just that they have so much fuel to sustain for a long time.

 

Not if the wheels are still connected to the rear transaxle. And the missile is a 1.8m long bar pinning the vehicle to the road.

 

If you sever the driveshaft coming from the transmission the wheels will spin freely. Are you saying that the missile acts like a spear and stakes the truck to the ground? that is preposterous.

 

 

 

 

BTW, i have proof (go to 1:53) :

 

 

 

Also, how can you not see he ditch? it is in plane sight.

 

 

The amount of mental gymnastics you're going through to deny the ditch is almost sad.

 

Hit in different place. Why else would they show that in FLIR?

 

'Cause it looked cool. (to them)

 

 

 

(what do you mean by hit in different place?)

 

There is information about an R-73 hitting a flare though, and we know a ground launched one is unlikely to reach the altitudes seen in the second video whilst still burning.

 

I said good info. That is why i brought up altitude in the second video, if the OP is ground launched it has to be much much lower.

 

No, but the missile crashes through the engine itself.

 

No it doesn't, it hits about as fat back as it can without missing.

 

You are wrong, as always.

 

Are you objecting to the results or the frame i used?

 

To get the result you got you would have to measure from the black marks in this image:

 

Stones thrown up by the tyres, not glowing. And answer me this. The vehicle is under remote control, so how would an inert strike and a hole in the trailer cause the vehicle to crash?

 

Probably didn't care much if it crashed after it was hit, or they wanted "cool" video of a crash.

 

Answer me this: if they didn't want it off road, why was it obviously off road?

 

Not really, rod warhead, cut stab. Minimal damage.

 

How close roughly does it have to be to proxy detonate?

 

It ain't straight.

 

I don't think i understand what you are trying to say :megalol:

 

The speed of the trail diminishes all the way, it's called perspective. And the burn time of the R-27ET, as already proven, is known to be 10s from specs.

 

I know, we already talked about that, it has too far to go in too little time for the relative motion to be that slow between 0:10 and 0:12.

 

So the burn time is 10 because the trail seems to get longer for 10, and the burn time of the 27ET is 10, so the motor must be burning for 10.

 

That is called circular reasoning.

 

How on Earth do you suppose you can determine that? What direction is it going in? E.g. if it was going directly away from the camera, the end of the trail would not appear to move at all. You measure without thinking.

 

The plane is left of the missile, are you saying that it decided to turn the opposite way from its target for 2 seconds?

 

No we can't because the MANPADS trail continues to just before the point of impact when the missile is steering.

 

Did you watch the video? Nothing you said pertains to the video i posted:

 

 

And the missile has already been proven to be an R-27ET anyway. So what are you arguing here?

 

I am saying things don't match up, I lean towards it being a 27ET, but there are some holes in the arguments on both.

A ruler works fine and your picture is inaccurate.

 

It's the thinking behind your measurements which is always flawed. You ignore perspective and change in angle. E.g. could a missile be deflected whilst passing through a fuselage? If the missile is 20% shorter, where is the bit that came off?

 

4.8/4.1.

 

Nope.

 

Look up what a transaxle is.

 

How much momentum does a 50kg missile doing 900mph have? And your video proves you wrong. The missile passes straight through the roof and vehicle's does not crash afterwards.

 

The amount of mental gymnastics you use rather than just showing a FLIR video of an inert missile strike producing the same sized flash.

 

That makes no sense.

 

But it wouldn't be much lower though, because there is no valid reason for increasing risk.

 

In a non-afterburning engine with a standard convergent nozzle, the engine is much closer to the back.

 

Try getting it at its biggest point. And at first you said it was 20m. That's a very long 20m.

 

Likely because something broke. In the video you posted above, it continues along the road at 1:53.

 

Who knows. SA-2s in Vietnam often detonated >100m away. It obviously wasn't close enough though.

 

You were trying to say it was straight.

 

You don't understand perspective and angle. This is now your 3rd time demonstrating it.

 

The burn time is 10s because it burns for 10s and someone else has already shown it to be an R-27ET.

 

Look at the sides of the missile very closely below where the antenna sticks out. It gets slightly wider, hence E variant.

 

 

Wow, you really don't understand anything about missile trajectories. An Apache launched Hellfire goes up when it leaves the rails. Does that mean the target is above it? Now think about this really carefully, the missile needs to gain energy, so does it choose to climb most before or after the burn period?

 

There's no hit in that video.

 

Not really, missile has proportions of R-27ET in terms of section lengths and diameters. Only your stubbornness and poor comprehension of angles and perspective prevents you from accepting it, which is why we're still here after 17 pages.

A ruler works fine and your picture is inaccurate.

 

A ruler is less precise. Ok, well, ummm.... why not prove it? The image is to scale, each was created by making a crop the exact same pixel dimensions and then scaling each up 200%.

 

It's the thinking behind your measurements which is always flawed. You ignore perspective and change in angle. E.g. could a missile be deflected whilst passing through a fuselage? If the missile is 20% shorter, where is the bit that came off?

 

What i am saying is, the white blur is around 20% shorter after, Is the missile shorter? We cant be sure, the quality is too low, you claimed the white blur was the same size as when it went it, which is false, and all i was doing was proving that it was false. As for angle, it is just as likely that it was more angled before intercept, broke off more than 20%, and then veered more perpendicular to the camera and appears bigger than it would be had it gone straight.

 

 

 

If my measurement thinking is always wrong you should have no problem disproving 2 or 3 of my previous ones.

 

4.8/4.1.

 

Where did you get those numbers? Also, they don't change the % by hardly anything so i don't know what you are bringing them up. The 27T is about 15% smaller than the ET, the ET is about 18% bigger than the T, it just depends on which way you go.

 

Nope.

 

Don't argue with me, argue with the rocket exploding video.

 

Look up what a transaxle is.

 

Ok, that changed nothing. You realize the engine connects to the transmission near the front and from the trans there is a driveshaft that goes all the way back to the rear axle (in this truck), right?

 

If you are going 70mph on dirt and slam on the brakes, how fast will you stop?

