Sidewinder performance

Your link is confirming the 30km range for the R-73M2 :D

Range: 20km (R-73M1), or 30km (R-73M2)

R-73M2 is NOT modeled in lockon... so whats your point?

R-73M2 is NOT modeled in lockon... so whats your point?

Nothing it is just funny because the su-30 is modeled which comes with the R-73M2.

There is no document that describes the model of R-77 too

(which version is modeled for the Su-30?).

I know of course that the R-73M2 is the Russian equivalent of the AIM-9X.

:D =Funny remark (that is all)

The first upgrade of the original R-73 was the RMD-1 upgrade, which increased its aerodynamic range by 10km to 30km. Then came the RMD-2.

The K-74 has an aerodynamic range of 40 km and a 90 degree off bore lock angle and a 120 degree off bore tracking angle (seeker gimball limit, but target designation is at 90 deg). It's the most advanced of the R-73 family, and is made for export, with a new FPA seeker, more efficient TVC paddles (3% ultimate thrust loss, instead of 5% for the older ones) and a new nose section for the extended seeker gimbal limit. Don't remember when this K-74 was ready for export, but it was something like 1999 with flight testing completed back in 1994, while the R-73RMD2 entered RuAF service in 1994 (probably in limited numbers). Those are different modifications of the R-73, the RMD2 has a 60 degree designation angle and a 75 degree off bore tracking limit. Its aerodynamic range is the same as that of the K-74ME (export),: 40 km.

Slightly confusing, as western missiles can designate as far off bore as they can track, the R-73 relies on the radar and EOS for target designation coordinates for the 'normal' firing modes.

If we have the 'vanilla' R-73, then its ultimate range should be something like the 20km mentioned, if the RMD-1 version is moddled, then the range should be 30 km. The other two mods have bigger designation angles, so they're definately not moddled in lomac.

BTW, found some info in English on the control elements of the R-77 and R-73, just look at the corresponding diameters, 170mm for the R-73 and 200 for the R-77 :), from the makers themselves, so it has some credability :P

R-77, most left, Ukrainian designed self defense missile (R-73 replacement, made in 2006) second them the left, R-73 control section is the 4th from the left.

http://www.luch.kiev.ua/english/main.htm MAKE ED LOOK AT THEM for future projects, so all this whining and moaning can be put aside.

The first upgrade of the original R-73 was the RMD-1 upgrade, which increased its aerodynamic range by 10km to 30km. Then came the RMD-2.

The K-74 has an aerodynamic range of 40 km and a 90 degree off bore lock angle and a 120 degree off bore tracking angle (seeker gimball limit, but target designation is at 90 deg). It's the most advanced of the R-73 family, and is made for export, with a new FPA seeker, more efficient TVC paddles (3% ultimate thrust loss, instead of 5% for the older ones) and a new nose section for the extended seeker gimbal limit. Don't remember when this K-74 was ready for export, but it was something like 1999 with flight testing completed back in 1994, while the R-73RMD2 entered RuAF service in 1994 (probably in limited numbers). Those are different modifications of the R-73, the RMD2 has a 60 degree designation angle and a 75 degree off bore tracking limit. Its aerodynamic range is the same as that of the K-74ME (export),: 40 km.

Slightly confusing, as western missiles can designate as far off bore as they can track, the R-73 relies on the radar and EOS for target designation coordinates for the 'normal' firing modes.

If we have the 'vanilla' R-73, then its ultimate range should be something like the 20km mentioned, if the RMD-1 version is moddled, then the range should be 30 km. The other two mods have bigger designation angles, so they're definately not moddled in lomac.

 

BTW, found some info in English on the control elements of the R-77 and R-73, just look at the corresponding diameters, 170mm for the R-73 and 200 for the R-77 :), from the makers themselves, so it has some credability :P

R-77, most left, Ukrainian designed self defense missile (R-73 replacement, made in 2006) second them the left, R-73 control section is the 4th from the left.

http://www.luch.kiev.ua/english/main.htm MAKE ED LOOK AT THEM for future projects, so all this whining and moaning can be put aside.

I can't see how any version of the R-73 has a range of 40 km. Unless it is ramjet powered, or they stuffed another 30 kg of HTPB in that body, I'm inclined to believe that this is just another example of a spec amped up by Russian companies to better sell their gear - like how they advertised the vanilla R-77 had a 100 km range.

I think the 30nm or so claim is pretty accurate since it is reflected in the MLU manual, and there is other evidence aside from things like minizap to back it up, but I won't go into that.

Mind you 'range' is a very elusive thing because people like to define it so differently ...

For example, everyone is familiar with the 'yeah, that's the range is it goes straight and does nothing at mach 1 and 45000' ... but have you considered, what does 'it can hit the plane at that range' mean?

Does it mean the missile has slowed down to that aircraft's velocity? Does it mean it is still controllable? Does that mean it's reached minimum controllable airspeed? What speed is that?

So yeah. Maybe if you drop an R-73 from 40km it will go just that far ;D

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1979/PV1979_91.pdf

anybody got this full pdf?

It would appear to be a wealth of information on the AIM-9.

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=66202

You can always buy it; I suppose it might in fact mention actual range and parameters, though I expect its value is in figuring out how different surfaces help it fly farther.

I would think its value would be detailed aeronautical data on the stock AIM-9 that is compared to the theoretical improvements. Something ED might want for WAFM.

I'm not convinced that WAFM would model missiles quite that deeply, but then again, who knows. :)

I will bring it up.