 

How much momentum does a 50kg missile doing 900mph have? And your video proves you wrong. The missile passes straight through the roof and vehicle's does not crash afterwards.

 

Probably a lot, but remember, not much of the energy is transferred going through sheet metal, as you have said.

 

Yeah, i obviously said if a missile touches a vehicle it cant help but crash, and they don't show long enough.

 

The amount of mental gymnastics you use rather than just showing a FLIR video of an inert missile strike producing the same sized flash.

 

I would love to find an inert hit on FLIR, but i haven't been able to find one yet.

 

That makes no sense.

 

Neither does showing it driving straight in the first part of the video.

 

But it wouldn't be much lower though, because there is no valid reason for increasing risk.

 

But you can't prove that, in my first post in this thread i showed the video with an F15 flying around pretty low (although the video doesn't seem to be there anymore).

 

Ok, i think both sides have made a lot of good points, and some bad, but excuse me if i am missing something obvious.

 

What in the living hecking crap is an f-15 doing so low in the first part of the video?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lkU7oxOmjY

 

 

In a non-afterburning engine with a standard convergent nozzle, the engine is much closer to the back.

 

And i have personally looked down the tail pipe of a shooting star, and the last turbine was at least 3-4ft up (probably more).

 

Try getting it at its biggest point. And at first you said it was 20m. That's a very long 20m.

 

That is its biggest point, what frame are you using? Yes, and the truck is 150 px (taking angle into account) the flash is 492 px so it is 3.28 vehicle lengths, and if the truck at most is 6.75m then the flash is 22m. And even if your exaggerated measurements are right that still makes it 38m, so you still need glow factor.

 

Likely because something broke. In the video you posted above, it continues along the road at 1:53.

 

Yes, and if it is off road, it is in great danger of hitting very rough terrain ie a ditch. They cut out to soon to tell in that video.

 

Who knows. SA-2s in Vietnam often detonated >100m away. It obviously wasn't close enough though.

 

So how far do you think it was away?

 

You were trying to say it was straight.

 

I thought the sarcasm was kinda obvious, but i guess i wasn't clear enough.

 

You don't understand perspective and angle. This is now your 3rd time demonstrating it.

 

Ok, prove me wrong, i am dying to hear your plethora of expert knowledge on the subject.

 

The burn time is 10s because it burns for 10s and someone else has already shown it to be an R-27ET.

 

Like i said, it seems to be an ET, but the burn time is messed up.

 

Look at the sides of the missile very closely below where the antenna sticks out. It gets slightly wider, hence E variant.

 

Yeah, either way. ;)

 

Wow, you really don't understand anything about missile trajectories. An Apache launched Hellfire goes up when it leaves the rails. Does that mean the target is above it? Now think about this really carefully, the missile needs to gain energy, so does it choose to climb most before or after the burn period?

 

So a hellfire would obviously launch and go down for a long range target, right?:D The missile would have to go right to cause the relative movement in the video, and that is called losing energy, not gaining it.

 

There's no hit in that video.

 

So? It proves my point either way, and there is a puff after the camera loses focus.

 

Not really, missile has proportions of R-27ET in terms of section lengths and diameters. Only your stubbornness and poor comprehension of angles and perspective prevents you from accepting it, which is why we're still here after 17 pages.

 

 

Yes, but like you say, the missile is angled, so it is impossible to measure proportions :lol: Speaking of stubbornness, you still think a 100lb inert missile can stop a 70mph truck in 5m? Someone please back me up, it is a ditch.

 

 

So since we have been here for 17 pages, hit me with your absolute best proof of detonation.

Not really. It's far more likely that the missile is still in tact and took a smaller deflection while passing through the fuselage. 20% is unlikely to break off and it's even more unlikely that it would be the opposite side to the impact side. So again, unlikely, unlikely and unlikely.

 

The lengths of the R-27 and R-27E respectively.

 

They prove me right.

 

You still don't know what a transaxle is.

 

If you hit a 50kg lump doing 900mph, you'll stop pretty fast.

 

So enough momentum exchange to make it crash but not enough to stop it? How convenient.

 

Until you do, you have no case.

 

Introduction.

 

I think the second hit shows the general altitude they fly at. Broken link.

 

And that missile hits more than 3-4 feet up.

 

I thought the truck was 8.9m, has it suddenly shrank?

 

Ah yes, those desert drainage ditches to prevent it flooding.

 

Impossible to say given the angle.

 

I couldn't tell it was sarcasm because you say ridiculous things anyway.

 

I have to explain how angle and perspective impacts on perceived 2D dimensions?

 

No, it is 10s.

 

This is what I pointed out in the first place. The change from 230mm to 260mm.

 

It appears to be going more slowly when the motor is burning because it's going more directly away from the camera to gain altitude, so that when the motor burns out, it only has to go horizontal.

 

That is one of the people using the launcher, not a hit.

 

You can see the change in diameter below the antenna very clearly.

 

As sure as a nail gun can stop a mouse.

 

0.5 x 2000 x 30^2 = 900,000J

 

0.5 x 50 x 400^2 = 4,000,000J

Not really. It's far more likely that the missile is still in tact and took a smaller deflection while passing through the fuselage. 20% is unlikely to break off and it's even more unlikely that it would be the opposite side to the impact side. So again, unlikely, unlikely and unlikely.

 

1. Prove the images are not to scale, you made an accusation, back it up.

 

2. The video is too low quality to prove either way, so the only thing that is certain is the white blur came out smaller than it went in, weather caused by angle, or video quality or actual missile size.

 

The lengths of the R-27 and R-27E respectively.

 

And where did you get them? That was the question.

 

They prove me right.

 

You originally said missile motors don't explode, and there are multiple flashes which cause shockwaves it that video.

 

You still don't know what a transaxle is.

 

Ok, enlighten me on how the rear axle just freezes when disconnected to the driveshaft.

 

If you hit a 50kg lump doing 900mph, you'll stop pretty fast.

 

You might stop pretty fast if you get hit opposite your velocity vector, but the vehicles in the video get hit from the top-back and the top-side.

 

So enough momentum exchange to make it crash but not enough to stop it? How convenient.

 

Not convenient at all, even some of the live hits did not stop the truck.

 

Until you do, you have no case.

 

And you do? Based upon what? The Dutch av mag?

 

Introduction.

 

Ever heard of a conclusion?

 

I think the second hit shows the general altitude they fly at. Broken link.

 

So 1 video shows how high they fly generally? I can show you a video of one landing, does that mean they generally fly at 100ft AGL?

 

Yeah, i said it didn't work, looks like the video was taken down.

 

And that missile hits more than 3-4 feet up.

 

No, and i was being very conservative, the engine is actually about 7.8 ft up:

I thought the truck was 8.9m, has it suddenly shrank?

 

Logic would dictate i was talking about the flash when i said 8.9m, who would think a pickup truck was 30ft long??? I just picked the max length of a f 250 which is 6.75m. And also even if the flash is 38m like you imply, you are still 12m short of 50m, and so you need glow.

 

Ah yes, those desert drainage ditches to prevent it flooding.

 

Again, you must not be around deserts much, there are many ditches and valleys and gulleys and the like.

 

Impossible to say given the angle.

 

At what angle would it be possible to say? So you are saying the missile definitely wasn't close, but it is impossible to know how far away?

 

I couldn't tell it was sarcasm because you say ridiculous things anyway.

 

It was pretty obvious, you said it ain't straight, i said you said that before and laughed, you said the same thing again, so i thought i would play dumb since you seemed to be going along with the joke, or did you just forget?

 

I have to explain how angle and perspective impacts on perceived 2D dimensions?

 

No, you need to prove your point, the trail starkly slows in between 0:10 and 0:12, why would it do that when the missile is supposed to go the other way?

 

No, it is 10s.

 

Yes, it is close, but questionable.

 

This is what I pointed out in the first place. The change from 230mm to 260mm.

 

After measuring it it seems you are right, it is about 2 px smaller at the top, it looks like the problem was i was using the low-res youtube video you posted.

 

It appears to be going more slowly when the motor is burning because it's going more directly away from the camera to gain altitude, so that when the motor burns out, it only has to go horizontal.

 

What i keep saying is, that the relative motion gradually slows, then basically stops, then far slower than before begins to meander forward.

 

And again, i am not arguing against the ET, it seems you were right about that, i am just casually saying the burn time still looks wrong, you can completely disregard all about the 27ET vs 27T if you want since it is OT.

 

That is one of the people using the launcher, not a hit.

 

At 0:36? A floating white puff of launcher user flying in the sky!!!!!!!!!!:lol:

 

You can see the change in diameter below the antenna very clearly.

 

I wouldn't say it is clear, but it seems to be there.

 

As sure as a nail gun can stop a mouse.

 

0.5 x 2000 x 30^2 = 900,000J

 

0.5 x 50 x 400^2 = 4,000,000J

 

A nail weighs, more like a quarter of a mouse, and a brimstone weighs more like a 56th of the truck, but is an analogy so i will let that go...

 

 

1. A truck weighs closer to 2800Kg

 

2. Very little to no KE of the missile would be against forward motion.

 

3. Here is a lighter truck going farther after hitting a car:

 

Prove they are to scale, prove it didn't take a deflection. The missile is also ~20% narrower in the shot where it's shorter. Did it go on a diet? Or is it just a blurry image? Where is the large part of the missile leaving the rear stab in the OP video?

 

Widely available. 4.08m and 4.8m.

 

I said they don't explode in 1 frame.

 

Rear transaxle - transmission on rear axle.

 

Which tends to smash them into the ground, possibly breaking the suspension and axle joints.

 

They did, just not in the 1s the video remained on that clip.

 

Where is the FLIR video of an inert hit producing a 50m wide flash.

 

Yep, and getting hit by a Brimstone is a conclusion.

 

Now you're just being silly. If the enemy only has short range, low altitude AA/SAM systems, naturally the enemy will fly above them.

 

And the front of the cloud is easily that far up, the wind will blow everything backward. And it still just looks like a cloud and a very small one.

 

I thought the flash was 20m not 8.9m?:juggle:

 

You may have spent too long in the desert.

 

I'm saying it's impossible to say from that angle but the initial flash couldn't have been very close to the aircraft or it wouldn't have got back.

 

Because the missile is gaining altitude whilst the motor burns, after that it chases the aircraft. So the missile goes from heading nearly directly away from camera to a more perpendicular direction.

 

Not really, it's 10s. You can also see where the tail section increases in width. It's an E variant.

 

So you agree it's an E variant then?

 

If a missile is heading directly away from a camera it wouldn't appear to move at all, irrelevant of how fast it's going.

 

I see nothing except a lot of Akbarring.

 

It's clear as day.

 

I think you'll find you get different sizes of nail and mice.

 

Car was going same speed(ish) and was mostly side-on.

Prove they are to scale, prove it didn't take a deflection. The missile is also ~20% narrower in the shot where it's shorter. Did it go on a diet? Or is it just a blurry image? Where is the large part of the missile leaving the rear stab in the OP video?

 

I have already proven it as much as possible, I have produced the images and detailed how i processed them, if you think they are fake, go make your own scale images.

 

As far as i can tell it is the same width in both photos.

 

Also, i just said there is no way to prove anything about the missile length, due to blur speed and possible deflection.

 

 

Widely available. 4.08m and 4.8m.

 

Those are for the radar guided 27's :lol:

 

I said they don't explode in 1 frame.

 

Neither do a lot of normal explosives.

 

Rear transaxle - transmission on rear axle.

 

That is funny, there is a ford f250 parked about 80ft from where i am sitting right now, the transmission is in the front right behind the engine (It is the large silver colored funnel shaped thing):

 

Which tends to smash them into the ground, possibly breaking the suspension and axle joints.