I'm not convinced that WAFM would model missiles quite that deeply, but then again, who knows. :)

 

I will bring it up.

Give that damn link to ED for future WAFM plans, so they at least know how much the actuators of the R-77 and R-73 travel and how fast, how much force they can handle. My notion of WAFM includes control surface moddeling too :P Oh, the beauty of desperate design bureaus giving away potential performance specs on the missiles, I love that. There's the Khrizantema and several bore launched missile's actuators too.

http://www.luch.kiev.ua/english/guide.htm

There's no point in keeping it secret if anyone can just buy the missile :)

There's no point in keeping it secret if anyone can just buy the missile :)

My point, there is much to know about the control systems, from there on you can guess the real weight and drag performance, for example the R-77s actuators are less than a mm in profile, yet everyone says they will create too much drag. So when all those 'assumptions' are out of the way we can have realistic Soviet missiles.

Now only some real drag/performance specs on the aim-9 and aim-120, and ED is set for WAFM by December 11 2012 ;) [theee end of teh world, aliens landing, ED releasing LOMAC-2 with AFM su-27/33 su-25TM F-15C F-16A/C A-10A and the Ka-50 and Ah-64D, gotta be a cool day]

Actually they are correct about the drag when the missile drops speed below some mach 2.

Above that, they behave better than conventional surfaces, below, they're like airbrakes until you drop below mach.

Anyway I'd guess a lot of the actuator stuff would be encapsulated in a guidance constant.

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1979/PV1979_91.pdf

 

anybody got this full pdf?

 

It would appear to be a wealth of information on the AIM-9.

Purchased and downloaded - will review. Thanks!

-SK

anybody got this full pdf?

 

It would appear to be a wealth of information on the AIM-9.

Well! You can say THAT again!

Jackpot. Gold Mine. That pdf has EVERYTHING they never wanted me to know about the AIM-9L! Range vs. altitude, drag breakdown vs. Mach, impulse profile vs. time... I sure wish I had this a few years ago when I was writing miniZAP.

Just goes to show... all this time, it wasn't classified! :)

-SK

So ... can you adjust minizap? ;)

Or at least comment on say, issues with minizap? ;)

Jackpot. Gold Mine.

:thumbup:

So ... can you adjust minizap? ;)

Or at least comment on say, issues with minizap? ;)

http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/lomac/betaforum/aim9lperf.jpg

No comment. ;)

-SK

http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/lomac/betaforum/aim9lperf.jpg

I would LOVE to see the LOMAC Mike plotted on those charts. 40Gs on the deck? :shocking:

Any clues as to which, if any of those proposed improvements were implemented on the Mike?

More than likely all of them. The LOMAC 9 is a much slower missile compared to the these charts.

For example, peak speed of about 1070m/s for the chart at 4 sec, in LO, the peak is reached at about 3 sec and the speed is about 640m/s.

At 10 sec, the real thing has about 807m/s, LOMAC's AIM-9 is at 335m/s.

Although my shot was just something I quickly dug out of an ACMI and is taken between 7000' and 8000', thedifference is velocity is ... ahem.

More than likely all of them. The LOMAC 9 is a much slower missile compared to the these charts.

 

For example, peak speed of about 1070m/s for the chart at 4 sec, in LO, the peak is reached at about 3 sec and the speed is about 640m/s.

 

At 10 sec, the real thing has about 807m/s, LOMAC's AIM-9 is at 335m/s.

 

Although my shot was just something I quickly dug out of an ACMI and is taken between 7000' and 8000', thedifference is velocity is ... ahem.

Negative, not all of them. There are proposed physical changes to the airframe that are obviously not implemented.

Those charts show an effective burn of about 5 sec (the period of acceleration) which indeed different from LOMAC. Although I did some testing and the LOMAC Winder does reach the reported Vmax of M2.5 @ 38,000ft, albeit very quickly and briefly.

Well! You can say THAT again!

 

Jackpot. Gold Mine. That pdf has EVERYTHING they never wanted me to know about the AIM-9L! Range vs. altitude, drag breakdown vs. Mach, impulse profile vs. time... I sure wish I had this a few years ago when I was writing miniZAP.

 

Just goes to show... all this time, it wasn't classified! :)

 

-SK

...because the missile now in service are AIM-9Li's (yes Li's) stands for L improved. we havent had vanilla L's for 20 years. The difference? Thats one of those questions youll not recieve an answer for. ;)

For example, peak speed of about 1070m/s for the chart at 4 sec, in LO, the peak is reached at about 3 sec and the speed is about 640m/s.

 

At 10 sec, the real thing has about 807m/s, LOMAC's AIM-9 is at 335m/s.

 

Although my shot was just something I quickly dug out of an ACMI and is taken between 7000' and 8000', thedifference is velocity is ... ahem.

Oh my God. After all that, NOT ONE comparison to miniZAP. You are too cruel. :D

There are proposed physical changes to the airframe that are obviously not implemented.

The pdf that keeps on giving.

After you've had your fill of the Sidewinder, you realize the "variant" they're talking about has nothing to do with the Mike - rather, it's early AMRAAM research.

My cup runneth over. :D

-SK

Only because I didn't have it handy SK.

Minizap seems to fall right between the two, which perhaps you'd expect from a missile that had an incremental improvement over the 9 in that PDF.

Minizap seems to fall right between the two, which perhaps you'd expect from a missile that had an incremental improvement over the 9 in that PDF.

Exactly.

Bwah hah hah! Victory is mine!

:)

-SK