 

Give me a break, the suspension hardly moved, Something landing straight down on a moving truck does hardly anything to the forward speed, and if the wheels were simultaneously locked up it would stop much slower, like 100 feet minimum.

 

 

They did, just not in the 1s the video remained on that clip.

 

In this at 0:35?

 

In the time left in that clip it had already gone farther and was traveling much slower.

 

Where is the FLIR video of an inert hit producing a 50m wide flash.

 

Where are all the videos of a 50m hellfire/brimstone flash?

 

 

This one at 0:32 is less than 20m:

 

You still deny glow factor even though it is necessary for your argument.

 

Yep, and getting hit by a Brimstone is a conclusion.

 

It goes like this:

 

Here is happy terrorist truck rampaging

Here is truck getting hit

Here is truck crashing and the bad dudes lose

 

Now you're just being silly. If the enemy only has short range, low altitude AA/SAM systems, naturally the enemy will fly above them.

 

I meant it as silly, and you have given no actual proof that they never fly low, just logic, does it make sense to fly at 30k all the time? of course, but do they do it? Probably not all the time.

 

And the front of the cloud is easily that far up, the wind will blow everything backward. And it still just looks like a cloud and a very small one.

 

No, and almost all of the flash is external ie not coming from the plane.

Cloud of what? Water vapor?

 

The missile was heading rear of the engine:

 

I thought the flash was 20m not 8.9m?:juggle:

 

Did you just forget the entire conversation? I originally used the wrong frame(8.9m), and then you posted another wrong frame and so i went back and found the proper frame (20m).

 

 

And remember, even if your exaggerated 5.7 times the vehicle length figure was right, you are still 12m short and therefore you need glow factor.

 

You may have spent too long in the desert.

 

Haha, no, i live in the mountains, but grew up in what i guess would be considered a dry plain near the Owyhee desert.

 

I'm saying it's impossible to say from that angle but the initial flash couldn't have been very close to the aircraft or it wouldn't have got back.

 

Or it is just the simple answer:

 

The missile did not detonate.

 

Because the missile is gaining altitude whilst the motor burns, after that it chases the aircraft. So the missile goes from heading nearly directly away from camera to a more perpendicular direction.

 

I see what you are saying, but it does not apply in this case.

 

Not really, it's 10s. You can also see where the tail section increases in width. It's an E variant.

 

Sure.

 

So you agree it's an E variant then?

 

I would say yes, the balance of evidence points to an ET, the only thing that doesn't is the extremely low probability freak accident "coincidence" of the fin proportions manipulated by the angle being exactly the same as the 27T.

 

If a missile is heading directly away from a camera it wouldn't appear to move at all, irrelevant of how fast it's going.

 

And what i was saying is that there is only loss in turning directly away from the camera at 0:10.

 

I see nothing except a lot of Akbarring.

 

White puff in the center, and it is still irrelevant if it hit because the MANPADS smokes for 10 sec and then continues not smoking.

 

It's clear as day.

 

One might say, about a quarter as clear as the ditch in the FLIR :lol:

 

I think you'll find you get different sizes of nail and mice.

 

Car was going same speed(ish) and was mostly side-on.

 

So hitting 1140kg in the front is going to do less than getting hit with 50kg from the top?

So is it not simpler to say the missile appears to be largely in one piece and hasn't undergone the obliteration likely to cause the rocket motor to explode, as you first claimed it did in that video?

 

Okay, so 3.8m vs 4.5m for R-27T and R-27ET. Still about 20%.

 

http://www.artem.ua/en/produktsiya/aviation-means-of-attack-and-defense/air-to-air-missiles-r-27r1

 

Yeah, they do.

 

Ever considered that it isn't the same vehicle in the video? Ever considered that the driveshaft was damaged, or the gearbox was damaged, causing drive to be obstructed?

 

You underestimate the momentum of a 50kg object doing 900mph.

 

Probably because the impact did different damage.

 

Already shown.

 

Only by your warped measuring, which has already proven false.

 

A truck crashing after everyone is dead, is hardly relevant.

 

It's a safe bet.

 

Yeah, because the combustion chamber of the jet is perhaps ruptured.

 

No, I need ball park similar sizes and your measuring is garbage. You need a FLIR inert strike showing the same. Showing blurry non-FLIR video doesn't cut it.

 

Very little oxygen up there.

 

But produced a 50m wide flash whilst going through a thin stab?

 

Why not?

 

So why argue for the sake of it if you admit I'm right?

 

You're trying to measure something small accurately on a blurry video without accounting for perspective and angle. That's why.

 

The missile is getting further away and gaining in latitude before chasing the aircraft.

 

That is an extremist.

 

One might say, wrong on R-27, give it up.

 

If the car is going sideways, then yes. You need to look up momentum.

So is it not simpler to say the missile appears to be largely in one piece and hasn't undergone the obliteration likely to cause the rocket motor to explode, as you first claimed it did in that video?

 

I have never claimed the missile was obliterated. There is evidence for it being smaller after intercept, there is zero evidence for it remaining intact.

 

Okay, so 3.8m vs 4.5m for R-27T and R-27ET. Still about 20%.

 

http://www.artem.ua/en/produktsiya/aviation-means-of-attack-and-defense/air-to-air-missiles-r-27r1

 

Have you not been listening at all? As i have said like 3 times, the T is 15% smaller than the ET, and the ET is 18% bigger than the T, it just depends on which direction you go.

 

Yeah, they do.

 

The one at 0:33 takes like 3:

 

Ever considered that it isn't the same vehicle in the video? Ever considered that the driveshaft was damaged, or the gearbox was damaged, causing drive to be obstructed?

 

Ever considered that the manufacture has more accurate titles then the news ("Strike" not plural)?

 

As i have said many times, locking your tires up at 70mph will stop you in more than 100ft, not 15 or less, and down force will do very little to change that.

 

On pavement tests of trucks on pavement being intentionally braked stopping in about 130ft, so with some down force it will cot that down to 15ft, right?:lol:

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual-physical-braking.html

 

You underestimate the momentum of a 50kg object doing 900mph.

 

You overestimate how much of that momentum was transferred to the truck opposite it's velocity vector.

 

Probably because the impact did different damage.

 

So the slow moving truck gets obliterated but still not enough damage to stop it fast?

 

Already shown.

 

The tank hit? That one is about 5 tank lengths, which is under 40m.

 

Only by your warped measuring, which has already proven false.

 

And what did you come up with? Lose the baseless accusations, or actually prove my measurement false.

 

A truck crashing after everyone is dead, is hardly relevant.

 

These guys survived:

 

It's a safe bet.

 

So, from 100% never fly low, to i would gamble on it?

 

Yeah, because the combustion chamber of the jet is perhaps ruptured.

 

Why would that produce a single flash?

 

No, I need ball park similar sizes and your measuring is garbage. You need a FLIR inert strike showing the same. Showing blurry non-FLIR video doesn't cut it.

 

Define ballpark. My measuring is garbage? That means a lot coming from you, the ballpark-ruler guy. You said missile motor's do not make a flash, and the stinger video proves that false.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

 

Very little oxygen up there.

 

Yep, so my cardiovascular system is more efficient :lol:

 

You just have to accept that you know very little about ditches in deserts ;)

 

But produced a 50m wide flash whilst going through a thin stab?

 

Yep, as i have proven, only 1.5 sec of fuel can produce the flash and sustain the after glow even without residual heat of KE.

 

Why not?

 

Because the a/c is traveling left, and if the missile made a maneuver resulting in the trail movement between 0:10 and 0:12 the missile would be giving up energy for absolutely no return.

 

So why argue for the sake of it if you admit I'm right?

 

Because you keep bringing it up :)

 

You're trying to measure something small accurately on a blurry video without accounting for perspective and angle. That's why.

 

I am guessing you are talking about the fin proportion measurements? Yeah, as i have said, after some experimenting i decided that the angle did matter and abandoned that, but i still think it is hilarious that the angle was soo perfect to produce exactly what you would expect from a 27T, even though it was a 27ET.

 

The missile is getting further away and gaining in latitude before chasing the aircraft.

 

And why would it turn away and up? Instead of towards and up?

 

That is an extremist.

 

I am starting to worry about your eyesight, look at the white puff i circled at 0:36

 

One might say, wrong on R-27, give it up.

 

One might say, wrong on scale images, wrong on size of aim-9x, wrong on motors exploding, wrong about inert FLIR hit, changed opinion on detonation, changed opinion on video being fake multiple times ect....

 

If the car is going sideways, then yes. You need to look up momentum.

 

And which direction was the missile traveling?

There is evidence of it being thinner too. So maybe you're just trying to measure to a level of accuracy that isn't possible with a grainy video and not accounting for a possible deflection.

 

20% larger though, just like 4.9 vs 5.9px.

 

3 what?

 

What are you supposed to be showing here?

 

Not if an axle breaks completely and your wheels turn sideways.

 

You underestimate the forces pushing it into the ground.

 

5 tank length gun forward is 48m.

 

It was wrong with R-27ET.

 

That's because the missile missed.

 

Define a safe bet.

 

Combustion ruptured outwards.

 

That isn't the stinger strike and may not even be a flash. You use low quality videos to try make precise measurements and judgements. This is also a form of inaccuracy.

 

Only if it adapts.

 

Like why they built the test track near one.

 

But based on the AIM-9X video a thin stab is not even going to rupture the missile, let alone ignite the fuel. The missile hits nose first, the motor is at the rear.

 

You don't understand trajectories, period. No point even discussing it with you.

 

You keep arguing that it's wrong.

 

And how big is that R-27 you tried measure on the video image compared to the AIM-9X you're also trying to measure.:lol: You failed to measure the R-27 correctly from up close whilst it was going very slowly but are still trying to measure an AIM-9X at full speed from even further away. Do you ever learn.

 

Because then it wouldn't be going up enough.

 

If I look hard enough at that image, I see white puffs everywhere. You made claims about flames and flash, now you're pointing at a feint cloud and saying it's a definite missile strike. Or maybe it's water vapour.

 

One might say:

you changed your mind on video being fake too,

measured large R-27 image wrong, shouldn't try measure even smaller images.

Wrong on burn time.

Hasn't produced proof of inert flash on FLIR.

Failed to prove a stab can even rupture a missile motor.

Failed.

 

Down. Might not even be the same strike.

There is evidence of it being thinner too. So maybe you're just trying to measure to a level of accuracy that isn't possible with a grainy video and not accounting for a possible deflection.

 

As i have said many times, there is evidence for it being shorter, but by no means is that evidence conclusive because of mentioned factors (blur, speed, deflection angle) But there is also zero evidence for it staying the same, so does to balance of evidence point towards it being shorter? Yes, but just barely.

 

20% larger though, just like 4.9 vs 5.9px.

 

18% larger, and let me explain something, the error margin for the 27's is 2%, since the fins are 23% of the 27ET and 25% for the 27T, so there is only a 2% difference in what i was actually measuring for, so my 27 measurements were 2% wrong.

 

3 what?

 

Frames, we were talking about frames.

 

What are you supposed to be showing here?

 

You claimed the brimstone video had multiple hits in it (that the inert hit in the earlier part was different from the 0:40 part) because in the video title it said "targets", but in the original video uploaded by the manufacture says "strike", non plural.

 

Not if an axle breaks completely and your wheels turn sideways.

 

That is still nowhere near changing 130ft to 15ft. And to paraphrase you, until you show a video of an inert missile stopping a 70mph truck in 15ft, you have no case.

 

You underestimate the forces pushing it into the ground.

 

And what exactly are those forces then?

 

5 tank length gun forward is 48m.

 

I was going off the hull and the hull length, if i measure the length including the gun (which seems less precise) it is 3.4 times the length and still less than 40m

 

It was wrong with R-27ET.

 

Before you said it was always wrong. And you can only come up with once where there was a 2% deviation?

 

That's because the missile missed.

 

Yeah, i had just seen that video right before replying, so i thought i'd post it.

 

Define a safe bet.

 

When you feel you have a large enough margin to where you can do something without great danger of failing.

 

Combustion ruptured outwards.

 

And why didn't it continue? The fuel wouldn't have been cut off.

 

That isn't the stinger strike and may not even be a flash. You use low quality videos to try make precise measurements and judgements. This is also a form of inaccuracy.

 

I use low quality videos because that is what i have been able to find, using a precise form of measuring on a low quality video is a lot better than having a high quality video and not measuring at all, or using a ruler on your monitor.

 

Only if it adapts.

 

I am pretty sure attacking someones health and how it effects your mental processes probably violates a forum rule.

 

Like why they built the test track near one.

 

*missile testing person surveying possible test track

"HOLY CRAP! A DITCH? WHAT THE HECK! WE CAN"T TEST MISSILE HERE!!!"

 

But based on the AIM-9X video a thin stab is not even going to rupture the missile, let alone ignite the fuel. The missile hits nose first, the motor is at the rear.

 

That missile had burned out, so maybe the the motor would have exploded if there was any fuel left.

 

You don't understand trajectories, period. No point even discussing it with you.

 

Ok, guess i'll never learn then :lol:

 

You keep arguing that it's wrong.

 

Ok, its OT, so we can discontinue.

 

And how big is that R-27 you tried measure on the video image compared to the AIM-9X you're also trying to measure.:lol: You failed to measure the R-27 correctly from up close whilst it was going very slowly but are still trying to measure an AIM-9X at full speed from even further away. Do you ever learn.

 

If there was a 27T sitting on the ground you would have a point, but there was 0 reference other than the missile, so all i could measure was the fin proportions, which were 2% different. There is an obvious and irrefutable difference in the white blur's size, is the actual missile smaller? who knows.

 

Because then it wouldn't be going up enough.

 

So it either goes up and right or not-up and left? (you don't have to answer since it is OT)

 

If I look hard enough at that image, I see white puffs everywhere. You made claims about flames and flash, now you're pointing at a feint cloud and saying it's a definite missile strike. Or maybe it's water vapour.

 

1. it is much more visible when actually watching the video.

 

2. It is of no consequence weather it hit or not, it proves the missile can smoke for longer than burn time and less then total flight time, weather you like it or not.

 

One might say:

you changed your mind on video being fake too,

measured large R-27 image wrong, shouldn't try measure even smaller images.

Wrong on burn time.

Hasn't produced proof of inert flash on FLIR.

Failed to prove a stab can even rupture a missile motor.

Failed.

 

I have never said the video is fake, just that it looks potentially doctored.

I Deviated 2% once, i must be a failure :lol:

Not proven.

And would love to if i could find one. And i remind you, you haven't produced a similar sized FLIR flash either.

But succeeded in proving that if it did with 1.5 sec of fuel, it could produce the OP flash.

 

 

 

Down. Might not even be the same strike.

 

By your logic, it is since the title in the original video says "strike", non plural.

In the same image it looks marginally thinner though and we know the missile didn't diet. We also know long objects tend to snap in the centre. It also looks to be one piece in, one piece out. Ergo, it is most likely that the missile is intact... after going through an entire fuselage, not just a thin stab.

 

I said approximately 20%. You're measuring % accuracy down to an amount smaller than the % of blur in the image.

 

Explosion flash 1-2 frames. Rocket motor explosion, many frames.

 

'Targets' does imply multiple hits.

 

Show the non-FLIR video of this ditch.

 

A 900mph, 50kg nail from above. Wouldn't be surprised if that bursts the tyres or buckles the wheels.

 

So because less than 40m, you argue it's completely different to 50m? How big is a Brimstone flash in normal video? And how big are these little inert puffs in normal video. Explosions at ground level have a greater amount of air to push aside.

 

If one missile is almost 20% longer and you measured the fin ratio, then you are 20% off either way. And that is on a relatively large missile from relatively close up.

 

A miss is not a hit.

 

The only truly safe bet is 100% sure.

 

Damage to ignition system, engine failure.

 

Nope, using precise measuring on an imprecise video is fundamentally flawed. It's like using numbers to 1dp in a calculation and writing the answer to 3dp. It's plain wrong.

 

I just said the air was thin at high altitudes.

 

Well Jeez, it's a big desert, but let's test near this canyon....

 

Burned out? You claimed there was a flash at first until I pointed out the missile leaving.

 

Yep.

 

The R-27ET in on-topic, it demonstrates why your conclusions are wrong.

 

You could have looked at the lengths and the diameter difference of the rear section.

 

It's more advantageous to use the energy to gain altitude. You do understand that a missile does not just bee-line straight for the intercept point? This is one of the reasons AMRAAM have actually gained in range, better flight profile management.

 

Not really. Looks more like water vapour.

 

How do you know when it stopped flying, the missile's auto-destruction possibly occurred after that point.

 

More like 20%.

 

It's an ET, so definitely wrong on burn time.

 

So look for one instead of posting.

 

Yes I have. 30, 40 or 50m is still similar sized and air pressure affects explosion size.

 

Nope, we're yet to see this huge sudden flash from 1.5s of fuel exploding, not that it even would have after hitting a thin stab nose first.

 

The damaged truck is not in a ditch though.:megalol:

In the same image it looks marginally thinner though and we know the missile didn't diet. We also know long objects tend to snap in the centre. It also looks to be one piece in, one piece out. Ergo, it is most likely that the missile is intact... after going through an entire fuselage, not just a thin stab.

 

But it doesn't measure thinner though. We also know that tend does not mean always. Yep, one piece in, one smaller piece out.

 

I said approximately 20%. You're measuring % accuracy down to an amount smaller than the % of blur in the image.

 

You are the same amount wrong as my r 27 measurements :megalol: No, there is not a whole lot of blur in the 27 video.

 

Explosion flash 1-2 frames. Rocket motor explosion, many frames.

 

It takes far longer for a space travel rocket to explode, since there is like 50,000 times more fuel.

 

'Targets' does imply multiple hits.

 

:doh: But the original video uploaded by the manufacture says "strike", non plural:

 

 

Show the non-FLIR video of this ditch.

 

Look at the non-FLIR video of this hit, the truck is next to a van.

 

A 900mph, 50kg nail from above. Wouldn't be surprised if that bursts the tyres or buckles the wheels.

 

Neither would I, but that isn't going to stop a truck going 70MPH in 15ft.

 

So because less than 40m, you argue it's completely different to 50m? How big is a Brimstone flash in normal video? And how big are these little inert puffs in normal video. Explosions at ground level have a greater amount of air to push aside.

 

Yes, and by less than 40m i meant about 32-35m, where is your video producing a flash 45-55m?

 

If one missile is almost 20% longer and you measured the fin ratio, then you are 20% off either way. And that is on a relatively large missile from relatively close up.

 

No, my measurement was off by 2%, if you went to buy tires for your pickup truck and accidentally got semi truck tires were you off by 29% or 65%?

(the tire size is 29% different and the truck length is 65% different)

 

A miss is not a hit.

 

A truly profound statement.

 

The only truly safe bet is 100% sure.

 

That is not a bet.

 

Damage to ignition system, engine failure.

 

You realize the ignition system has nothing to do with the fuel flow right?

 

Nope, using precise measuring on an imprecise video is fundamentally flawed. It's like using numbers to 1dp in a calculation and writing the answer to 3dp. It's plain wrong.

 

As long as you handle everything the same way you still get pretty accurate numbers, what would be flawed is measuring a low-res picture and then applying that to a high-res picture.

 

I just said the air was thin at high altitudes.

 

You keep suggesting that i am deprived of oxygen or water.

 

Well Jeez, it's a big desert, but let's test near this canyon....

 

Ditch<Canyon, You can't just say they would reject an area because it has a small ditch.

 

Burned out? You claimed there was a flash at first until I pointed out the missile leaving.

 

No, i claimed there was a flash until i realized the missile was burned out.

 

Yep.

 

Most of your replies sound like a monotone-grouchy-old-curmudgeon which only cares about being right.

 

The R-27ET in on-topic, it demonstrates why your conclusions are wrong.

 

It is the only measurement you can prove i got wrong, and it was only off by 2%.

 

You could have looked at the lengths and the diameter difference of the rear section.

 

The lengths of what? Yes, i could have, but i was using the low-res video that you posted, so there was no discernible difference.

 

It's more advantageous to use the energy to gain altitude. You do understand that a missile does not just bee-line straight for the intercept point? This is one of the reasons AMRAAM have actually gained in range, better flight profile management.

 

What i keep saying is, that the missile should go up, but up and in the same direction as the target, not up, away, and behind the target.

 

Not really. Looks more like water vapour.

 

Doesn't matter.

 

How do you know when it stopped flying, the missile's auto-destruction possibly occurred after that point.

 

Also doesn't matter, the missile stopped trailing before it stopped flying.

 

More like 20%.

 

Show me the measurement that is 20% wrong.

 

It's an ET, so definitely wrong on burn time.

 

Circular reasoning.

 

So look for one instead of posting.

 

I could say the same thing to you, you are the one denying the contractors assessment.

 

Yes I have. 30, 40 or 50m is still similar sized and air pressure affects explosion size.

 

Where is the 40m one? And no that is not similar, and you still deny glow do you?

 

Nope, we're yet to see this huge sudden flash from 1.5s of fuel exploding, not that it even would have after hitting a thin stab nose first.

 

We are also yet to not see it, and who knows how much acceleration it takes to detonate the motor.

 

The damaged truck is not in a ditch though.:megalol:

 

Yeah, it looks like it is in some type of depot away from the test site.

It does measure thinner, depending on which part of the blur you measure. And where is the smaller piece?

 

Funny how I got the missile right then. And the R-27 is larger, yet you still measured it wrong and crucially, reach the wrong conclusion.

 

And yet a 2,000lb bomb explodes just as fast as a 500lb bomb.

 

MBDA Missile Systems demonstrates the superiority of the combat-proven Dual Mode Brimstone with a series of successful test firings in October 2013.

 

The trials involved firing five Dual Mode Brimstone missiles at a series of fast moving targets traveling up to 70 mph. Brimstones were fired from a variety of launch conditions including long range and high off-boresight and against targets traveling through cluttered road environments.

 

Yes it is.

 

First one in video.

 

But for me 35m is sufficiently close to 50m, which you consider atmospheric variation.

 

You had two missiles roughly 20% different in length and you guessed the wrong one. And that was on a bigger, less blurred image.

 

Indeed.

 

Yes it is.

 

It does have a lot to do with combustion though.

 

Or measuring a relatively high res, large picture, getting it wrong and then trying to measure a low res, blurry, small picture.

 

The air is very thin up there, it could lead to measuring errors like those demonstrated already.

 

It's a very big desert, why use an area with a ditch?

 

So you admit to not knowing what is or isn't a flash? Very difficult with these terrible quality videos huh.

 

And yet it seems I am right quite a lot. Right about R-27ET, right about no flash... that you've admitted so far.

 

But you got the presence of a flash wrong too and now you are trying to measure flashes... accurately... despite not even knowing what is or isn't a flash and having got non-time-variant measurements wrong in the past. It's like moving on to calculus without knowing your times table.

 

Les low res than the AIM-9X you claimed to have measured. You also tried measure a flash that you later realised didn't exist.:megalol:

 

It is never going away from the target, it is just going up more than towards the target whilst the motor is burning. It's called energy management.

 

So why bring it up?

 

If something isn't flying, it won't produce tip vortices.

 

The R-27ET. The measurement of the flash that didn't exist was also 100% wrong.

 

Nope. It's now been firmly established that it's an ET, so you were wrong on burn time too and by 25%, or roughly the same as 32m vs 40m.:lol:

 

Contractor knows there is a broken stab, video shows a large flash. Inert missile hitting stab doesn't produce a large flash.

 

20% out on R-27 dimensions, 25% out on burn time, 100% out on presence of a flash. What a 'glowing' resume.

 

A stab exploding an inert missile motor would be a like an ordinary, single-glazed window exploding a brick that is attached to the back of a metal cylinder that hits the window head first.

 

Nope, I am not seeing it right now. Until you see something, you are not yet seeing it all the time.

 

After they used a crane they just happened to have, to get it out of the ditch.:lol:

It does measure thinner, depending on which part of the blur you measure. And where is the smaller piece?

 

I can't get it to measure consistently thinner no matter how i do it. Where is the smaller piece? Anywhere, the plane, the cloud of debris ect.

 

Funny how I got the missile right then. And the R-27 is larger, yet you still measured it wrong and crucially, reach the wrong conclusion.

There is a world of difference in measuring between identifying a single thing with no reference other than itself, and measuring change between frames or measuring something with a known reference, like a tank or a plane or a truck.

 

And yet a 2,000lb bomb explodes just as fast as a 500lb bomb.

Yes, but combustion works differently, the more fuel you have the longer it takes to develop and lasts longer.

 

MBDA Missile Systems demonstrates the superiority of the combat-proven Dual Mode Brimstone with a series of successful test firings in October 2013.

 

The trials involved firing five Dual Mode Brimstone missiles at a series of fast moving targets traveling up to 70 mph. Brimstones were fired from a variety of launch conditions including long range and high off-boresight and against targets traveling through cluttered road environments.

The title is a description of the video, the description is the context.

 

Notice it says "series of fast moving targets traveling up to 70 mph" but in the title it indicates it is the 70MPH stike.

 

Yes it is.

Prove it.

 

First one in video.

So you chose the lowest quality and most glow-y video you can find which is still only around 43m? If they were similar you would think they would average around 5m, not like 37m.

 

But for me 35m is sufficiently close to 50m, which you consider atmospheric variation.

So 30% different is basically the same? Then why do you freak out about 2%?

 

You had two missiles roughly 20% different in length and you guessed the wrong one. And that was on a bigger, less blurred image.

No, i had one missile with zero reference other than itself, so the only way to measure was to measure proportions, which i deviated from 2%.

 

Indeed.

No need for humility, this is the internet!!! :lol:

 

Yes it is.

No it is indisputable knowledge of something, there has to be risk for it to be a bet.

 

It does have a lot to do with combustion though.

So it just couldn't stay lit with all those flames gushing out? :lol:

 

Or measuring a relatively high res, large picture, getting it wrong and then trying to measure a low res, blurry, small picture.

Completely different measuring techniques, hardly comparable.

 

The air is very thin up there, it could lead to measuring errors like those demonstrated already.

That is like me saying "you can't see the screen with all that fog" it is just pointless and rude.

 

It's a very big desert, why use an area with a ditch?

Its a very big testing area, you can't help a ditch here and there.

 

So you admit to not knowing what is or isn't a flash? Very difficult with these terrible quality videos huh.

I just suggested it could be, not "it is definitely a flash 100%". Yeah, i wish we had higher quality ones.

 

And yet it seems I am right quite a lot. Right about R-27ET, right about no flash... that you've admitted so far.

Wow, 2 right, good job, too bad they have little to do with the actual discussion. You have been wrong a fair bit of times also, far from being right quite a lot.

 

But you got the presence of a flash wrong too and now you are trying to measure flashes... accurately... despite not even knowing what is or isn't a flash and having got non-time-variant measurements wrong in the past. It's like moving on to calculus without knowing your times table.

Haha, so you can still only prove one measurement wrong? What happened to always?

 

Les low res than the AIM-9X you claimed to have measured. You also tried measure a flash that you later realised didn't exist.:megalol:

The R 27 video had a much much smaller error margin, I never tried to measure the puff in the -9X video, only suggested it could be a flash.

 

It is never going away from the target, it is just going up more than towards the target whilst the motor is burning. It's called energy management.

I know, but for its relative motion to sharply decrease at 0:10, the missile would have to go away from the target, regardless of up or down.

 

So why bring it up?

Because you were trying to say there was no hit.

 

If something isn't flying, it won't produce tip vortices.

So? The missile clearly was still flying after the trail stopped.

 

The R-27ET. The measurement of the flash that didn't exist was also 100% wrong.

The measurement was 2% wrong, And i never measured the -9X puff, I can't be wrong on something i never addressed.

 

Nope. It's now been firmly established that it's an ET, so you were wrong on burn time too and by 25%, or roughly the same as 32m vs 40m.:lol:

Just because it is an ET doesn't mean the burn time is 10 sec. Withe the less than 40m thing i was exaggerating in your favor to be extra extra careful. And i never "measured" burn time either.

 

Contractor knows there is a broken stab, video shows a large flash. Inert missile hitting stab doesn't produce a large flash.

You have no idea who the "contractor" is and what they know, you chose to believe an av mag and a video which you can't stay decided on it's validity.

 

20% out on R-27 dimensions, 25% out on burn time, 100% out on presence of a flash. What a 'glowing' resume.

2% out on 27, never measured burn time, what the heck does the flash thing have to do with measuring? Yes, you can still only disprove one measurement after claiming i was "always" wrong, what a glowing resume considering you still deny glow factor.

 

A stab exploding an inert missile motor would be a like an ordinary, single-glazed window exploding a brick that is attached to the back of a metal cylinder that hits the window head first.

Do you know how much force a stab has to endure compared to a window?

 

Nope, I am not seeing it right now. Until you see something, you are not yet seeing it all the time.

Like i said, absence of evidence is not evidence, just because we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it doesn't happen, especially since we have no inert FLIR hits.

 

After they used a crane they just happened to have, to get it out of the ditch.:lol:

1. it wasn't in the ditch when it stopped

 

2. how did they git it there if it didn't hit a ditch

 

3. obviously all they had on hand was a remote control truck, a FLIR camera, a slow-mo camera, and a brimstone missile.